The FAIR model: A tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of regimes of future commitments

Abstract

This article describes the policy decision-support tool, FAIR, to assess the environmental and abatement costs implications of international regimes for differentiation of future commitments. The model links long-term climate targets and global reduction objectives with regional emission allowances and abatement costs, accounting for the Kyoto Mechanisms used. FAIR consists of three sub-models: a simple climate model, an emission-allocation model and a cost model. The article also analyses ten different rule-based emission allocation schemes for two long-term concentration stabilisation targets for greenhouse gases. This analysis shows that evaluating regimes requires not only an assessment of the initial allocation, but also of the distribution of abatement costs and the impacts from emissions trading. The Multi-Stage approach (with a gradual increase of Parties adopting emission intensity or reductions targets) and the Triptych approach (with sectoral targets for all Parties) seem to provide the best prospects for most of the Parties when compared to the other allocation schemes analysed.

Avoiding dangerous climate change

“…The FAIR (Framework to Assess International Regimes for the differentiation of commitments) 2.0 model developed at the MNP in the Netherlands (www.mnp.nl/fair) is a policy decision-support tool, which aims to assess the environmental and abatement costs implications of climate regimes for differentiation of post-2012 commitments (den Elzen andden Elzen et al, 2005b). For the calculation of the emission pathways, only the (multi-gas) abatement costs model of FAIR is used.…”

“…For the calculation of the emission pathways, only the (multi-gas) abatement costs model of FAIR is used. This model distributes the difference between a baseline and a global emission pathway over the different regions, gases and sources following a least-cost approach, taking full advantage of the flexible Kyoto Mechanisms (emissions trading) (see den Elzen et al, 2005a). For this purpose, it makes use of (time-dependent) Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves for the different regions, greenhouse gases and sources as described below.…”

“…Regional costs compatible with earlier pathways to 550 and 650 ppm CO 2 -eq. are presented in den Elzen et al (2005a).…”

Integrating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Goal Structure, Target Areas and Means of Implementation

“…For the quantification the integrated assessment model IMAGE in combination with related models for the agricultural economy (LEITAP), biodiversity (GLOBIO), human health (GISMO) and climate policy (FAIR) are used [57][58][59][60][61]. These models provide a global overview, while differentiating between world regions.…”

The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation

“…4 The historical datasets of CO 2 emissions at the level of all sectors has been updated with the most recent estimates of the International Energy Agency (IEA, (2005a) and EDGAR datasets (Olivier et al, 2005) This report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 describes the methodology of the updated Triptych approach, as implemented in our modelling framework, FAIR 2.1, at the level of individual countries (Den Elzen, 2005;Den Elzen and Lucas, 2005). Chapter 3 presents the emission allowances for three scenarios, including different convergence trajectories, and analyses whether these are compatible with achieving long-term GHG concentrations targets.…”