The Version 5 of the POLES model has been developed for the assessment of multi-gas emission reduction strategies. Abatement options have been introduced for all non-CO2 GHGs in the Kyoto Basket and, for the agricultural sector, Marginal Abatement Cost curves have been derived from the new AGRIPOL model. Combined with an international emission permit scheme that is based on the Soft Landing approach, an emission profile respecting climate targets of 550 ppmv provides a relatively soft constraint case for developing countries. The multi-gas analyses first of all demonstrate the relevance of the approach as changing from a CO2-only to a multi-gas strategy either allows to increase total abatement of 25% for the same Marginal Abatement Cost or to decrease the MAC of approximately 30% for the same total abatement. Not surprisingly however, the impacts on world demand and primary fuel mix are less pronounced in the multi-gas case. This is easily understandable as a counterpart for introducing more margins of freedom in the abatement effort.
AlcamoJ.LeemansR.KreilemanE. (eds.), (1998). Global Change Scenarios of the 21st century: results from the Image 2.1 Model, Pergamon Elsevier.
2.
AligR.J.AdamsD.M.McCarlB.A., (2002). Impacts of incorporating land exchanges between forestry and agriculture in sector models, working paper, http://agecon.tamu.edu/publications.
3.
BanuriT.Goran-MalerK.GrubbM.JakobsonH.K.YaminF. (1996). Equity and Social Considerations, in:BruceJ.P.HoesungL.HaitesE.F. (eds.), Climate Change 1995. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 83-124.
4.
BlanchardO.CriquiP.KitousA.ViguierL. (2002). Combining Efficiency with Equity: A Pragmatic Approach. Providing Global Public Goods—Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5.
ChangC.-C.McCarlB.A. (2001). Scope of ASM: The U.S. Agricultural Sector Model, working paper http://agecon.tamu.edu/publications.
6.
CriquiP. (ed) (2002). Greenhouse gas Emission Control Strategies, Research Report for the European Commission DG RTD, 2002.
7.
CriquiP., (2003). Greenhouse gas reduction pathways In the UNFCC process up to 2025, Technical Report for the European Commission DG Environment, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/pm_techreport2025.pdf.
8.
DeybeD.FallotA., (2003). Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture: Analysing the room for manoeuvre for mitigation, in case of Carbon pricing. In Proceeding of the 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists “Reshaping Agriculture’s Contribution to Society. South-Africa, pp. 662-667.
9.
European Commission (1996). POLES 2.2, European Commission DG XII, EUR 17358 EN, 1996. European Commission (2003). World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030 (WETO). European Commission, DG RTD, EUR 20366 EN, 2003.
10.
European Council (1996). 1939th Council meeting (ENVIRONMENT), Luxembourg, 25June1996, Community strategy on climate change - Council conclusions, paragraph 6.
11.
GCI (Global Commons Institute) (2002). The detailed Ideas and Algorithms Behind Contraction and Convergence. http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/Ideas_behind_cc.html.
12.
GérardF.ErwidodoMarty I.,(2000). Evaluation of the Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Food Crop Production and Farm Income in Lowland Java, Indonesia, in Peter,G.H. and J. Von Braun (eds.) Food security, diversification and resource management: refocusing the role of agriculture, proceedings of the 23rd international conference of agricultural economists, Ashgate.
13.
GusbinDKlaassenG.KouvaritakisN..(1999). Costs of Ceiling on Kyoto Flexibility. Energy Policy, vol. 27 pp. 833-844.
14.
IMAGE-team (2001). The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios. A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. CD-ROM publication Nr. 481508018, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven.
15.
IPCC (1996a). Guidelines for National Inventories, reference manual for Agriculture.
16.
IPCC (1996b). Climate Change 1995, Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press.
17.
IPCC (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios (SRES). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18.
IPCC (2001a). Climate change 2001. The scientific basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19.
IPCC (2001b). Climate Change 2001. Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20.
IPTS (2000). Preliminary Analysis of the Implementation of an EU-Wide Permit Trading Scheme on CO2 Emissions Abatement Costs. Report for the European Commission DG Environment, IPTS. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/climate_change/poles.pdf
21.
KempfertC. (2001). Economy-Energy-Climate Interaction: The Model WIAGEM, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota di Lavoro 71.2001.
22.
MeyerA. (2000). Contraction and Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change. Schumacher Briefing No. 5. Devon, UK: Green Books.
23.
RoseA.StevensB.EdmondsJ.WiseM. (1998). International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy, Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, pp 25-51.
24.
RotmansJ.DowlatabadiH. (1998). Integrated assessment modelling, in RaynerS.MaloneE. L. (eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, The Tools for Policy Analysis, vol. 3, Battelle Press.
25.
RussP.CriquiP. (2004). Post-Kyoto CO2 emission reduction: the soft landing scenario analysed with POLES and other world models, to be published in Energy Policy.
26.
SaundersCWrefordA..(2003). Mitigation of Greenhouse gase emissions: the impacts on a developed country highly dependent on agriculture. In Proceeding of the 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists “Reshaping Agriculture’s Contribution to Society. South-Africa, pp. 655-661.
