Climate policy/Description: Difference between revisions

From IMAGE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ComponentDescriptionTemplate
{{ComponentDescriptionTemplate
|Status=On hold
|Reference=Den Elzen et al., 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2011a; Meinshausen et al., 2011b; Den Elzen et al., 2013; Hof et al., 2013; Roelfsema et al., 2014; Den Elzen et al., 2012a; Hof et al., 2012; Hof et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2010; De Bruin et al., 2009; Admiraal et al., 2016; Van den Berg et al., 2015; UNFCCC (2015b); Den Elzen et al., 2016; UNEP (2016); Rogelj et al., 2016; Den Elzen et al., 2015a; Kuramochi et al., 2016; Hof et al., 2016;
|Reference=Enerdata, 2010; Kindermann et al., 2008; Den Elzen et al., 2007; Van Vuuren et al., 2011; Meinshausen et al., 2011c; Hof et al., 2013; Hof et al., 2012; Den Elzen et al., 2012b; Den Elzen et al., 2012c; Den Elzen et al., 2011b; Hof et al., 2010; Hof et al., 2009; Roelfsema et al., 2013a; Roelfsema et al., 2013b; Den Elzen et al., 2013; De Bruin et al., 2009;
}}
|Description=In contrast to some of the other models in the IMAGE framework, [[FAIR model|FAIR]] is often used as a stand-alone model. However, if it is used as an integral part of the IMAGE framework, the model is tightly coupled to other parts of the framework.
<div class="page_standard">


FAIR consists of six linked modules as presented in the flowchart and described briefly below.


The FAIR model consists of the following six linked modules (see figure Model scheme of FAIR):
===Global pathfinder and climate module===
 
The pathfinder module FAIR-SiMCaP calculates global emission pathways that are consistent with a long-term climate target ([[Den Elzen et al., 2007]]; [[Van Vliet et al., 2012]]; [[Van den Berg et al., 2015]]). Inputs are climate targets defined in terms of concentration levels, radiative forcing, temperature, and cumulative emissions. In addition, intermediate restrictions on overshoot levels or intermediate emission targets representing climate policy progress can be included. The model combines the FAIR mitigation costs model and a module that minimises cumulative discounted mitigation costs by varying the timing of emission reductions. For climate calculations, FAIR-SiMCaP uses the [[MAGICC model|MAGICC 6 model]], with parameter settings calibrated to reproduce the medium response in terms of time scale and amplitude of 19 IPCC {{abbrTemplate|AR}}4 General Circulation Models ([[Meinshausen et al., 2011b]]).
# The global pathfinder module calculates cost-optimal global pathways for achieving long-term climate targets;
# The policy evaluation module calculates the emission levels for 2020 and beyond, resulting from national pledges and domestic climate mitigation plans;
# The effort-sharing module calculates regional and national emissions allowances or reduction targets, based on a wide range of equity principles, hence, sharing a global emissions target;
# The mitigation costs module calculates the level of emissions trading and abatement costs with flexible assumptions on regional carbon market participation, based on the information from the effort-sharing module or policy evaluation module;
# The damage and cost-benefit module calculates consumption losses resulting from climate change damage, adaptation costs, and mitigation costs, under a specified level of adaptation.
 
 
Input for the modules consists of baseline scenarios on population, GDP and emissions, as calculated by the IMAGE modelling framework. Emissions are from all major sources and include all six Kyoto greenhouse gases. Marginal abatement cost ([[HasAcronym::MAC]]) curves describing mitigation potential and costs of greenhouse gas emission reductions are derived from the TIMER energy model and the IMAGE land-use model. The MAC curves take into account a wide range of options, including carbon plantations, carbon capture and storage ([[HasAcronym::CCS]]), bio, wind and solar energy, and energy efficiency and technological improvements. In addition, FAIR can also use emission projections and MACs from other models, such as the [[POLES model|POLES energy system model**]] ([[Enerdata, 2010]]) and [[**IIASA land-use models]] ([[Kindermann et al., 2008]]), to assess the sensitivity of the outcomes to these main inputs.
 
The modules are described in more detail below.


===Policy evaluation module===


===Global pathfinder and climate module===
The Policy evaluation module calculates emission levels resulting from the reduction proposals (pledges and NDCs) and mitigation actions submitted by developed and developing countries as part of the 2015 {{abbrTemplate|UNFCCC}} Paris agreement ([[Den Elzen et al., 2016]]; [[Rogelj et al., 2016]]). This module also collects the emission projections of current and planned policy scenarios as calculated by the IMAGE-TIMER model ([[Roelfsema et al., 2018]]). These scenarios take into account the impact of individual policies in different subsectors that are implemented in 25 major emitting countries ([[Kuramochi et al., 2018]]). The module is used in conjunction with a wide range of evaluation tools developed in cooperation with [[IIASA]] and [[JRC]], such as tools for analysing policy options for land-use credits and surplus emissions. The PBL [https://themasites.pbl.nl/climate-ndc-policies-tool/ Climate Pledge NDC tool] gives a summary of the greenhouse gas emission reduction proposals, domestic policies of major countries and the impact on the emissions by 2030.
The pathfinder module [[FAIR-SiMCaP model|FAIR-SiMCaP*]] calculates global emission pathways that satisfy a long-term climate target ([[Den Elzen et al., 2007]]; [[Van Vliet et al., 2009]]; [[Van Vuuren et al., 2011]]) . Input are climate targets that are defined in terms of concentration levels, radiative forcing, temperature, or cumulative emissions. Intermediate restrictions on overshoot levels or intermediate emission targets representing climate policy progress also can be included. The model combines the mitigation costs model of FAIR and a module that minimises cumulative discounted mitigation costs by varying the timing of emission reductions. For the climate calculations, FAIR-SiMCaP uses the [[MAGICC model|MAGICC]] 6 model, with parameter settings calibrated to reproduce the medium response in terms of time scale and amplitude of 19 [[IPCC]] [[AR|AR4]] General Circulation Models ([[Meinshausen et al., 2011c]]).


===Policy evaluation module===  
===Effort sharing module===
The policy evaluation module calculates emission levels resulting from the pledges and mitigation actions submitted by developed and developing countries as part of the 2010 [[UNFCCC]] Cancún Agreements (for instance, [[Den Elzen et al., 2013]]; [[Hof et al., 2013]]). This module also analyses the impact of planned and/or implemented domestic mitigation policies, such as carbon taxes, feed-in tariffs and renewable targets, on national emissions by 2020, to determine whether countries are on track to achieve their reduction pledges ([[Roelfsema et al., 2013a]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2013b]]). For this purpose, it uses a wide range of evaluation tools, which have been developed in cooperation with [[IIASA]] and [[ECOFYS]], such as tools for analysing policy options for addressing land-use credits and surplus emissions.
The Effort sharing module calculates emission targets for regions and countries, resulting from different emission allocation or effort-sharing schemes ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012a]]; [[Hof et al., 2012]]; [[Van den Berg et al., 2019]]). Such schemes start either at the global allowed emission level, after which the effort-sharing approach allocates emission allowances across regions, or at the required global reduction level, after which various effort-sharing approaches allocate regional emission reduction targets. Both approaches use information from the Global Pathfinder and Climate module on the required global emission level or emission reductions. As an alternative, emission allowances can be allocated to regions without a predefined global reduction target, based on different effort-sharing approaches. The model includes effort-sharing approaches such as Contraction & Convergence, common-but-differentiated convergence, ability to pay, and a multi-stage approach.


===Effort-sharing module===  
===Mitigation costs module===
The effort-sharing module calculates emission targets for regions and countries, resulting from different emission allocation or effort-sharing schemes (for instance, [[Den Elzen et al., 2012b]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2012c]]; [[Hof et al., 2012]]). Such schemes start either at the global allowed emission level, after which a certain effort-sharing approach allocates emission allowances across regions, or at the required global reduction level, after which various effort-sharing approaches allocate regional emission reduction targets. Both these approaches use information from the global pathfinder and climate module on the required global emission level or emission reductions. As an alternative, emission allowances can be allocated to regions without a predefined global (reduction) target, based on different effort-sharing approaches. Effort-sharing approaches included in the model are Contraction & Convergence, common-but-differentiated convergence and a multi-stage approach.
The Mitigation costs module is used for calculating the regional mitigation costs of achieving the targets calculated in the Policy Evaluation and/or the Effort Sharing modules, and to determine the buyers and sellers on the international emissions trading market ([[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Hof et al., 2017]]). Inputs to the model are regional gas- and source-specific Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves that reflect the additional costs of abating one extra tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent emissions. CO<sub>2</sub> MAC curves are derived from the energy and land-use modules of IMAGE. Non-CO<sub>2</sub> MAC curves are based on [[Lucas et al., 2007|Lucas et al. (2007)]] and [[Harmsen et al., 2019c|Harmsen et al. (2019c)]]. The {{abbrTemplate|MAC}} curves describe the potential and costs of the abatement options considered. The model uses aggregated regional permit demand and supply curves derived from the MAC curves to calculate the equilibrium permit price on the international trading market, its buyers and sellers, and the resulting domestic and external abatement per region. The design of the emissions trading market can include: constraints on imports and exports of emission permits; non-competitive behaviour; transaction costs associated with the use of emission trading; a less than fully efficient supply of viable {{abbrTemplate|CDM}} projects with respect to their operational availability; and the banking of surplus emission allowances.  


===Mitigation costs module===  
===Damage and Cost-Benefit Analysis modules===
The mitigation costs module is used for calculating the regional mitigation costs of achieving the targets calculated in the policy evaluation and/or the effort-sharing module, and to determine the buyers and sellers on the international emissions trading market (for instance, [[Den Elzen et al., 2008]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011b]]). As input, the model uses regional, gas- and source-specific MAC curves, which reflect the additional costs of abating one extra tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions. In this way, the MAC curves describe the potential and costs of the different abatement options considered. The model uses aggregated regional permit demand and supply curves, derived from the MAC curves, to calculate the equilibrium permit price on the international trading market, its buyers and sellers, and the resulting domestic and external abatement per region. The design of the emissions trading market can include constraints on imports and exports of emission permits, non-competitive behaviour, transaction costs associated with the use of emission trading, a less than fully efficient supply of viable [[CDM]] projects with respect to their operational availability, and the banking of surplus emission allowances.  
The Damage and Cost-Benefit Analysis modules calculate the consumption loss resulting from climate change damage, and compare these with the consumption losses of adaptation and mitigation costs ([[Hof et al., 2008]]; [[Hof et al., 2009|2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2010|2010]]; [[Admiraal et al., 2016]]). Estimates of adaptation costs and residual damage (defined as the damage that remains after adaptation) are based either on the [[AD RICE model]] ([[De Bruin et al., 2009]]), which are based on total damage projections made by the [[RICE model]], or on output from sectoral impact models. Calibration of the regional adaptation cost functions of AD RICE is based on an assessment of each impact category described in the RICE model, using relevant studies and with expert judgement where necessary. The optimal level of adaptation can be calculated by the model, but may also be set to a non-optimal level by the user.  


===Damage and cost-benefit module===  
===Estimation of consumption losses===
The damage and cost-benefit module calculates the consumption loss resulting from the damage of climate change, and compares these with the consumption losses of adaptation and mitigation costs (for instance, [[Hof et al., 2008]]; [[Hof et al., 2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2010]]). The estimates on adaptation costs and residual damage were based on the [[AD-RICE model]] ([[De Bruin et al., 2009]]). The AD-RICE model estimates adaptation costs based on total damage projections by the RICE model. These total damage projections include both adaptation costs and residual damage. Calibration of the regional adaptation cost functions was based on an assessment of each impact category described in the RICE model, using relevant literature, supplemented with expert judgement where necessary. The optimal level of adaptation can be calculated by the model, but the level of adaptation may also be set to a non-optimal level by the user. Consumption losses are estimated based on a simple Cobb-Douglas economic growth model. First, this model, for each region, is separately calibrated to the exogenous GDP path. Next, damage, adaptation costs and abatement costs are subtracted from investment or consumption to determine the effect on consumption (directly by replacing consumption or indirectly by replacing investments).
Consumption losses due to mitigation, adaptation and climate change damage are estimated based on a simple Cobb–Douglas production function.<ref><div style="clear:both float:right">The Cobb–Douglas production function is a particular functional form of the production function widely used to represent the technological relationship between the amounts of two or more inputs and the amount of output that can be produced by those inputs.</div></ref> The production factors are labour and capital. Regional changes in labour over time are based on the projected changes in total regional population. Initial regional capital stocks are based on the Investment and Capital Stock Dataset of the IMF. Future capital stocks depend on depreciation (set at 5% per year) and investments. Investments depend on the savings rate and initial savings rates are taken from the same IMF source. Total factor productivity of each region is calibrated to the exogenous GDP path without damage or mitigation costs. In a second step, damages, adaptation and abatement costs are subtracted from investment or consumption to determine both the direct replacement effect on consumption and the indirect effect from replacing productive investments.
}}
<references />
</div>

Latest revision as of 14:42, 16 November 2021

Link to framework components overview

Parts of Climate policy/Description

  1. Introduction page
  2. Model description
  3. Policy issues
  4. Data, uncertainty and limitations
  5. Overview of references
Component is implemented in:
Components:
Related IMAGE components
Models/Databases
Key publications
References
FAIR, the climate policy model in IMAGE 3.0
Flowchart Climate policy. See also the Input/Output Table on the introduction page.

Model description of Climate policy

FAIR consists of six linked modules as presented in the flowchart and described briefly below.

Global pathfinder and climate module

The pathfinder module FAIR-SiMCaP calculates global emission pathways that are consistent with a long-term climate target (Den Elzen et al., 2007; Van Vliet et al., 2012; Van den Berg et al., 2015). Inputs are climate targets defined in terms of concentration levels, radiative forcing, temperature, and cumulative emissions. In addition, intermediate restrictions on overshoot levels or intermediate emission targets representing climate policy progress can be included. The model combines the FAIR mitigation costs model and a module that minimises cumulative discounted mitigation costs by varying the timing of emission reductions. For climate calculations, FAIR-SiMCaP uses the MAGICC 6 model, with parameter settings calibrated to reproduce the medium response in terms of time scale and amplitude of 19 IPCC AR4 General Circulation Models (Meinshausen et al., 2011b).

Policy evaluation module

The Policy evaluation module calculates emission levels resulting from the reduction proposals (pledges and NDCs) and mitigation actions submitted by developed and developing countries as part of the 2015 UNFCCC Paris agreement (Den Elzen et al., 2016; Rogelj et al., 2016). This module also collects the emission projections of current and planned policy scenarios as calculated by the IMAGE-TIMER model (Roelfsema et al., 2018). These scenarios take into account the impact of individual policies in different subsectors that are implemented in 25 major emitting countries (Kuramochi et al., 2018). The module is used in conjunction with a wide range of evaluation tools developed in cooperation with IIASA and JRC, such as tools for analysing policy options for land-use credits and surplus emissions. The PBL Climate Pledge NDC tool gives a summary of the greenhouse gas emission reduction proposals, domestic policies of major countries and the impact on the emissions by 2030.

Effort sharing module

The Effort sharing module calculates emission targets for regions and countries, resulting from different emission allocation or effort-sharing schemes (Den Elzen et al., 2012a; Hof et al., 2012; Van den Berg et al., 2019). Such schemes start either at the global allowed emission level, after which the effort-sharing approach allocates emission allowances across regions, or at the required global reduction level, after which various effort-sharing approaches allocate regional emission reduction targets. Both approaches use information from the Global Pathfinder and Climate module on the required global emission level or emission reductions. As an alternative, emission allowances can be allocated to regions without a predefined global reduction target, based on different effort-sharing approaches. The model includes effort-sharing approaches such as Contraction & Convergence, common-but-differentiated convergence, ability to pay, and a multi-stage approach.

Mitigation costs module

The Mitigation costs module is used for calculating the regional mitigation costs of achieving the targets calculated in the Policy Evaluation and/or the Effort Sharing modules, and to determine the buyers and sellers on the international emissions trading market (Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Hof et al., 2017). Inputs to the model are regional gas- and source-specific Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves that reflect the additional costs of abating one extra tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions. CO2 MAC curves are derived from the energy and land-use modules of IMAGE. Non-CO2 MAC curves are based on Lucas et al. (2007) and Harmsen et al. (2019c). The MAC curves describe the potential and costs of the abatement options considered. The model uses aggregated regional permit demand and supply curves derived from the MAC curves to calculate the equilibrium permit price on the international trading market, its buyers and sellers, and the resulting domestic and external abatement per region. The design of the emissions trading market can include: constraints on imports and exports of emission permits; non-competitive behaviour; transaction costs associated with the use of emission trading; a less than fully efficient supply of viable CDM projects with respect to their operational availability; and the banking of surplus emission allowances.

Damage and Cost-Benefit Analysis modules

The Damage and Cost-Benefit Analysis modules calculate the consumption loss resulting from climate change damage, and compare these with the consumption losses of adaptation and mitigation costs (Hof et al., 2008; 2009; 2010; Admiraal et al., 2016). Estimates of adaptation costs and residual damage (defined as the damage that remains after adaptation) are based either on the AD RICE model (De Bruin et al., 2009), which are based on total damage projections made by the RICE model, or on output from sectoral impact models. Calibration of the regional adaptation cost functions of AD RICE is based on an assessment of each impact category described in the RICE model, using relevant studies and with expert judgement where necessary. The optimal level of adaptation can be calculated by the model, but may also be set to a non-optimal level by the user.

Estimation of consumption losses

Consumption losses due to mitigation, adaptation and climate change damage are estimated based on a simple Cobb–Douglas production function.[1] The production factors are labour and capital. Regional changes in labour over time are based on the projected changes in total regional population. Initial regional capital stocks are based on the Investment and Capital Stock Dataset of the IMF. Future capital stocks depend on depreciation (set at 5% per year) and investments. Investments depend on the savings rate and initial savings rates are taken from the same IMF source. Total factor productivity of each region is calibrated to the exogenous GDP path without damage or mitigation costs. In a second step, damages, adaptation and abatement costs are subtracted from investment or consumption to determine both the direct replacement effect on consumption and the indirect effect from replacing productive investments.

  1. ↑
    The Cobb–Douglas production function is a particular functional form of the production function widely used to represent the technological relationship between the amounts of two or more inputs and the amount of output that can be produced by those inputs.
Retrieved from "https://models.pbl.nl/index.php?title=Climate_policy/Description&oldid=36825"