Suchergebnisse

Since the 1990s, articles have widely used MAC curves to analyse the best alternatives in terms of cost-effectiveness when deciding to abate a negative externality. Most of the articles are related to CO2 abatement as the main externality to be reduced, and the main advantages and disadvantages of the MACC tool are presented in the literature review presented here. Finally, it is determined whether the curve is a definitive method for analysing and elaborating policy and business decisions or whether the tool needs to correct the methodology to increase the scientific consensus.

Scotland is committed to meeting a net-zero target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045(Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 20191). Agriculture and the land use sector can help in two ways: by changing practices to reduce GHG emissions and by storing carbon in the soil and plants. In 2018 agriculture and related land use was responsible for 23% of total Scottish emissions. Emissions from agriculture have fallen by 30% since 1990, compared with a reduction of 45% across total emissions (Scottish Government 2020a).The Climate Change Plan2(CCP) is a key policy tool which has been recently revised to help Scotland meet the new net-zero target. Policy development is informed by the Scottish 'TIMESmodel'3. This model pulls together emission, mitigation and mitigation cost data from all sectors to help understand the strategic choices required to decarbonise an economy. It identifies the effectiveness of carbon reduction measures to enable a consistent comparison of the costs of action across all sectors. To ensure the model uses the most recent data for agriculture, our research updated estimates of the mitigation potential and the cost-effectiveness of a selection of agricultural mitigation options. It took into account the significant recent improvements in UK agricultural GHG inventory reporting (Smart Inventory). We assessed 14 farm technologies and practices which can reduce GHG emissions in Scotland by 2050. Some of these measures can be applied to multiple types of livestock, raising the number of mitigation options to 21. The aim was to estimate the different measures' average mitigation potential, capital and recurring costs per unit (e.g. hectare or animal), and total maximum applicability on-farm. This research considers average estimates. On an individual farm basis, both the mitigation and the net costs can be very different.

In this paper we carry out a meta-analysis of recent studies into the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation policies that aim at the long-term stabilization of these gases in the atmosphere. We find the cost estimates of the studies to be sensitive to the level of the stabilization target, the assumed emissions baseline, intertemporal optimisation, the choice of control variable (CO2 only versus multigas), assumptions on future technological options (backstop and carbon capture and storage), and, to a lesser degree, the scientific 'forum' in which the study was developed.

© 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. Assessing the marginal abatement costs (MACs) of emissions improves the understanding of the extent of current CO2 mitigation and provides regions and industries with information on how to mitigate emissions cost-effectively. This study proposes a hybrid method to evaluate the MAC. It combines the strengths of bottom-up engineering methods and top-down economy-wide methods. A parametric directional distance function is employed to estimate the MAC from an economic perspective, and the abatement level is further incorporated to generate increasing curves, similar to the outcomes derived from an engineering perspective. In addition, this method takes into consideration whether the abatement level exceeds the abatement potential with current production technologies so as to provide a more realistic estimation of the MAC curves. The proposed technique is applied in estimating the carbon emission MAC in China's petroleum industry. The estimation results indicate that (i) the MAC of China's petroleum industry would change from 9821 to 16,307 yuan/ton when the abatement level increases from 1 to 50%; (ii) this industry would spend 36.5 to 42.5 billion Chinese yuan annually to achieve China's CO2 reduction target proposed in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs); (iii) assigning the CO2 reduction targets based on the estimated MAC curves instead of the traditional grandfathering abatement target assignment would help to save China's petroleum industry an additional 29.97 to 33.65% in abatement costs when achieving the NDCs. The MAC curves estimated in this study indicate more accurate relationships between abatement levels and abatement costs, and hence provide decision-makers in industries and governments with a more reliable instrument to determine the prices of emissions permits, total abatement costs, and implementation strategies in an emissions trading scheme.

This paper develops a method for forecasting the marginal abatement cost (MAC) of climate policy using three features of the failed Waxman-Markey bill. First, the MAC is revealed by the price of traded permits. Second, the permit price is estimated using a regression discontinuity design (RDD) comparing stock returns of firms on either side of the policy's free permit cutoff rule. Third, because Waxman-Markey was never implemented, I extend the RDD approach to incorporate prediction market prices which normalize estimates by policy realization probabilities. A final bounding analysis recovers a MAC range of $5 to $19 per ton CO2e. (JEL G12, G14, Q52, Q54, Q58)

This paper investigates the optimal implementation schedule of the measures listed in a Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC). Costs and abating potentials of each measure, provided by a MACC, are completed with a maximum implementation speed. We find that, when coping with a carbon budget, it makes sense to implement some expensive options before exhausting the abating potential of the cheapest options. With abatement targets expressed in terms of emissions at one point in time, e.g.~reducing emissions by 20\% in 2020 and by 75\% in 2050 it can be preferable to start with the most expensive options if their potential is higher and their inertia is great. The best strategy to reach a short-term target depends on whether this target is the ultimate objective or there is a longer-term target. Using just the cheapest options to reach the 2020 target may create a carbon-intensive lock-in and make the 2050 target unreachable. Results suggest that a unique carbon price in all sectors may not be the most efficient approach. Additional sectoral policies, such as the 20\% renewable energy target in Europe, may be part of an efficient mitigation policy.

This paper investigates the optimal implementation schedule of the measures listed in a Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC). Costs and abating potentials of each measure, provided by a MACC, are completed with a maximum implementation speed. We find that, when coping with a carbon budget, it makes sense to implement some expensive options before exhausting the abating potential of the cheapest options. With abatement targets expressed in terms of emissions at one point in time, e.g.~reducing emissions by 20\% in 2020 and by 75\% in 2050 it can be preferable to start with the most expensive options if their potential is higher and their inertia is great. The best strategy to reach a short-term target depends on whether this target is the ultimate objective or there is a longer-term target. Using just the cheapest options to reach the 2020 target may create a carbon-intensive lock-in and make the 2050 target unreachable. Results suggest that a unique carbon price in all sectors may not be the most efficient approach. Additional sectoral policies, such as the 20\% renewable energy target in Europe, may be part of an efficient mitigation policy.

This paper investigates the optimal implementation schedule of the measures listed in a Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACC). Costs and abating potentials of each measure, provided by a MACC, are completed with a maximum implementation speed. We find that, when coping with a carbon budget, it makes sense to implement some expensive options before exhausting the abating potential of the cheapest options. With abatement targets expressed in terms of emissions at one point in time, e.g.~reducing emissions by 20\% in 2020 and by 75\% in 2050 it can be preferable to start with the most expensive options if their potential is higher and their inertia is great. The best strategy to reach a short-term target depends on whether this target is the ultimate objective or there is a longer-term target. Using just the cheapest options to reach the 2020 target may create a carbon-intensive lock-in and make the 2050 target unreachable. Results suggest that a unique carbon price in all sectors may not be the most efficient approach. Additional sectoral policies, such as the 20\% renewable energy target in Europe, may be part of an efficient mitigation policy.