Suchergebnisse

The objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that these targets cannot be reached through conventional mitigation measures alone. The IPCC assumes that in addition to reducing emissions, technologies for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will become indispensable. The preferred technology option combines increased use of bio-energy with the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. To date, climate policy has largely ignored the necessity for "negative emissions" to achieve the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement. Discussions on the underlying model assumptions, potentials and risks of imaginable technological options, as well as their political implications, are only just beginning. It would be wise for the EU and Germany to proactively shape this debate and increase funding for research and development. If the Paris climate objectives are upheld, climate policy pioneers will soon be facing calls to set emission-reduction targets of much more than 100 percent - a notion that today seems paradoxical, but may soon become reality. (author's abstract)

In order to decide whether a comprehensive treaty covering all greenhouse gases is the best next step after UNCED, one needs to distinguish among the four questions about the international justice of such international arrangements: (1) What is a fair allocation of the costs of preventing the global warming that is still avoidable?; (2) What is a fair allocation of the costs of coping with the social consequences of the global warming that will not in fact be avoided?; (3) What background allocation of wealth would allow international bargaining (about issues like 1 and 2) to be a fair process?; and (4) What is a fair allocation of emissions of greenhouse gases (over the long‐term and during the transition to the long‐term allocation)? In answering each question we must specify from whom any transfers should come and to whom any transfers should go. As the grounds for the answers we usually face a choice between fault‐based principles and no‐fault principles.

Within the framework of the Swedish Climate Act and Climate Policy Framework there is a possibility for using negative emissions as complementary measures for climate change mitigation. With negative emissions is meant that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored permanently (or at least for a very long time). There are several Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques for removing CO2 from the atmosphere that are described in the literature. They are at varying stages of development and implementation, and include for example: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) Afforestation and reforestation (AR) Soil carbon sequestration and biochar Enhanced weathering (EW) Direct air CO2 capture and storage (DACCS) In this report the focus is on capture and storage of biogenic CO2 (bio-CCS or BECCS), which is seen as having a future potential in Sweden. National greenhouse gas emission inventories are annually submitted to the UNFCCC. The current 2006 IPCC Guidelines and reporting rules for national emission inventories do not fully support, or even allow, reporting of negative emissions. A survey was made of reported data from other countries to the UNFCCC on carbon capture and storage (CCS, for long term storage) and carbon capture and use (CCU, CO2 is re-emitted within a shorter time). The survey shows that there are only a few countries who do report any such data, and that there seems to be differences (or difficulties) in the interpretation of the Guidelines. From the survey we could not find any specific reporting of negative emissions arising from capture and storage of biogenic CO2. To our knowledge, there is currently no large-scale capture of CO2 for long-term storage in Sweden (CCS). However, there have been several pilot studies on CCS and CCU (mainly of fossil CO2). Most likely there are also other CCU activities in addition to the one exemplified by Agroetanol in this report. A comparison of current Swedish reporting of biogenic CO2 emission to UNFCCC and to the Swedish PRTR (Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) shows that more biogenic CO2 emissions occur in Sweden than are reported to the UNFCCC. This discrepancy is mainly due to the allocation of emissions from the pulp and paper industry in the reporting tables, and the reporting rules of UNFCCC. Furthermore, at present there is no data collection in Sweden that provides all necessary data for reporting negative emissions. Such a system needs to be developed. Conclusions: There are currently no large-scale activities related to negative emissions in Sweden, except in the LULUCF sector. Some smaller scale activities and projects covering carbon capture and storage (CCS), or use (CCU) exist in Sweden. For transparent reporting of negative emissions to the UNFCCC, the Guidelines and CRF tables need to be improved. The ambiguous language concerning CO2 storage, capture and recovery in the Guidelines and CRF tables need to be clarified. To be able to estimate negative emissions in the future, Sweden needs to set up a data collection system. E.g. covering biogenic CO2 capture and storage through EU ETS, PRTR or national surveys. To enable follow-up of national GHG reduction targets, Sweden should create a system for data collection and negative emission estimation even if the UNFCCC guidance and reporting tables are not improved. The EU might take initiative and create a reporting system including negative emissions for EU member states in order to follow up on EU targets. Sweden could report information on negative emissions to the UNFCCC in the Swedish NIR even if they are not possible to report in the CRF tables. Rules for accounting of negative emissions in relation to reported CO2 emissions from fossil fuels need to be negotiated within the UNFCCC. Emissions from black liquor combustion in the pulp and paper industry, currently reported in the IPPU sector (Industrial Processes and Product Use), should be reallocated to the energy sector to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of biogenic CO2 emissions. The Swedish reporting of biogenic CO2 emissions in the annual inventory submissions to UNFCCC could be further improved by comparing with data from the Swedish PRTR reporting (SMP, Svenska MiljörapporteringsPortalen). Practices to ensure that no double-counting or omission of emissions occur in the Swedish GHG inventory is necessary in cases where CO2 is captured in one industry and used in another (CCU), e.g. in carbonated drinks or greenhouses. If CO2 captured in one country is exported for storage in another country the country of capture reports captured amounts (and any negative emissions), while the country of storage reports stored amounts. An arrangement should be made between the countries for example in the form of written agreements and regular exchange of relevant data for control and harmonization of the reporting. ; Inom ramen för klimatlagen finns möjlighet att använda negativa utsläpp som kompletterande åtgärd för att motverka klimatförändringar. Negativt utsläpp innebär att koldioxid (CO2) avlägsnas från atmosfären och lagras permanent (eller åtminstone under mycket lång tid). I litteraturen finns det flera tekniker beskrivna för att avlägsna CO2 från atmosfären(Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques). Dessa befinner sig i olika utvecklingsstadier och i olika stadier av praktisk implementering, och inkluderar till exempel: Infångning och lagring av biogen CO2 (bio-CCS) Beskogning och återbeskogning (afforestation and reforestation) Kolinbindning i mark och lagring av biokol Ökad vittring Direktinfångning och lagring av CO2 från luft Rapporten fokuserar på infångning och lagring av biogen CO2 (bio-CCS eller BECCS), vilket anses ha en framtida potential i Sverige. verige rapporterar årligen nationella utsläpp av växthusgaser till Klimatkonventionen, UNFCCC. De nuvarande rapporteringsreglerna och metodriktlinjerna från IPCC stödjer inte helt, eller tillåter inte, rapportering av negativa utsläpp. I rapporten presenterar vi en översiktlig genomgång av rapporterade data från andra länder till UNFCCC rörande CO2-infångning och lagring (CCS, för långtidslagring) och CO2-infångning och användning (CCU, CO2 åter-emitteras inom kortare tid). Genomgången visar att det bara är ett fåtal länder som rapporterar några sådana uppgifter överhuvudtaget, och att det tycks finnas skillnader (eller svårigheter) i tolkningen av riktlinjerna. I genomgången kunde vi inte hitta någon specifik rapportering av negativa utsläpp som härrör från infångning och lagring av biogen CO2. Av vad vi har kunnat ta reda på, förekommer för närvarande inte någon storskalig infångning av CO2 för långtidslagring (CCS) i Sverige. Det har dock funnits flera pilotstudier om CCS och CCU (främst fossil CO2). Sannolikt förekommer det fler CCU-aktiviteter i Sverige än den som exemplifieras med Agroetanol i rapporten. En jämförelse av nuvarande svensk rapportering av biogena CO2-utsläpp till UNFCCC och till svenska PRTR (Pollutant Release and Transfer Register) visar att det finns större biogena CO2-utsläpp i Sverige än vad som rapporteras till UNFCCC. Denna skillnad beror främst på hur utsläpp från massa- och pappersindustrin allokerats i rapporteringstabellerna (och på UNFCCC:s rapporteringsriktlinjer). Dessutom samlas för närvarande inte alla nödvändiga uppgifter in som behövs för rapportering av negativa utsläpp i Sverige. Ett system för insamling av dessa data behöver därför utvecklas. Slutsatser: Det verkar för närvarande inte finnas några storskaliga aktiviteter relaterade till negativa utsläpp i Sverige, förutom i LULUCF-sektorn (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). Det finns några aktiviteter och projekt i mindre skala i Sverige som innefattar infångning och lagring av CO2 (CCS) eller infångning och användning av CO2 (CCU). För transparent rapportering av negativa utsläpp till UNFCCC behöver riktlinjerna och CRF-tabellerna förbättras. De oklara och svårtolkade instruktionerna kring lagring, infångning och "recovery" av CO2 i IPCC:s metodriktlinjer behöver förtydligas. För att kunna beräkna negativa utsläpp i framtiden måste Sverige inrätta ett datainsamlingssystem som t.ex. täcker infångning och lagring av biogen CO2. Detta skulle kunna ske via EU:s system för handel med utsläppsrätter (ETS), PRTR eller nationella undersökningar. För att möjliggöra uppföljning av nationella mål för minskade utsläpp av växthusgaser bör Sverige skapa ett system för datainsamling och beräkningar av negativa emissioner, även om UNFCCC: s riktlinjer och rapporteringstabeller inte förbättras. Det kan tänkas att EU tar initiativ och skapar ett rapporteringssystem som inkluderar negativa emissioner dit EU:s medlemsstater ska rapportera. Detta kan komma att behövas för att EU ska kunna följa upp sina mål. Sverige skulle kunna rapportera information om negativa utsläpp till UNFCCC i den svenska NIR:en (National Inventory Report) även om data inte kan rapporteras i CRF-tabellerna. Regler för bokföring av negativa utsläpp i förhållande till rapporterade CO2-utsläpp från fossila bränslen behöverförhandlas fram inom UNFCCC. Utsläppen från förbränning av svartlut i massa- och pappersindustrin, som för närvarande rapporteras i sektorn IPPU (Industrial Processes and Product Use), bör flyttas till energisektorn för att förbättra transparens och fullständighet irapporteringen av biogena CO2-utsläpp. Den svenska rapporteringen av biogena CO2-utsläpp i de årliga inventeringarna till UNFCCC kan förbättras ytterligare genom att jämföra med data från den svenska PRTR-rapporteringen (SMP, Svenska MiljörapporteringsPortalen). Rutiner behövs för att säkerställa att det inte uppstår någondubbelräkning eller utelämnande av utsläpp i den svenska rapporteringen till UNFCCC i de fall där CO2 fångas i en bransch och används i en annan (CCU), t.ex. till kolsyrade drycker eller i växthus. Om CO2 fångas in i ett land och exporteras för lagring i ett annat land är det landet som fångat in CO2 som rapporterar infångade mängder (och eventuella negativa emissioner), medan landet som lagrar den CO2 som exporterats rapporterar lagrad mängd. Någon form av överenskommelse bör göras mellan de två länderna, t.ex. i form av ett skrivet avtal som innefattar regelbundet utbyte av data för kontroll och harmonisering av rapporteringen.

In a group of countries like the European Union all countries seek to achieve their national CO2 emissions target by a joint emissions trading scheme covering some part of their economies (trading sector) and by a national emissions tax in the rest of their economies (nontrading sector). Applicable are also emissions taxes overlapping with the trading scheme that can either be freely chosen or are inert. Welfare-maximizing governments determine tax rates and the tradable-permits budget. It is shown that efficiency requires not to levy overlapping emissions taxes and to set the tax rate in the nontrading sector equal to the permit price. In the small-country case emissions control turns out to be efficient if tax rates in the trading sector are flexible. Otherwise it is second-best to violate cost effectiveness and to choose an excessive endowment of tradable permits. If countries are large and optimal tariffs cannot be applied, emissions taxes or subsidies (!) are shown to serve as a perfect surrogate; efficiency cannot be attained unless there is a central authority mandating cost effectiveness and banning overlapping taxes. Fiscal externalities are specified and the countries' welfare in the large and small country case is compared.

This paper uses a dynamic general equilibrium model with overlapping generations in order to analyse and to compare emissions taxes and tradeable emissions permits. Even in the context of a perfect environment, i.e. with perfect information, perfect competition…, it is shown that privately owned emissions permits have some disadvantages. An equilibrium with emissions permits would certainly be better than a laissez‐faire equilibrium since it would entail a lower pollution level. However, it is far from clear that an economy with pollution permits would be preferable over an economy with emissions taxes. While in both cases pollution would be lower, growth would be higher in an economy with emissions taxes. This is because emissions permits divert saving from 'productive' resources and have a negative impact on capital accumulation. This happens whatever the way emissions taxes are redistributed.

Market-based solutions to environmental problems offer great promise, but require complex public policies that take into account the many institutional factors necessary for the market to work and that guard against the social forces that can derail good public policies. Using insights about markets from the new institutional economics, this book sheds light on the institutional history of the emissions trading concept as it has evolved across different contexts. It makes accessible the policy design and practical implementation aspects of a key tool for fighting climate change: emissions t.