Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 3. Implications of future climate regime architectures 130
Common but Differentiated Convergence (Section 2.1.2.3), Multistage (2.1.2.1),
Tryptich (2.1.2.4), and a sectoral approach (2.2); however, they are briefly
presented in Section 3.1.
Section 4 analyses the abatement costs of some post-Kyoto regimes for
differentiating commitments: the Multistage approach, the Brazilian Proposal
approach and Contraction and Convergence (den Elzen et al., 2005).
1.2 Overview of literature
Several studies have analyzed the broad range of possible future
commitment regimes (see Aldy, 2003; Criqui et al. 2003; Höhne et al., 2003;
Bodansky, 2004; Blok et al., 2005; den Elzen et al., 2005; Höhne, 2006; Gupta et
al., 2007; den Elzen et al., 2007; Höhne et al., 2007; Kameyama, 2007); which
have already been analyzed in the previous chapter.
Some of these studies have quantitatively compared the regional emission
allowances for various approaches (den Elzen et al., 2003; Criqui et al., 2003;
den Elzen et al., 2005; Höhne et al., 2005; Höhne, 2006; Höhne et al., 2007).
The most comprehensive reviews include those of den Elzen et al. (2005) and
Höhne et al. (2007) (see Table below). Berk and den Elzen – for RIVM -
pioneered the detailed analysis of emission allowances with the Framework to
Assess International Regimes for the differentiation of commitments (FAIR)
model (Berk and den Elzen, 2001; den Elzen and Lucas, 2003), but on a regional
level. Höhne et al. (2007) – for Ecofys – provides emission allowances of various
approaches with the Evolution of Commitments model (EVOC) on a country
level.
In Höhne et al. (2007), three levels of ambition - 450, 550 and 650 ppmv
CO2eq. - are explored for 2020 and 2050. Emission allowances - before trading -
are calculated, and the differences between six future climate regime
approaches assessed: Contraction and Convergence, Common but
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008