|
Title:
|
|
Mogelijkheden voor CO2-reductie in 2020
|
|
|
|
Author(s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published by:
|
Publication date:
|
|
ECN
Policy Studies
|
1-8-1998
|
|
|
|
ECN report number:
|
Document type:
|
|
ECN-C--98-041
|
ECN publication
|
|
|
|
Number of pages:
|
Full text:
|
|
101
|
Download PDF
|
Abstract:
The results of an outlook for the possibilities and consequences ofstrong CO2-reduction targets for the year 2020 are presented. Starting point
for the study on the title subject was a total reduction of greenhouse gasses
in 2020 compared to 1990 of 35%. Compared to the Global Competition (GC)
scenario of the Long Term Outlooks 1995-2020 this means a necessary reduction
of 95 Mton CO2. The possibilities for CO2-reduction have been determined by
means of two variants. In the first variant the government is regarded as the
main actor in dealing with the climate problem. Regulation and subsidies are
the most important instruments in this variant, supported by a doubling of
the regulating energy tax. In the second variant the climate problem is
regarded as a problem of the complete society. The role of the government is
limited to establishing the conditions under which the market is able to
reach the necessary reduction in a cost effective way. Besides a quadrupling
of the regulating energy tax in this variant, a system of emission reduction
certificates is introduced. The outlooks show that this amount Of
CO2-reduction can only be established by means of so called backstop
technologies: e.g. import of biomass, CO2-disposal, and import of renewable
electricity/nuclear energy. In both variants more than half of the necessary
reduction is realized by these backstop technologies. In the variant with a
many regulations the contribution of energy savings is higher, while in the
other variant the role of backstop technologies is larger. The total costs of
both variants vary between 6 and 10 billion Dutch guilders per year.
Regarding the uncertainties of the potentials and costs of especially the
backstop technologies the differences between both variants in costs are
comparable. The division of costs between different sectors differs
significantly between both variants. In the variant with many regulations the
costs for the end-use sectors are nearly the same as in the GC scenario,
while the budget of the government is almost the same as the total costs. In
the variant with the reduction certificates the government receives a net
income, while the end use sectors pay much more for their energy due to the
quadrupling of the energy tax. 11 refs.
Back to List