Results 1 - 10 of 5699
Results 1 - 10 of 5699. Search took: 0.024 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] It is often claimed that pollution reductions can be achieved at lower cost in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, because more possibilities exist to update production processes and reduce waste. To date, however, there has been little or no systematic evaluation of what the costs actually are in these countries. The main purpose of this paper is to partially fill this research gaps using firm-level data from Lithuania. Abatement cost estimates for key air pollutants are presented based on investments made in Lithuania during 1993-4. The paper also attempts to estimate the demand for pollution directly using data on pollution charges from 1994. Using both methods, it is shown that for at least some key pollutants marginal and average abatement costs are probably substantially lower in Lithuania than in western countries. (Author)
[en] A flaw has been identified in the calculation of the cost-effectiveness in marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs). The problem affects “negative-cost” emissions reduction measures—those that produce a return on investment. The resulting ranking sometimes favours measures that produce low emissions savings and is therefore unreliable. The issue is important because incorrect ranking means a potential failure to achieve the best-value outcome. A simple mathematical analysis shows that not only is the standard cost-effectiveness calculation inadequate for ranking negative-cost measures, but there is no possible replacement that satisfies reasonable requirements. Furthermore, the concept of negative cost-effectiveness is found to be unsound and its use should be avoided. Among other things, this means that MACCs are unsuitable for ranking negative-cost measures. As a result, MACCs produced by a range of organizations including UK government departments may need to be revised. An alternative partial ranking method has been devised by making use of Pareto optimization. The outcome can be presented as a stacked bar chart that indicates both the preferred ordering and the total emissions saving available for each measure without specifying a cost-effectiveness. - Highlights: ► Marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) are used to rank emission reduction measures. ► There is a flaw in the standard ranking method for negative-cost measures. ► Negative values of cost-effectiveness (in £/tC or equivalent) are invalid. ► There may be errors in published MACCs. ► A method based on Pareto principles provides an alternative ranking method.
[en] The global warming debate has neglected and thus underestimated the importance of technical change in considering reduction in greenhouse gases and adaptation to climate change. Relevant quantitative cases of long-run technical change during the past 100 years are presented in computing, communications, transport, energy, and agriculture. A noteworthy technological trajectory is that of decarbonization, or decreasing carbon intensity of primary energy. If human societies have not yet reached the end of the history of technology, the cost structure for mitigation and adaptation changes could be cheap. (Author)
[en] It is a mistake to call for quantitative regulation, rather than some form of economic incentive, as a means of reducing CO2 emissions. The main reason for the superiority of some economic incentive - whether it be a tax on the emissions, or tradeable permits, or a subsidy that is related to emission reductions - is that this is the cheapest way to achieve any given target cut in the emissions. Arguments to support this case are presented. (author)