sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

Ranjan K. Bose
The Indian and Bangladesh study have estimated the carbon abatement cost by considering only
CO 2 and not the other GHG gases (namely, CH 2 and N 2 0). The Indian study on pair-wise
comparison of measures concluded that several ‘no-regret’ options were available with negative
cost of carbon abatement, which varies between $263 to $16. For instance, retrofit measures in
old passenger cars and buses with CNG kit as well as dedicated CNG vehicles are attractive
options in terms of cost savings and carbon emissions reduction (Table 3). But a shift from 2-
stroke to a 4-stroke engine scooter would require an additional abatement cost of $102 per tonne
of carbon.
Table 3
Average cost of carbon abatement using pairwise comparison of different
options ($/tC)
Description India 1 Bangladesh 1 Rep. of Korea 2
Year of constant ($) 2000 1990 1995
Discount rate 12% 8% 8.5%
Diesel bus retrofitted with CNG -22 -125 -
Dedicated CNG bus -16 - -
Gasoline car retrofitted with CNG -139 - -
Dedicated CNG car -263 - -
4-stroke two wheelers with catalytic 102 - -
converters
Shift from road to rail - 29 -
Shift from road to water - -642 -
Mass transit system (only buses) - -301 -
Lean burn engine - - -150.33
Weight reduction vehicles - - 10.27
Cont. Variable Transmission - - -1311.57
Electric vehicles - - 9209.20
CNG dedicated vehicles - - 3731.57
LPG dedicated vehicles - - 1344.93
Exclusive lanes for buses - - -235.40
1 Abatement costs are in terms of CO 2 emissions alone.
2 Abatement costs are in CO 2 equivalent by applying GWP: CO 2 =1, CH 4 =21, N 2 0=310.
The Bangladesh study reveals that shift from road based transportation to water based would be a
‘no-regret’ option with a very high negative cost of carbon abatement ($642 per t of carbon).
Similarly, shift from use of personal vehicles to mass transit system (with only use of buses) is a
‘no-regret’ option with cost savings of $301 for each tonne of carbon abated. Like in India,
Bangladesh study also reveals a negative cost of carbon abatement ($125 per tonne of carbon) if
the old diesel buses are retrofitted with CNG. But, a shift from road traffic to rail traffic in
Bangladesh would require an additional cost of $29 per tonne of carbon mitigation.
The Korean study has estimated carbon abatement cost by considering the global warming
potential (GWP) factors of GHGs as recommended by the IPCC. CO 2 has been assigned the
lowest weight while N 2 0 the highest weight. The Korean study also concluded that several ‘noregret’
options were available, including use of continuously variable transmission, provision of
exclusive bus lanes and introduction of lean-burn engines. The respective average abatement
costs of which are estimated at $1312, $235 and $150 per tonne of carbon abated (Table 3). For
other mitigation options, e.g., the introduction of vehicles powered with LPG, CNG, and
electricity, the cost effectiveness is very low. It may be noted that the prioritization of emitted
pollutants as GHGs must be according to their GWP, which puts a heavy weight on gases that
play little or no role in urban air pollution control programmes.
175