Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement

Abstract

Following the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change1, governments will negotiate, in Kyoto this December, an agreement to mitigate anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions. Here we use a model approach to examine optimal CO2-emission abatement paths for specified long-term constraints on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Our analysis highlights the interplay of uncertainty (in target greenhouse-gas concentrations) and the inertia in the energy systems that produce CO2 emissions. We find that the ‘integrated assessment’ models previously applied to these issues under-represent inertia. A more appropriate representation of inertia increases the costs of deferring abatement and makes it optimal to spread the effort of abatement across generations. Balancing the costs of early action against the potentially higher costs of more rapid and forced later action, we show that early attention to the carbon-emitting potential of new and replacement energy investments will minimize the risk to environmental and economic systems. We conclude that if there is a significant probability of having to maintain atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below about double those of the pre-industrial era, then the economic risks associated with deferring abatement justify starting to limit CO2 emissions from energy systems immediately.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link

Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Optimal pathways under a given stabilization constant.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (1992). http://www.unfccc.de/index.html.

  2. IPCC Working Group III Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions (Cambridge Univ. Press, (1996).

  3. Hoeller, P., Dean, A. & Hayafui, M. New Issues, New Results: The OECD's Second Survey of Macroeconomic Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions(OECD Economic Department Working Paper no. 123, Paris, (1992)).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Grubb, M. J., Chapuis, T. & Ha-Duong, M. The economics of changing course: implications of adaptability and inertia for optimal climate policy. Energy Policy 23, 417–432 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alcamo, J. & Kreilman, E. Emission scenarios and global climate protection. Global Env. Change 6, 305–335 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Enting, I. G. Analysing the conflicting requirements of the framework convention on climate change. Clim. Change 31, 5–18 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Toth, F. L., Bruckner, T., Füssel, H.-M., Leimbach, M. & Petschel-Helld, G. The Tolerable Window Approach to Integrated Assessments(IPCC Asia-Pacific Workshop on Integrated Assessment Models, 10–12 March 1997, Tokyo).

  8. Nordhaus, W. D. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (1994)).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Manne, A. S. & Richels, R. G. Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Cost of CO2 Emissions Limits(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (1992)).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Andere, J., Haefele, W., Nakicenovic, N. & McDonald, A. Energy in a Finite World(Ballinger, Cambridge MA, (1981)).

    Google Scholar 

  11. IPCC Working Group I Stabilization of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, BiologicalandSocio-economicImplication (IPCC Technical Paper III, (1997).

  12. Wigley, T. M. L., Richels, R. & Edmonds, J. A. Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379, 240–243 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hammit, J. K., Lempert, J. R. & Schlesinger, M. E. Asequential-decision strategy for abating climate change. Nature 357, 315–318 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Enting, I. G., Wigley, T. M. L. & Heimann, M. Future Emissions and Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide: Key Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Analyses(Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO, Australia, (1994)). ftp://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pub/db1009/.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grubb, M. Technologies, energy systems and the timing of CO2 abatement: an overview of economic issues. Energy Policy 25, 159–172 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the CNRS, ADEME, the French Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Education and Research for supporting the Oïkia Programme, and to Shell, BP, Amerada Hess and Ashland Oil for supporting the Belgrave Fellowship of RIIA's Energy and Environmental Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ha-Duong, M., Grubb, M. & Hourcade, JC. Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390, 270–273 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/36825

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/36825

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing