Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 4. Case Study: Spain 216
Emissions trading (MtCO2eq.)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
EU 20% without
CDM
EU 20% with
CDM
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 - 29. Emissions trading for 2020 for Spain for the six allocation approaches under the ‘EU 20%
unilateral without CDM’, ‘EU 20% unilateral with CDM ’and ‘EU 30% in a multilateral regime’
scenarios.
3.3.2.6 Abatement costs
Spain shows costs that are in most approaches and scenarios over twice the
EU average, especially in the ‘EU 20% unilateral without CDM’, where most of
the reductions are to be done domestically. Spain’s domestic abatement costs
seem to be much larger than the EU average (or at least it has been assumed so
in this analysis).
The Triptych cases usually lead to the most balanced cost projections for
Spain – close to EU average. On the other hand, the Grandfathering cases produce
the most extreme results, with very high costs for Spain (in some cases over 1%
of GDP). The Marginal abatement costs cases lead to the lowest costs for Spain, as
it is the most cost-effective approach. It would also lead to lower overall costs.
Should the CDM be available, the costs would be much lower for a given EU
reduction objective (previously discussed in Section 3.3.1.3).
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008