Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 3. Implications of future climate regime architectures 157
of emissions. Although as it has been presented repeatedly, it may not be
favorable for developing countries with high emissions per capita such as
China. In this analysis, two cases with different convergence years - 2050 and
2100 - are explored, since the results of the approach are so strongly dependent
on the convergence year chosen.
The Multistage approach was selected because it best satisfied the various
types of criteria (environmental, political, economic, technical) presented in
previous analyses (see Section 2.1.5 of Chapter 2).
3.2 Results and discussion
This Section explores the consequences of the three climate regimes
presented – the Brazilian Proposal, Contraction & Convergence and Multistage
approach - in terms of abatement costs. The mitigation costs model of FAIR 2.0
is used, taking into account the impacts of emission trading. This model makes
use of aggregated permit demand and supply curves, derived from marginal
abatement cost (MAC) curves for the different regions, gases and sources. 1 The
permit demand and supply curves are used to determine the international
market equilibrium permit price (for more information, see den Elzen et al.
(2005)).
The overall global emission objective is chosen at a stabilization of GHG
concentrations at 550 ppmv CO2eq.. Calculations were done at the level of 17
regions (the same as in Section 3), but they were aggregated to 10 regions for
reporting reasons. Here, the years for which the analysis is provided are 2025
and 2050.
The regional abatement costs as a function of GDP (effort rates) for various
regimes and regions are illustrated in Figure 3 – 8 below.
1 A MAC curve, differing per country, reflects the additional costs of reducing the last unit of carbon as
a function of the level of abatement.
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008