1. 27.05.2008Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes 1 A Goal for Climate-Change Policy The Stern-Review Chapter 13

2. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes2 27.05.2008 „The science and economics both suggest that a shared international understanding of what the objectives of climate-change policy should be would be a valuable foundation for policy.“ (Stern-Review, p. 288) If policy makers around the world differ:  Distribution of efforts inequitable and inefficient

3. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes3 27.05.2008

4. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes4 27.05.2008 different types of goals are not inconsistent

5. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes5 27.05.2008 Any goal should be  closely related to the ultimate impacts  able to adjust over time  easy to monitor  clear, simple and specific A goal for atmospheric concentration would satisfy these requirements!

6. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes6 27.05.2008 How to select a stabilisation level? Marginal Benefits:  Reflect expected impact on wellbeing of achieving a lower temperature change and the reduced risk of extreme events. Marginal Costs:  Reflect the need to accelerate the introduction of measures against climate change Uncertainty => only a range is possible

7. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes7 27.05.2008

8. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes8 27.05.2008 stabilisation level should not be above 550 ppm CO 2 e stabilisaton at 450 ppm or below very difficult and costly to reach The Stabilisation goal should be between 450-550 ppm CO 2 e

9. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes9 27.05.2008 Asymmetry  Not possible to reach a lower level, if new information is collected, that implies that CC is worse than expected  Possible to allow the concentration level to rise, if new information is collected, that implies that CC is less worse than expected

10. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes10 27.05.2008 Uncertainty & Asymmetry => A more demanding (not less) long-term policy should be set! Policy debate should seek a level between the lower and upper limit of the range. It is important that during this process initial actions to reduce emissions are not delayed.

11. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes11 27.05.2008 The need for strong and urgent action Case for strong action determined in 3 ways: 1. Bottom-up approach Chapters 3,4,5,8,9 2. Model-based approach Chapters 6,10 3. Price-based approach

12. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes12 27.05.2008 1. Bottom-up Just comparing damages without mitigation with the costs of mitigation 2. Model-based Comparison + taking account of interactions in climate system and global economy

13. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes13 27.05.2008 Bottom-up and Model-based approach: „The benefits of strong action clearly outweigh the costs.“ (Stern-Review, p. 285) Modest net costs today can earn big return later on! See red line in Fig. 13.1 and 13.2

14. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes14 27.05.2008

15. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes15 27.05.2008

16. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes16 27.05.2008 3. Price-based Comparing marginal costs of abatement with the social costs of carbon (SCC) SCC: impact on expected wellbeing by emitting an extra unit of carbon, at any particular time on the present value (at that time).

17. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes17 27.05.2008 SCC depends on: - Size of stock allready in atmosphere - Uncertainties and discount rates - Global Warming Potential (how long in the atmosphere and when emitted?) SCC expected to increase over time, because stock is expected to grow! One extra unit C: more damage at the margin the later it is emitted

18. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes18 27.05.2008 Wide range of estimates: Tol (for DEFRA-Study): $ 29/tCO2 (mean) PAGE2002 (Stern-Review): $ 85/tCO2

19. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes19 27.05.2008 => Difficult to apply policy, driven by that approach Possible would be: Pigou-Taxation on GHG-intensive goods and services

20. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes20 27.05.2008 DEFRA vs. Stern-Review aspects that tend to push SCC of Stern-Review:  full „expected utility“ and risk aversion  greater weight to „non market“ impacts  low pure time preference  equity weighting  uncertainty about climate sensitivity  amplifying feedback risks

21. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes21 27.05.2008 Costs of mitigation Extra mitigation costs of choosing a lower goal are small

22. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes22 27.05.2008 A reduction from 750ppm to 650ppm is cheaper than from 550ppm to 450ppm

23. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes23 27.05.2008 Optimal mitigation Temperature reduction Nordhaus and Boyer (1999) 557 ppm to 538 ppm (in 2100) 2.42 °C to 2.33 °C Tol (1997)-4 °C to 3.6-3.9 °C Manne et al. (1995) 800 ppm to 750 ppm (in 2100) 3.85 °C to 3,6 °C

24. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes24 27.05.2008 Problems: Uncertanties amplifying feedbacks tipping points Manne et al. (1995): higher discount rate Tol (1997): relatively low cost of climate change Nordhaus and Boyer (1999): low and slow economical growth

25. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes25 27.05.2008 EU: temperature change less than 2 °C reduced risk of climate change impacts and avoid thresholds effects some critical statements for the 2 °C limit  hard to reach  Ambitious target

26. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes26 27.05.2008 „Policy should ensure that abatement efforts intensify over time. Emissions reductions should be driven to the point where their marginal costs keep pace with the rising social cost of carbon.“ (Stern-Review, p. 302)

27. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes27 27.05.2008 The social cost of carbon will be lower with a sensible climate change policy than under „business as usual“

28. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes28 27.05.2008 H... High BAU trajectory S... Stabilisation trajectory E... Emissions/year Benefits of CC-Policy: Annual Costs of Abatement (appr.): Benefits less Costs (Benefits of CC-Policy): BAU- Emissions Difference between SCC of the two trajectories x

29. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes29 27.05.2008 The Role of adaptation can reduce the negative impacts of future climate change no direct prevention Mitigation prevents climate change and damage costs Mitigation  reducing cost of climate change over the next 30-50 years

30. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes30 27.05.2008 „In the longer run, both adaptation and mitigation will be required to reduce climate-change damage in cost- effective and sustainable ways.“ (Stern-Review, p. 306)

31. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes31 27.05.2008 The three approaches can be used to cross- check conclusions from adopting any one of them. „...spending somewhere in the region of 1% of gross world product on average forever could prevent the world losing the equivalent of 5 - 20% of gross world product for ever.“ (Stern-Review, p. 285)

32. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes32 27.05.2008 Thanks for your attention

33. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes33 27.05.2008 QUESTIONS 1. What are the three aproaches to „examine strong and urgent action“ and what are their characterstics?

34. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes34 27.05.2008 2. Why is it important, that we find a shared international understandig of what the objectives of climate-change-policy should be?

35. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes35 27.05.2008 3. What are the advantages of choosing the atmospheric concentration level as a goal?

36. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes36 27.05.2008 4. It is only possible to find a range for the target of the atmospheric concentration level and not a specific value. Why?

37. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes37 27.05.2008 5. What is the main message of the model based estimates for the increase in mitigation costs from reducing a stabilisation goal?

38. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes38 27.05.2008 6. Why is the stabilisation level at 450 ppm CO 2 e today hardly to reach? Which points are important to get a lower emission level?

39. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes39 27.05.2008 7. The EU adopted an objective to limit global average temperature change to less than 2°C. Is that possible and what are the arguments of the critic?

40. Gabriel Bachner - Thomas Kerekes40 27.05.2008 8. What are the differences between mitigation and adaptation?