What are the Gains from a Multi-Gas Strategy?

Border tax adjustments in the climate policy context: CO2 versus broad-based GHG emission targeting

“…While the inclusion of all GHGs under BTAs expands the tariff base at the border, the carbon prices with fixed target are expected to be lower due to relatively cheap abatement options for several of the non-CO2 GHG sources (Blok et al 2001, Harmelink et al 2005) and flexibility in abatement options (Hayhoe et al 1999, Hyman et al 2003, Jensen and Thelle 2001, Lucas et al 2005, Manne and Richels 2001, Reilly et al, 1999, Tol 1999, and Van Vuuren et al 2003. It is not clear what would be the net impacts from the two opposing forces (i.e., a larger carbon base and lower carbon prices under GHG based policies) on individual abating and non-abating countries and sectors.…”

Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases

“…In the last few years, however, non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been rapidly gained attention. Studies that consider both CO 2 and non-CO 2 mitigation options generally report important advantages of so-called multi-gas mitigation strategies, 1 including: (1) major cost reductions compared to a CO 2 -only strategy due to relatively cheap abatement options for several of the non-CO 2 GHG sources (Blok et al, 2001;Harmelink et al, 2005; US-EPA, 1999); (2) an increase in the flexibility in abatement options (Hayhoe et al, 1999;Hyman et al, 2002;Jensen and Thelle, 2001;Lucas et al, 2005;Manne and Richels, 2001;Reilly et al, 1999;Tol, 1999;Van Vuuren et al, 2003); and (3) the fact that non-CO 2 GHGs can contribute to a more rapid response in avoiding climate impacts by focusing on short-lived gases (Hansen et al, 2000). Moreover, it has been suggested that reduction in methane emissions is nearly twice as effective in radiative forcing (i.e.…”

A modelling framework for assessing the economic impact of climate change in the Caribbean

“…Perhaps the most popular group of models of this kind is the Dice/Rice family, developed by William Nordhaus (Nordhaus, 1994;Nordhaus and Yang, 1996). Other models are edge (Jensen and Thelle, 2001), entice (Popp, 2003), fund (Anthoff and Tol, 2008), merge (Manne, Mendelsohn and Richels, 1995), page (Hope and others, 1993), wiagem (Kemfert, 2001) and witch (Bosetti and others, 2006).…”