Loading...
A multi-gas abatement analysis of the Kyoto Protocol
Citations
Altmetric:
Series / Report no.
RIVM rapport 550006001
Open Access
Type
Report
Language
en
Date
2005-02-15
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Title
A multi-gas abatement analysis of the Kyoto
Protocol
Translated Title
Multi-gas abatement analyse van het Kyoto
Protocol
Published in
Abstract
Dit rapport analyseert de kosten van het Kyoto Protocol
en de belangrijkste emissiereductiebronnen op basis van een multi-gas
benadering (alle Kyoto-gassen worden hierin meegenomen: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,
PFCs, en SF6). De resultaten zijn vergeleken met eerdere analyses, waarin
alleen naar CO2-reductiemogelijkheden is gekeken. Het sparen van de surplus
emissierechten van de Oekraine en de Russische Federatie is een absoluut
vereiste om een vatbare emissiehandelsmarkt te bewerkstelligen, wat
resulteert in een marktprijs tussen de 15 en de 40 euro/tCeq. Ongeveer de
helft van de reductiedoelstelling van de permit-kopende landen kan verkregen
worden door de emissiehandel. Ongeveer 30% van de emissiereducties kan
verkregen worden door de handel in surplus emissierechten en door het
inzetten van sinks-projecten. Het aandeel van CO2 in de totale
emissieverminderingen is vrij klein ten opzichte van het aandeel van CO2 in
het basispadscenario (circa 30%). Voor de niet-CO2 broeikasgassen komt het
grootste reductieaandeel van CH4, waarvoor de meeste reducties in de
gassector plaatsvinden; hoofdzakelijk in de Oekraine en de Russische
Federatie. Andere belangrijke niet-CO2-emissiereductiebronnen zijn CH4
emissies uit kolenproductie en van stortplaatsen, en N2O-emissies uit de
industrie; voornamelijk uit de EU-25, Canada en Japan. Ten opzichte van
het basispadscenario, zijn de emissiereducties procentueel groter voor CH4
and the F-gassen dan voor CO2, terwijl in absolute termen CO2-emissies uit
energiegebruik nog steeds de belangrijkste reductiebron vormen.De
vergelijking met CO2-only benaderingen laat zien dat het meenemen van alle
Kyoto-gassen enerzijds resulteert in een daling van zowel de internationale
prijs voor verhandelbare emissierechten als de totale kosten voor de landen
die kwantitatieve verplichtingen op zich hebben genomen en anderzijds in een
toename in vermeden emissies (van 250 naar 400 MtC-eq). De winst die
gemaakt wordt door het meenemen van alle Kyoto gassen in de analyses wordt
echter sterk verminderd door deze banking strategie.
This report presents an analysis of the costs and the abatement distribution of the Kyoto Protocol on the basis of a multi-gas approach, accounting for all six Kyoto gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). Results are compared to earlier analyses, in which the Protocol was evaluated taking only CO2 into account. Consistent with earlier analyses, banking of emission allowances is a necessary requirement for the creation of a viable emission trading market, resulting in an international permit price in the range of 15 and 40 euro/tCeq. In such case, of the 490 MtC-eq reduction effort under the Protocol about half in permit demanding regions is achieved through international trading. Approximately 30% of the emission reduction target is realized through implementation of sinks or by the purchase of surplus emission allowances. As several low-costs emission reduction options exist for the non-CO2 emission sources, their share in total abatements is large, while CO2 represents about 30% of the emission reductions. Among the non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the largest contribution comes from CH4, for which most reductions originate in the gas sector, mainly in the Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Other important non-CO2 abatement sources are CH4 emissions from coal production and landfills, and N2O emissions from adipic and nitric acid production, mainly for the EU-25, Japan and Canada. In terms of percentage reduction from the baseline, the reductions for CH4 and the F-gases are much larger than the reductions in the CO2 emission, while in absolute terms, the largest reduction share still comes from CO2 emissions from energy use. Compared to the CO2-only analyses, a decline of both the international permit price and the total costs can be seen along with an increase of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (in case of banking from 250 to 400 MtC-eq). These gains are somewhat reduced if banking of emission permits is assumed.
This report presents an analysis of the costs and the abatement distribution of the Kyoto Protocol on the basis of a multi-gas approach, accounting for all six Kyoto gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6). Results are compared to earlier analyses, in which the Protocol was evaluated taking only CO2 into account. Consistent with earlier analyses, banking of emission allowances is a necessary requirement for the creation of a viable emission trading market, resulting in an international permit price in the range of 15 and 40 euro/tCeq. In such case, of the 490 MtC-eq reduction effort under the Protocol about half in permit demanding regions is achieved through international trading. Approximately 30% of the emission reduction target is realized through implementation of sinks or by the purchase of surplus emission allowances. As several low-costs emission reduction options exist for the non-CO2 emission sources, their share in total abatements is large, while CO2 represents about 30% of the emission reductions. Among the non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the largest contribution comes from CH4, for which most reductions originate in the gas sector, mainly in the Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Other important non-CO2 abatement sources are CH4 emissions from coal production and landfills, and N2O emissions from adipic and nitric acid production, mainly for the EU-25, Japan and Canada. In terms of percentage reduction from the baseline, the reductions for CH4 and the F-gases are much larger than the reductions in the CO2 emission, while in absolute terms, the largest reduction share still comes from CO2 emissions from energy use. Compared to the CO2-only analyses, a decline of both the international permit price and the total costs can be seen along with an increase of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (in case of banking from 250 to 400 MtC-eq). These gains are somewhat reduced if banking of emission permits is assumed.
Description
Publisher
Sponsors
RIVM