IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v154y2019i3d10.1007_s10584-019-02427-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The choice of climate metric is of limited importance when ranking options for abatement of near-term climate forcers

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Åström

    (Chalmers University of Technology
    IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd.)

  • Daniel J. A. Johansson

    (Chalmers University of Technology)

Abstract

The practice of using climate metrics to estimate carbon dioxide equivalent emissions has long been subject to scientific discussion. One strand of this literature has analysed whether the choice of metric affects the relative cost-effectiveness of options for climate change abatement, but there has been little discussion on the effect of metric choices on cost-effective abatement of near-term climate forcers (NTCFs). These NTCFs are air pollutants primarily regulated by policies outside the climate policy arena and their estimated carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are not typically considered in the evaluation of cost-effective abatement. However, the attention to NTCFs as climate forcers has increased during the last decade. The objective of this paper is to identify whether the relative cost-effectiveness of different NTCF abatement options is robust to climate metric choices. We assess nine plausible NTCF abatement options available in Sweden (with negligible effect on long-lived GHG emissions) and evaluate the robustness of the ranking of these, according to their estimated cost-effectiveness. Different metric designs are considered as well as climate impact uncertainty of NTCFs, with corresponding uncertainty in metric values. The results indicate that the choice of metric has little effect on the ranking of the options according to their cost-effectiveness, with options affecting NOx indicated as an exception. This suggests that the choice of metric utilised when calculating cost-effectiveness of NTCF abatement options is likely to have minor effect on which NTCF abatement options should be targeted for policy interventions (if NOx emissions are not significantly affected).

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Åström & Daniel J. A. Johansson, 2019. "The choice of climate metric is of limited importance when ranking options for abatement of near-term climate forcers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 401-416, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:154:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02427-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02427-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-019-02427-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-019-02427-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lukas P. Fesenfeld & Tobias S. Schmidt & Alexander Schrode, 2018. "Climate policy for short- and long-lived pollutants," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(11), pages 933-936, November.
    2. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 2001. "An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6829), pages 675-677, April.
    3. Niel H. A. Bowerman & David J. Frame & Chris Huntingford & Jason A. Lowe & Stephen M. Smith & Myles R. Allen, 2013. "The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(12), pages 1021-1024, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernández-Amador, Octavio & Francois, Joseph F. & Oberdabernig, Doris A. & Tomberger, Patrick, 2020. "The methane footprint of nations: Stylized facts from a global panel dataset," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Jessica Strefler & Gunnar Luderer & Tino Aboumahboub & Elmar Kriegler, 2014. "Economic impacts of alternative greenhouse gas emission metrics: a model-based assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 319-331, August.
    3. Song Gao, 2015. "Managing short-lived climate forcers in curbing climate change: an atmospheric chemistry synopsis," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(2), pages 130-137, June.
    4. Heidi K. Edmonds & Julie E. Lovell & C. A. Knox Lovell, 2017. "A New Composite Index for Greenhouse Gases: Climate Science Meets Social Science," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Delucchi, Mark A. & McCubbin, Donald R., 2010. "External Costs of Transport in the U.S," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt13n8v8gq, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Erik Sterner & Daniel Johansson & Christian Azar, 2014. "Emission metrics and sea level rise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 335-351, November.
    7. Richard S. J. Tol & Seán Lyons, 2008. "Incorporating GHG Emission Costs in the Economic Appraisal of Projects Supported by State Development Agencies," Papers WP247, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    8. Mathijs J. H. M. Harmsen & Maarten Berg & Volker Krey & Gunnar Luderer & Adriana Marcucci & Jessica Strefler & Detlef P. Van Vuuren, 2016. "How climate metrics affect global mitigation strategies and costs: a multi-model study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 203-216, May.
    9. Moura, Maria Cecilia P. & Branco, David A. Castelo & Peters, Glen P. & Szklo, Alexandre Salem & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2013. "How the choice of multi-gas equivalency metrics affects mitigation options: The case of CO2 capture in a Brazilian coal-fired power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1357-1366.
    10. Morgan R. Edwards & Jessika E. Trancik, 2022. "Consequences of equivalency metric design for energy transitions and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-27, November.
    11. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    12. Yunfa Zhu & Madanmohan Ghosh & Deming Luo & Nick Macaluso & Jacob Rattray, 2018. "Revenue Recycling And Cost Effective Ghg Abatement: An Exploratory Analysis Using A Global Multi-Sector Multi-Region Cge Model," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-25, February.
    13. Christoph Bohringer, Andreas Loschel and Thomas F. Rutherford, 2006. "Efficiency Gains from "What"-Flexibility in Climate Policy An Integrated CGE Assessment," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 405-424.
    14. Ghosh, Madanmohan & Luo, Deming & Siddiqui, Muhammad Shahid & Zhu, Yunfa, 2012. "Border tax adjustments in the climate policy context: CO2 versus broad-based GHG emission targeting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 154-167.
    15. Anthony Wiskich, 2024. "Social Costs of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in a Tipping Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(5), pages 1275-1293, May.
    16. Stefan Wirsenius & Fredrik Hedenus & Kristina Mohlin, 2011. "Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 159-184, September.
    17. Nong, Duy & Simshauser, Paul & Nguyen, Duong Binh, 2021. "Greenhouse gas emissions vs CO2 emissions: Comparative analysis of a global carbon tax," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    18. Daniel Johansson, 2012. "Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 123-141, January.
    19. Claudia Kemfert, Truong P. Truong, and Thomas Bruckner, 2006. "Economic Impact Assessment of Climate Change - A Multi-gas Investigation with WIAGEM-GTAPEL-ICM," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 441-460.
    20. Remuzgo, Lorena & Trueba, Carmen & Sarabia, José María, 2016. "Evolution of the global inequality in greenhouse gases emissions using multidimensional generalized entropy measures," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 444(C), pages 146-157.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:154:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02427-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.