|
Title:
|
|
Post-Kyoto: effecten op het klimaatbeleid van de Europese Unie
|
|
|
|
Author(s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published by:
|
Publication date:
|
|
ECN
Policy Studies
|
1998
|
|
|
|
ECN report number:
|
Document type:
|
|
ECN-C--98-040
|
ECN publication
|
|
|
|
Number of pages:
|
Full text:
|
|
34
|
Download PDF
|
Abstract:
In March 1997, a differentiated greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductionagreement was reached within the European Union (EU), based on a total
reduction of 10% for the aggregate of three GHGs (CO2, CH4 and N2O). Earlier
studies indicated that the cost implications of this agreement raised serious
questions. At CoP-3 several elements were introduced in the Kyoto protocol.
Three new GHGs (PFCs, HFCs and SF6) and land use change related sinks have
been added, and in addition the reduction target for the EU as a whole was
changed to -8%. Consequently, the March 1997 differentiation has to be
revisited. This study considers the costs and emission targets for EU Member
States (MS) for a number of cases: flat rate, equal marginal costs and equal
costs per unit of GNP. In addition, a modified March 1997 allocation is
studied which combines the March97 emission targets for each MS with the
projections for the three new GHGs and sinks. The data on which the study is
based are taken from various sources. Emission data, projections and
abatement costs for CO2 are derived from ETSAP and COHERENCE studies, with
some updates and modifications. Emission data and projections for the other
GHGs and the sinks are those presented by EU-MS in recent EU discussions.
Abatement costs for non-COp GHGs are based on a number of different studies.
While absolute cost estimates and projections should be treated with some
caution, relative cost levels of the different MS vis-a-vis each other are
more robust and comparable with other studies. The projections show that EU
emissions in 2010 are more or less stabilised. This is explained by a
relatively low growth of CO2 emissions (mainly as a consequence of the
decrease in CO2 emissions in Germany) and by the decrease of the two other
major non-CO2 GHG emissions, CH4 and N20. Abatement costs of the most
efficient distribution, equal marginal costs, which would result from a
system of tradable emission permits or from a uniform GHG charge (at the
appropriate level), are more than six times lower than abatement costs of the
modified March97 distribution. In the equal marginal costs or equal costs per
unit of GNP case (which are fairly similar in this case), Germany, the UK and
France have to reduce most, with Germany having to reduce about 25% relative
to 1990/1995 emissions. The southern Cohesion countries are all allowed to
increase their emissions, although Spain and Portugal have to reduce emission
more than their commitment in the (modified) March97 case. Reduction of
non-CO2 GHGs account for one-third to half (depending on the case) of total
reductions required in the EU. In the equal costs per unit of GNP case, the
Netherlands would be allowed to increase emission with 5.5% over the
reference level, as against a reduction of 8% in the modified March97
distribution. Costs per capita would be more then a factor 7 smaller than for
the modified March97 target (8% reduction)
Back to List