Low-carbon transitions in world regions
Comparison of technological mitigation potential and costs in 2020 and 2030 through bottom-up analyses
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 12950673 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Tatsuya Hanaoka (0000-0002-8384-7383, National Institute for Environmental Studies, autor correspondente), Mikiko Kainuma (National Institute for Environmental Studies) |
| Ano | 2012 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Fascículo | 2 |
| Páginas | 117-137 |
| Data de publicação | 2012-06-22 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Sustainability Science (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 1862-4057 • E-ISSN: 1862-4065 |
| Editora | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11625-012-0172-6 |
| OpenAlex | W2021060349 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 5 |
| Referências citadas | 20 |
This study focuses on low-carbon transitions in the mid-term and analyzes mitigation potentials of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 and 2030 in a comparison based on bottom-up-type models. The study provides in-depth analyses of technological mitigation potentials and costs by sector and analyzes marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves from 0 to 200 US $/tCO2 eq in major countries. An advantage of this study is that the technological feasibility of reducing GHG emissions is identified explicitly through looking at distinct technological options. However, the results of MAC curves using the bottom-up approach vary widely according to region and model due to the various differing assumptions. Thus, this study focuses on some comparable variables in order to analyze the differences between MAC curves. For example, reduction ratios relative to 2005 in Annex I range from 9 % to 31 % and 17 % to 34 % at 50 US $/tCO2 eq in 2020 and 2030, respectively. In China and India, results of GHG emissions relative to 2005 vary very widely due to the difference in baseline emissions as well as the diffusion rate of mitigation technologies. Future portfolios of advanced technologies and energy resources, especially nuclear and renewable energies, are the most prominent reasons for the difference in MAC curves. Transitions toward a low-carbon society are not in line with current trends, and will require drastic GHG reductions, hence it is important to discuss how to overcome various existing barriers such as energy security constraints and technological restrictions
Baseline (sea · Economics · Environmental economics · Greenhouse gas · Marginal abatement cost · Natural resource economics · Order (exchange · Range (aeronautics · Renewable energy · Technological change · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies · Engineering · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Environmental Science
When green energy feels cozy
Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy
Air pollution co-benefits of low carbon policies in road transport
Assessment of China's Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Target for 2030
EMF 35 JMIP study for Japan’s long-term climate and energy policy
Climate Change 2007
International climate policy architectures
Rcp2.6
Rcp4.5
Hybrid Modeling
Technological feasibility and costs of achieving a 50 % reduction of global GHG emissions by 2050
Comparison of marginal abatement cost curves for 2020 and 2030
Sectoral marginal abatement cost curves
Allocation and architecture in climate governance beyond Kyoto
An Integrated System
| Obras citantes distintas | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,42 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2014 - 2024 (11) |
| Velocidade de citação | recent |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 5 |