Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 4. Case Study: Spain 217
abatement costs as % of GDP
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
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 - 30. Abatement costs as % of GDP 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. The dotted lines represent the EU average.
3.3.3 Discussions
3.3.3.1 Quantitative assessment
A key difficulty in designing a post-2012 EU burden-sharing agreement is
related to the acceptability of the corresponding emission reduction targets to
the different Parties; here, the case of Spain is assessed. The regimes should
preferably not lead to extreme results (for example, when abatement costs as a
percentage of GDP far exceeds the EU average costs), or be particularly
unattractive.
For the first option for EU burden-sharing and ETS (Present system) the
reduction targets show a wide range of outcomes for the six burden-sharing
regimes explored. The Grandfathering approach yields no differentiation, and
therefore leads to high reductions and thus also high costs for countries that
presently have growth targets, which is the case of Spain. In general, applying a
uniform reduction target for all countries seems politically unacceptable for all
EU Member States. Per capita convergence and the Multicriteria approaches lead
to average reductions for Spain whose per capita emissions are around the EU
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008