Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 4. Case Study: Spain 213
% change compared to 1990 level
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
EU 20% EU 30%
A1. Marginal abatemet costs
A2. Per capita convergence
B1. Marginal abatemet costs
B2. Per capita convergence
B4. Grandfathering
C1. Marginal abatemet costs
C3. Triptych
Baseline
Figure 4 - 27 . Emission allowances compared to 1990 levels for 2020 for Spain for the six considered
allocation approaches under the ‘EU 20% unilateral with/without CDM’ and the ‘EU 30% in a
multilateral regime’ scenarios.
% change compared to baseline level
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
EU 20% EU 30%
A1. Marginal abatemet costs
A2. Per capita convergence
B1. Marginal abatemet costs
B2. Per capita convergence
B4. Grandfathering
C1. Marginal abatemet costs
C3. Triptych
Figure 4 - 28. Emission allowances compared to baseline levels for 2020 for Spain for the six considered
allocation approaches under the ‘EU 20% unilateral with/without CDM’ and the ‘EU 30% in a
multilateral regime’ scenarios.
In general, the pattern of high and low reduction targets for the different
cases is roughly the same for both the -20% and –30% EU reduction targets, the
latter with evidently higher reduction targets for all countries.
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008