Suchergebnisse

The paper investigates potential synergies and trade-offs between emission reduction policies and sustainable development objectives. Specifically, it provides an ex-ante assessment that the impacts of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), submitted under the Paris Agreement, will have on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)of poverty eradication (SDG1)and reduced income inequality (SDG10). Through this research we aim at answering the following questions: does mitigation policy always imply a trade-off with development objectives? If this is the case, what is the magnitude of the effect of the new international climate architecture on poverty and inequality? By combining an empirical analysis with a modelling exercise, the paper estimates the future trends of poverty prevalence and inequality across countries in a reference scenario and under a climate mitigation policy with alternative revenue recycling schemes. Our study finds that a full implementation of the emission reduction contributions, stated in the NDCs, is projected to slow down the effort to reduce poverty by 2030 (+4.2% of the population below the poverty line compared to the baseline scenario), especially in countries that have proposed relatively more stringent mitigation targets and suffer higher policy costs. Conversely, the impact of climate policy on inequality shows opposite sign but remains very limited. If financial support for mitigation action in developing countries is provided through an international climate fund, the prevalence of poverty will be slightly reduced at the aggregate level, but the country-specific effect depends on the relative size of funds flowing to beneficiary countries and on their economic structure. The output of our analysis contributes to the emerging literature on the linkages between climate change policy and sustainable development, although we capture only partially the complex system of interrelations and feedbacks proper of the SDGs. Moreover, due to its policy relevance, it further enriches the debate on the implementation of the Paris Agreement and its climate finance tools.

The paper explores the implications of achieving the EU27 Resource Efficiency target by 2030 for the future sustainability of the area. The target involves increasing by well over 30% within 2030 EU27 Resource Productivity, which would correspond to nearly double the annual growth rate of the pre-crisis period. The analysis uses a model-based index (FEEM Sustainability Index, FEEM SI) conceived to assess sustainability across time and countries. FEEM SI builds on the recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model ICES-SI, which considers jointly variables belonging to the three sustainability dimensions (economy, society, and environment). The indicators produced in this framework are first normalized and then aggregated by using some elicited weights and a non-linear methodology. The 30% increase of EU27 Resource Efficiency by 2030 is achieved by applying an ad-valorem tax to the use of mining resources, and offsets the negative effects on the economy (slightly lower GDP and Investment rate) with considerable benefits for the environment. This implies a +1.02% increase in overall EU sustainability with respect to the reference "no policy" scenario.

The FEEM project APPS – Assessment, Projections and Policy of Sustainable Development Goals – focuses on the quantitative assessment of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations at the end of September 2015. The project consists of two phases. The first, retrospective, computes indicators for all SDGs in 139 countries and then derives a composite multi-dimensional index and a worldwide ranking of current sustainability. This allows informing on strengths and weaknesses of today socio-economic development, as well as environmental criticalities, all around the world. The second phase, prospective, aims at evaluating the future trends of sustainability in the world by 2030. The assessment of the SDGs is carried out by means of an extended version of the recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium ICES macro-economic model that includes social and environmental indicators. The final goal is to highlight future challenges left unsolved in the next 15 years of socio-economic development and to analyze costs and benefits of specific policies to support the achievement of proposed targets. This paper presents the methodology and the results of the retrospective assessment. Five main steps are described: i) screening of indicators eligible to address the UN SDGs; ii) data collection from relevant sources; iii) organization in the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society, environment); iv) normalization to a common metrics; v) aggregation of the 25 indicators in composite indices by pillars as well as in the multi-dimensional index. The final ranking summarizes countries' sustainability performance. As expected, Middle-North European countries are at top of the ranking (Sweden, Norway and Switzerland the first three), with the most industrialized European countries such as Germany and UK, however, penalized by insufficient environmental performance. Other highly developed countries are between 24th (Canada) and 52nd place (United States). The emerging nations are scattered in our sustainability ranking. Brazil (43rd) and Russia (45th) precede China (80th) and India (102nd), the latter two especially penalized because of their social complexity. The worst performances, in terms of overall sustainability, are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Comoros, the Central African Republic and Chad occupy the last places in the ranking).

The present research proposes a macroeconomic assessment of the role of waste incineration with energy recovery (WtE) and controlled landfill biogas to electricity generation and their potential contribution to a CO2 emission reduction policy, within a recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium model. From the modelling viewpoint, introducing these energy sectors in such a framework required both the extension of the GTAP7 database and the improvement of the ICES production nested function. We focus our analysis on Italy as a signatory of the GHG reduction commitment of 20% by 2020 wrt 1990 levels proposed by the European Community; the rest of the world is represented by 21 geo-political countries/regions. It is shown that albeit in the near future WtE and landfill biogas will continue to represent a limited share of energy inputs in electricity sector (in Italy, around 2% for WtE and 0.6% for biogas in 2020) they could play a role in a mitigation policy context. The GDP cost of the EU emission reduction target for the Italian economy can indeed be reduced by 1% when the two energy generating options are available. In absolute terms, this translates into an annuitized value of 87-122 million €.

The reduction of GHG emissions is one of the most important policy objectives worldwide. Nonetheless, concrete and effective measures to reduce them are hardly implemented. One of the main reasons for this deadlock is the fear that unilateral actions will reduce a country's competitiveness, and will benefit those countries where no GHG mitigation measures are implemented. This kind of argument is also often used to explain why some governments and many business leaders are not in favour of the EU 30% GHG mitigation target that has been proposed to replace the previous 20% GHG emission reduction objective approved by the EU within the well-known 20-20-20 climate and energy package. By developing and applying a recursive, dynamic, very detailed CGE model with energy generation from both fossil fuel and renewable sources, we address this issue by estimating the cost for different EU countries and industries of the EU climate and energy package under a set of alternative international scenarios on global GHG mitigation efforts. Results show that, thanks to the EU economic recession, achieving a 20% GHG emission reduction entails a moderate cost for the European Union - about 0.5% of EU GDP - even in the case of EU unilateral action. This cost could be reduced to almost zero if not only the European Union, but also the other major world economies, comply with the low pledge Copenhagen Accord. A 30% GHG emission reduction target would certainly be more costly: the total loss in the European Union would be 1.26% of EU GDP in the case of EU unilateral action, whereas the total cost would be 0.55% of EU GDP if all major economies reduce their own GHG emissions according to the low pledge Copenhagen Accord. Both border tax adjustments and free allocation of carbon permits are shown to be successful in reducing some adverse competitiveness effects of the EU GHG mitigation policy into energy intensive sectors, but at the expenses of the other economic sectors.

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in non-modelling science. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario space traces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment, energy system and sectoral models, we carry out a model inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and research questions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is a scenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating its current policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-2020 40% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carbon capture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, with most hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefits from deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewables-dominated investment needs.

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in non-modelling science. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario space traces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment, energy system and sectoral models, we carry out a model inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and research questions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is a scenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating its current policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-2020 40% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carbon capture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, with most hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefits from deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewables-dominated investment needs. ; publishedVersion

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in nonmodellingscience. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario spacetraces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment,energy system and sectoralmodels, we carry out amodel inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and researchquestions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is ascenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating itscurrent policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-202040% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carboncapture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, withmost hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefitsfrom deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewablesdominatedinvestment needs.