Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 4. Case Study: Spain 207
So far, the Grandfathering is used presently as the allocation rule, and for this
reason it is analyzed here. The Marginal abatement costs approach is selected as it
best satisfies the criteria of cost-efficiency. The Triptych approach has been used
in the past for the internal EU burden-sharing during the Kyoto negotiations
and as an alternative approach.
3.3.2.1 Step 1: EU-wide cap for ETS and non-ETS
Figure 4 – 23 illustrates the EU-wide cap for ETS and non-ETS for the three
allocation approaches as well as the ‘EU 20% unilateral without CDM’ and ‘EU
30% in a multilateral regime’ scenarios. It should be noted that the reductions
presented for the three allocation methods are before emissions trading and
CDM, and are independent of the final CDM amounts, and therefore ‘EU 20%
unilateral with CDM’ gives similar results to ‘EU 20% unilateral without CDM’.
For both the Triptych approach and the Marginal abatement costs approach, the
reduction for the ETS sector, compared to the 1990 levels, exceeds the reduction
in the non-ETS sector. The differences for a cost-effective approach –
represented by the Marginal abatement costs approach – are small. However, as
in the baseline scenario for 2020, the total emissions in the non-ETS sector
(especially from transport) increase more than the emissions in the ETS sector
(see column 4 in Figure 4 – 23). Compared to the baseline levels the reductions
in the non-ETS sectors exceed the reductions in the ETS sectors, as reducing
emissions in the non-ETS sector is more effective in terms of reduction
potentials compared to the ETS sector.
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008