Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 81 items for :

  • "EU emission" x
Clear All
Mr. Nicolas Arregui, Ms. Ruo Chen, Mr. Christian H Ebeke, Jan-Martin Frie, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Andreas Jobst, Louise Rabier, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, and Mr. Sebastian Weber

additional carbon pricing of industrial emissions at a national level. Free allowances granted to certain industries in the ETS should be gradually phased out, and a carefully designed carbon border adjustment mechanism can be considered to prevent reductions in EU emissions being reflected in higher emissions abroad. Higher carbon prices would also make support schemes, including subsidies, for renewable power unnecessary. And where the carbon prices needed to incentivize investments would be unfeasibly high, revenue-neutral instruments such as feebates can be considered

Mr. Nicolas Arregui, Ms. Ruo Chen, Mr. Christian H Ebeke, Jan-Martin Frie, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Andreas Jobst, Louise Rabier, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, and Mr. Sebastian Weber

products with above-average emission rates and a sliding scale of rebates for products with below-average emission rates. 1 Since emissions from land use related to agriculture represent the largest component of emissions from land use land use change, forestry, and fisheries, the share of agriculture increases to 12 percent if these are included in total EU emissions. However, attributing forestry, which is emission-negative, to agriculture would substantially reduce the emissions from the sector. 2 Livestock density is associated with pressure on the

Mr. Nicolas Arregui, Ms. Ruo Chen, Mr. Christian H Ebeke, Jan-Martin Frie, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Andreas Jobst, Louise Rabier, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, and Mr. Sebastian Weber
This paper discusses sectoral policies needed to achieve the ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets announced in the European Union’s Green Deal, complementing the companion paper “EU Climate Mitigation Policy”, which focuses on broader EU-level policies. With total emissions nearly a quarter below their 1990 level, the EU has made important progress, but the new goals will require much stronger policy action. Moreover, progress has varied across sectors. Emissions from power and industry have fallen by about a third, buildings by a quarter and agriculture by a fifth – while transport emissions have risen. This paper argues that this divergence reflects differences in effective carbon prices, but also cost differences among the available abatement channels, market imperfections, and policy gaps. It discusses specific sectoral policies needed to address these factors and achieve the new emissions reduction goals.
Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender

relative to 2020. For the rest of scenarios, these variables are expressed as percentage point differences with respect to “Unchanged policies” in 2030. Carbon leakage is defined as the emission increase in the rest of the world relative to the decline in EU emissions. Cross-country standard deviations are calculated over the percentage impact in each scenario relative to the baseline. The renewable share is computed over energy production but excludes most of the energy produced by biofuels and biomass, which makes the share smaller than the value reported by Eurostat

Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender
This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the choice of policies to reach the more ambitious 2030 emission reduction goals currently under consideration. It provides an analysis of the macroeconomic and distributional impacts of different options to scale up the mitigation effort, and proposes enhancements to the existing EU policies. A key finding is that a well-designed package, consisting of more extensive carbon pricing across EU countries and sectors, combined with cuts in distortionary taxes and targeted green investment support, would allow the EU to reach the emission goals with practically no effects on aggregate income. To enhance the social and political acceptance of climate policies, part of the revenue from carbon pricing should be used to compensate the most vulnerable households and to support the transition of workers to greener jobs. A carbon border adjustment mechanism could complement the package to avoid an increase in emissions outside the EU due to higher carbon prices in the EU (“carbon leakage”). From a risk-reward perspective, the benefits of reducing the risk of extreme life-threatening climate events and the health benefits from lower air pollution clearly outweigh the costs of mitigation policies.
Mr. Jiaqian Chen, Maksym Chepeliev, Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia, Ms. Dora M Iakova, Mr. James Roaf, Ms. Anna Shabunina, Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Mr. Philippe Wingender

objective, and set out a roadmap for developing the required policies. A more stringent intermediate objective of at least 50 percent for 2030 will also be considered. Significant further effort would be needed to reach these more ambitious targets. According to the European Environment Agency, under current policies, EU emission would only fall by 33 percent in 2030 relative to 1990 ( Figure 3 ). 1 The Green Deal also maps out a comprehensive plan to mobilize green investment and to provide financial support for the most affected individuals, businesses, and regions to