Energy & Environmental Economics A.A The Greenhouse effect and the Kyoto Protocol

Transcription

1 Energy & Environmental Economics A.A The Greenhouse effect and the Kyoto Protocol

2 : what did really happen? The following index measures the distance from the Kyoto Target D EM EM EM Where EM*: target emissions, EM average emissions over the period

3 Distance from the Kyoto Target (not including LULUCF) 0,7 Distance from Kyoto 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 Distance from Kyoto 0-0,1-0,2-0,3-0,4

4 Latvia Ukraine Romania Russian Federation Hungary Poland Portugal United Kingdom of Croatia Monaco Belgium Germany Ireland Slovenia Japan Switzerland Luxembourg Canada Distance from the Kyoto Target ( including LULUCF) 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0-0,5-1 Distance from Kyoto Target (LULUCF) Distance from Kyoto Target (LULUCF)

5 Large groups, distance from Kyoto Target (LULUCF not included LULUCF included All committed countries 0,13 0,20 OECD Committed Countries -0,05-0,03 EU27 0,10 0,12 EU27 (Countries in Transition excluded) 0,00 0,04 EU 27 Countries in Transition only 0,33 0,38 OECD/Non EU Committed Countries -0,30-0,29 Total Countries in transition 0,38 0,68 USA -0,18-0,18 All Annex I 0,03 0,15 Source IEA CO2 Highligts 2013

6 Kaya Identity Share of change attributable to: % decrease in per capita emissions Growth in GDP per capita Changes in the Emission Coefficient Changes in Energy Efficiency All Committed Countries -0,06 0,28 0,30 0,42 OECD Committed -0,07 0,31 0,35 0,34 EU27-0,08 0,26 0,30 0,44 EU without countries in transition -0,09 0,34 0,23 0,43 EU countries in transition -0,06-0,53 1,03 0,50 OECD/NON EU Committed Countries -0,06 0,35 0,49 0,15 Total Countries in transition -0,03-0,87 0,78 1,08 All Countries Annex I -0,06 0,33 0,44 0,23 Source IEA CO2 Highligts 2013

7 non-annex I countries? World Emissions (Energy) 1990 OECD Asia Oceania 8% OECD Americas 27% OECD Europe 19% China 11% Africa 3% Asia 6% Latin America 3% Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia 20% Middle East 3% World Emissions (Energy) 2009 OECD Asia Oceania 8% OECD Americas 22% OECD Europe 13% Africa 3% China 25% Asia 11% Middle East 5% Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia 9% Latin America 4%

8 World Emissions China, India, Brazil,Russia Total Oecd

9 CDM projects By the end of 2011 CERS by 1 billion of TCO2e had been issued, distributed as follows by host country Oceania 0% S & C. America Africa 1% 1% Former USSR CDM Average reductions by host Near East 0% India 13% 0% Europe 0% Asia 1% China 84%

10 CDM by host excluding India & China Oceania 4% Near East 11% Africa 22% Asia 21% Europe 6% S & C. America 34% Former USSR 2%

11 Kyoto: a success or a failure? As obvious, the answer is mixed Success nr. 1: Committed countries as a whole succeeded Success nr.2: Transition economies have been helped in their path to a comparatively cleaner market economy. Success nr.3: Creation of institutions and mechanisms serving the mitigation objective in the future Success nr. 4: Learning Shadow nr.1: the target of flow reduction was in itself insufficient Shadow nr. 2: In non-committed countries emissions have grown Shadow nr. 3: consensus to international policies for climate mitigation has not grown Shadow (?) nr. 4: part of the success heavily depends on LULUCF (more absorption rather than a change in the nature of our economic system) Shadow nr. 5: Only transition countries have been able to decouple economic growth and emissions growth (partly because of their initial backwardness)

12 Montreal / Kyoto: Comparing Protocols Sunstein, C.R. (2006) Montreal vs. Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols, Working Paper AEI- Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies The ozone layer problem and the greenhouse effect problem have many features in common: Relatively recent warnings from the scientific community Noxious emissions with global-scale external effects In both cases the gases remain in the athmosphere for long spans (difficult to revert effects) Individual countries cannot solve the problem; need for international agreements Problematic distribution of costs and beenfits at the international level intergenerational distribution problems are prominent In both cases the USA are a crucial actor.

13 In spite of similarities, very different developments: Montreal: almost all countries join in, including the USA. Kyoto: a relatively small club, without the USA Montreal: actual reduction in athmospheric concentration (ozone-killer gase actually diminished). The ozone layer is expected to be entirely repaired by Kyoto: limited success

14 The time factor Montreal The CFC effect is discovered in 1974, and in 1971 the relationship between damages to the ozon layer and skin cancer was already known Media focus and sharp drop of consumer demand for aerosols In 1978, CFC are banned in the USA except special cases Dupont, the main producer of CFC s,becomes the main inventor and producers of substitutes

15 Europe shows no particular commitment to the issue (also because of pressure from British chemical industry) In the Eighties a study from EPA and Council of Economic Advisors shows that in the absence of countermeasures 5 millions additional cases of tumors were to be expected in the USA by 2165 (and 25 millions cases of cataract). A cut of 95% in CFC emissions would reduce the figures to and 2 millions respectively 1987: Montreal protocol

16 Global Benefits and Costs of Montreal Protocol, Avoided cases of skin cancer 20,600,000 Avoided cases of skin cancer deaths 333,500 Avoided cases of cataracts 129,100,000 Monetized benefits (including damages to fisheries, agriculture, and materials; not including the health benefits mentioned About) $459 billion Monetized benefits in terms of deaths averted $333 Billion Monetized health benefits (nonfatal skin cancers and cataracts averted) $339 billion Monetized costs $235 billion Net benefits >$900 billion

17 In Kyoto Protocol, costs are comparatively clear, while benefits have an uncertain distribution in time and space Control of greenhouse gases affects in much more depth our lifestyles and production modes (consensus is much less obvious) Need for a leadership (EU leadership in Kyoto Protocol is much weaker than it was US leadership in Montreal)

18 European climate policy after 2012 Climate and Energy package ( ) Targets: - Cut by 20% GHG s emissions relative to Increase to 20% the share of energy consumption obtained from renewable energy - Increase by 20% energy efficiency By 2020!

19 Steps of the package Refirm of EU-ETS: certificate auction, unified european allocation(emission Trading Directive) Setting of emission targets also for sectors not included in EU ETS (Effort Sharing Decision) Specific objectives for remewables (Renewable Energy Directive) Capture and storage of GHG s. Studies in progress. (Energy Efficiency Directive)