The scale of human activities has grown to the point that they affect the Earth's global biogeochemical cycles. The concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane have risen to levels that exceed any observations over very long periods. For CO2 present concentrations exceed observed values over the past 400,000 to 23 million years (Houghton et al. 2001). Fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions are chiefly, but not exclusively, associated with the increase in concentration of CO2.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC; United Nations 1992) has as its goal the stabilization of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate. Achieving that goal implies that a future in which emissions of greenhouse gases lead to higher-than-acceptable concentrations be superseded by one in which fossil-fuel CO2 emissions peak and then decline and in which non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are limited to acceptable levels. The implications of this goal are enormous for industry, infrastructure, mobility, and energy.
To the extent that policy intervention is necessary to achieve this end, costs will be incurred.1 Measuring the cost of limiting greenhouse gas emissions is a nontrivial undertaking. In addition to the usual definitional questions of what cost is being measured, for example, average, marginal, or total, there are additional complexities. Methodological issues abound. Metz et al. (2001) addressed many of these issues, though quantification remains a matter of significant uncertainty.
One issue that is addressed in Hourcade et al. (2001) is the question of ancillary benefits of emissions mitigation policies. Interest in this issue dates at least to the mid-1990s
(Pitcher et al. 1995). Hourcade et al. (2001) paid particular attention to interactions between climate policy and local air quality. Here the imposition of a value on carbon leads to reductions in the use of fossil fuels, which are also associated with emissions of non-CO2 gases such as CO, SO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM). In general, an ancillary policy benefit occurs whenever a policy established to address one problem improves, as an ancillary consequence, the state of another problem.
More recently, studies have begun to examine the converse question: What are the climate benefits of local air-quality policies? (See, for example, Joh 2002 or Shelby 2002.) These studies offer estimates of the implications for CO2 emissions of noncli-mate environmental policies. In fact, it is the pursuit of other goals that leads to the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the SRES B1, A1, and A1T scenarios (Nakicenovic and Swart 2000). In the B1 scenario, it is the aggressive pursuit of local and regional air-quality objectives that leads to a peak and subsequent decline in fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Similarly, it is the pursuit of economic growth through investments in technology that has similar consequences in the A1 and A1T scenarios.
The general proposition is that policies have impacts that extend beyond their initial focus. These impacts can be either beneficial or costly. This chapter will consider the broader problem of the ancillary consequences of climate policies and suggest that an appropriately formulated policy mix is impossible without explicit, simultaneous, dynamic consideration of the full suite of environmental problems.
In principle, the identification of an "optimal" policy for both climate and local air quality must be determined simultaneously. Operationally, this is never the case. The problem is complexity and scale. Temporal and spatial scales relevant to formulating local air-quality policy are fundamentally different from the temporal and spatial scales associated with formulating climate policy. Local air quality is associated with timescales that are short in comparison to the climate question. Local air-quality issues engage modeling systems that are of a similar complexity to climate systems. While temporal and special scales may overlap at the margin, modeling systems that span the full temporal and spatial scales relevant to both questions do not yet exist and are not likely to come into being in the near term.
The consistent treatment of abatement costs and benefits of greenhouse and non-greenhouse emissions presents important methodological challenges. Constructing an analysis from a set of heterogeneous and potentially inconsistent sources can compromise the integrity of the analysis.2 Though the present state of the art relevant to formulating simultaneous climate and local air-quality policies provides grounds for pessimism, this state of affairs should not be assumed to be permanent. It was not long ago that the integration of models relevant to climate change seemed an impossible task.
Even in the realm of climate policy, models that address the full range of policy issues are at a relatively primitive state of development. Although most of this chapter focuses on the question of policies to address emissions mitigation, it is good to recall at the outset that a much broader set of policies affect climate change. These can be grouped into at least four major categories:
• emissions mitigation,
• technology development (for both mitigation and adaptation),
• reducing scientific uncertainty.
Though the primary focus of this chapter is on the control of greenhouse gas emissions, strategies within the other categories also have potential ancillary consequences. For example, the development of technologies for a hydrogen-based transportation system would have ancillary consequences for local and regional air quality, among many other things.3
The extent and nature of ancillary effects of a greenhouse gas emissions policy depend on a variety of factors, including (1) the nature of the pollutant, (2) the policy environment, (3) the technology associated with the emission and emission control options, and (4) system responses.
The nature of the pollutant itself can affect the degree to which there are ancillary benefits to a policy intervention. Banning the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had no direct effect on other pollutants. And yet CFCs have two natures. In their life as an atmospheric constituent, they act as a greenhouse gas. When they dissociate, they become an ozone-depleting substance. The motivation for banning the production of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol was primarily to protect stratospheric ozone. Yet there was an ancillary climate benefit.
From this perspective, sulfur emissions raise some thorny problems. They are a greenhouse-related emission in their own right, though their principal association is with acid deposition. They can be coproduced with CO2 emissions. Unlike CO2, their net effect in the atmosphere is likely to cool the surface. Their direct plus indirect effect is potentially large but highly uncertain. Their atmospheric residence time is extremely short compared with CO2. And there is no established procedure for comparing their emission with that of CO2. To the extent that control of CO2 results in reductions of sulfur emissions, there is an ancillary benefit associated with reduced acid-precursor emissions and an ancillary cost associated with increased radiative forcing.
Reductions in fossil-fuel carbon emissions may have different consequences under different technology and policy environments. For example, it is generally assumed that a policy that reduces carbon emissions reduces aerosol and particulate emissions. Yet if such a policy were applied to the utility sector, where sulfur emissions were controlled in a "cap and trade" regime, reductions in CO2 emissions that resulted in lower fossil-fuel use would have little effect on aerosol production.
The policy background will vary over both time and place. Over time, controls over conventional pollutants have grown broader and tighter. Emissions that were once considered to be unavoidable or even benign by-products of the production process have come under controls. Power plant emissions of PM came under control early, followed by emissions of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. In general, controls on greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 will have a correspondingly smaller effect when local pollution is already tightly controlled. Improvements in local air quality will therefore likely be greater in those regimes in which relatively little control is exercised over emissions of local pollutants, though the precise interaction depends entirely on the nature of the policy regime.
This principle can be generalized to underscore the importance of the baseline. Results will be highly dependent on the circumstances defined by baseline assumptions. Reference emissions of both greenhouse and local air-quality pollutants will play a central role in determining the measured benefits and costs associated with any policy intervention.
The Technology of Emissions and Emissions Control Options
Clearly, a climate mitigation or conventional pollutant abatement policy is affected by the very nature of the technology associated with the emission. Power plants have a different set of characteristics associated with their operation than a passenger automobile. Each sector, subsector, and technology can be expected to have its own unique profile. Policies that attempt to control emissions through control of the emission's activity level will have one profile of emissions mitigation and ancillary impacts. Consider the hypothetical example of a tax on cattle to reduce methane emissions. Reducing the herd size would result in, among other things, reducing nitrogen emissions also associated with cattle production. The entire premise of ancillary benefits is predicated on the observation that control technologies for one emission will result in the control of other emissions. For example, to the extent that carbon emissions from cars are controlled by higher-efficiency motors, generally lower local air-pollution emissions will also ensue.
Economic and energy systems are highly intertwined. It is virtually impossible to make a change in the operation of one sector and not see accommodating changes in other parts of the system. From the perspective of pollution, these changes can amplify the original change, dampen it, or even reverse it.
As the scale of the policy intervention increases, the value of changes in the ancillary activity also changes. Just as the marginal cost of emissions mitigation might be expected to rise as the most attractive options for mitigation are exhausted, leaving increasingly difficult reductions, the degree of ancillary benefit might decline as the ancillary activity is reduced in scale. Initial improvements in local air quality tend to have higher benefits than later reductions. The assumption of constant marginal benefits, often used in studies of ancillary benefits, is dubious for nonmarginal changes in local ancillary emissions.
The discussion of ancillary consequences of a policy to control greenhouse gas emissions usually focuses on pollutants. Still, one of the most important ancillary consequences of a policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions is the economic cost of the pol-icy—that is, the aggregate value of the resources that must be obtained from other sectors of the economy to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions mitigation objective. Schelling (1996) has argued, for example, that for developing countries the benefits from economic growth are more valuable than the potential benefits from a moderation of climate change.
The implementation of environmental policies can have other effects as well. They require implementation, and for societies for which institutions are still being developed, the implementation of a policy affecting as pervasive a commodity as energy requires institutions capable of monitoring verification and enforcement. A potentially important ancillary benefit to the implementation of the policy could be institution building.
Institutions play another important role. They determine the efficiency with which a policy is implemented. To the extent that institutions are poorly developed and policy implementation is incomplete, costs will be higher and benefits lower. Even in a world in which institutions are well defined, the nature and role of institutions can affect both costs and benefits. For example, in a world in which clean development mechanism (CDM) credits are traded internationally, the value of ancillary benefits can affect both the supply of and demand for emissions mitigation.
Kaya (1989) argued that emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could be usefully thought of as the product of population, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), energy intensity of GDP, and carbon intensity. Each of these four elements could, in principle, be the object of policy intervention to address CO2 emissions.
It is difficult to imagine that policies to control either the number of persons in a society or the aggregate scale of economic activity would have climate change as their primary motivation. If such were the case, however, ancillary consequences would be pervasive. Some governments have argued that demographic policies, though not initially founded on the motivation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have nonetheless had a more profound effect than explicit climate policies in Annex I nations. The expe rience of the Russian Federation stands as a stark example of the implications of CO2 emissions reductions by means of GDP decline.
A global energy system, consistent with increasing standards of living around the world, and an associated expansion in the demand for energy services will invariably be larger than the present system. Achieving the goal of the FCCC at concentrations of 750 parts per million (ppm) or lower means that the primary mechanisms by which the expanded provision of energy services is to be accomplished cannot simply be the expanded use of fossil fuels with freely vented carbon dioxide. While carbon can continue to be emitted throughout the century, stabilizing the concentration of CO2 at 750 ppm or lower requires that emissions peak and then decline indefinitely thereafter. Such circumstances require the expanded deployment of some or all of the following classes of energy technology:
• energy intensity improvements
• low-carbon fossil fuels, such as methane or carbon capture and disposal
• renewables, such as wind and solar
• nuclear power (fission and fusion)
The control of greenhouse gas emissions and, in particular, CO2 emissions will likely lead to the expanded scale of some or all of these technology classes.
A variety of ancillary consequences is likely, as these technologies expand their scale of activity. In many cases these potential consequences are complex, including both ancillary benefits and costs. The only technologies without ancillary consequences are those that have not yet been deployed at scale.
Improvements in energy intensity, the ratio of energy consumption to some measure of product such as GDP, result from improvements in energy efficiency in end-use devices, as well as changes in the relative and absolute composition of energy-consuming activities. Improvement in energy efficiency occurs when the amount of energy required to provide a specific energy service declines.
Most improvements in energy efficiency bring with them improvements in all aspects of the energy service. They are driven by the forces of technology improvement and find their way into use via economic forces. Energy efficiency is generally not purchased at the cost of forgoing energy services. Improvements in energy intensity will have both proximate effects and pervasive effects. Direct effects through energy efficiency improvements will depend on the specific technology changes. Direct effects through changes in the composition of energy-using activities will have other and different effects. Indirect effects, other things being constant, would have pervasive ancillary consequences because they imply generally smaller energy supply, transformation, transport, and storage.
The direct consequences of changes in energy technology may be complex and difficult to measure. Consider, for example, improvements in energy efficiency in passenger transportation achieved via a reduction in the weight of the vehicle. The energy required to create the frame of an automobile may decline as the result of the substitution of newer, lighter materials for steel, and to the extent that the energy is associated with emissions of local and regional air pollutants, this change implies a net benefit. But the ancillary consequences can be still richer. For example, improving fuel economy in cars by reducing size and weight could result in either reduced or enhanced automotive service. For example, if the transportation service were provided by a smaller vehicle, the total transport service might be reduced because the smaller vehicle may provide less space and reduced structural resilience and safety. The development of advanced technologies could require exotic materials. The increased presence of exotic and heavy metals can themselves cause problems. For example, the development of more efficient transformers resulted in greater deployment of PCBs. On the other hand a smaller, lighter vehicle might be more maneuverable, provide extended range between fueling, and reduce overall vehicle cost, and the employment of new materials and designs could increase structural resilience. To the extent that the service provided by the non-emitting technology is different from the service provided by the technology it replaces, ancillary benefits and costs are created. A lower cost in the provision of transportation services, as measured by financial costs per passenger distance, can be enhanced or offset by nonfinancial costs associated with time commitments on the part of the vehicle driver.
Not all fossil fuels release the same amount of carbon per unit energy. Natural gas releases less carbon per unit energy than oil, which in turn releases less than coal. A variety of options exist to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by substituting one fossil fuel for another. Expanding the use of natural gas in substitution for other fossil fuels could have a variety of ancillary effects. First, because methane is a generally cleaner fuel than oil or coal, it can reduce the emission of local air pollutants, including PM, hydrocarbons, and sulfur. On the other hand, increased leakage from the natural gas transport and distribution system could introduce additional methane into the atmosphere, also a potent greenhouse gas. Expanding the use of natural gas significantly would require the construction of land-based transportation infrastructure. Natural gas pipelines are generally considered to convey a disadvantage to those through whose neighborhoods they pass. They bring some risk of blowouts and leakage and above-ground are visually unattractive. Furthermore, the transport of liquefied natural gas introduces a potential environmental and health risk through the vessels and storage systems. The high energy density of liquid natural gas could result in a spectacular discharge in the event of accident or sabotage.
Another potential technological response to incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the capture and disposal of carbon from the combustion of hydrocarbons.
The availability of such technology would enable fossil fuels to continue to be used while limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Preliminary analysis indicates that, depending on the cost of the systems, cumulative capture could be in the range of 100 to 300 PgC. Such quantities are wholly unprecedented. While carbon is presently captured for industrial purposes, the scale of current operations is three orders of magnitude smaller than these quantities.
The prospect of such scale raises a large number of concerns, including many questions of ancillary consequences. For example, it will be important to consider the health effects of shipments of CO2 from capture to disposal sites. While CO2 is presently shipped long distances, the scale of transport could become far greater in the future. Poor design of transport systems could cause ancillary damage. It will be important to monitor disposal sites to ensure that subterranean migration of CO2 is monitored and that no unmonitored discharges occur. On the other hand, obtaining CO2 from waste gas streams requires relatively clean exhaust gas, with the conventional pollutants removed. To the extent that the capture of CO2 results in lower conventional pollutants, its deployment could have classic ancillary benefits.
Renewable energy has long been attractive as a vehicle for energy production without concurrent greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it involves no or limited risks from conventional pollutants, a clear ancillary benefit. Yet, as the scale of renewable technologies increases, issues may arise. Wind power, for example, provides electric power without either conventional pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions in cost have accelerated its deployment in the market. Yet with greater scale of deployment, a variety of unanticipated ancillary effects have come to the fore. Wind towers have been criticized for their noise, visual pollution, "ugliness," and avian impacts. Reliable mechanisms to prevent bird kills are still under development. Excellent wind sites have been abandoned in the United States for aesthetic reasons. Yet just as traditional fossil energy technologies have changed and adapted to address unintended consequences, especially pollution, renewable energy technology expansion can be expected to show a similar adaptive resilience.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) cells could meet similar reactions if deployed in large, standalone arrays. Deployed at a scale to deliver a significant fraction of an expanded global energy system, these arrays could simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution by reducing the use of fossil fuels, a classic ancillary benefit. They also represent a significant land use with major consequences for local ecosystems, with potential for ancillary damage.
Just as for wind, this is unlikely to be the end of the story. Other deployment strategies are likely to evolve to mitigate undesirable effects. For example, deployed as part of building materials, PV arrays could provide power while utilizing the same land surface area as the infrastructure it serves. Yet the efficiency of collection would doubtless suffer, and the efficiency of power would be lower than power provided by a structure whose primary function was power generation. But if the cost of collection were sufficiently low, such arrays could, nevertheless, be deployed widely. The development of new technologies to be used at a large scale requires consideration of effects that are unimportant or trivial at small scales.
Growing crops for their energy content is not a new idea. The first human use of energy employed the use of material of biological origin, such as sticks, dung, or straw. Traditional biomass fuels are not systematically produced. They are themselves byproducts of some other activity. The supply either comes from nature (e.g., detritus or deforestation) or is a by-product of some other, controlling activity (animal waste, crop residues). Biomass fuels are generally employed with little or no processing. To the extent that population and natural production rates are in harmony, the employment of this energy form has only a modest direct effect on land use or ecosystems. It may, however, have a significant impact on indoor and local air quality. The environmental and health effects of traditional biomass are many, varied, and interconnected. To the extent that population and natural production rates are inconsistent, demands for traditional biomass fuels can imply significant pressure on local ecosystems or global deforestation, a major source of net carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Globally, the per capita use of traditional biomass continues to decline.
By contrast, modern commercial biomass is produced by cropping. It employs modern agricultural methods and could potentially expand to encompass a major fraction of managed lands. This eventuality could have profound consequences for land use. Several changes could follow in the wake of this development. Because the quality and extent of land resources are fixed, the introduction of biomass crops could imply a significant new farming activity. This in turn would imply an increased demand for managed lands. The increased demand for managed lands would, in turn, exert upward pressure on the value of land and the price of all land-utilizing products, including food, fiber, pastured cattle, and forest products. The increased value of land would invariably encourage the utilization of land not yet managed or, alternatively, slow the return of managed lands to unmanaged states. The significance of these effects will depend, to a substantial degree, on the rate of productivity growth in crops and other land-utilizing activities. Faster rates of productivity growth can be expected to lessen the adverse consequences, allowing continued reductions in the cost of food and fiber, continued improvements in human health and nutrition, and reduced pressure on unmanaged ecosystems. To the extent that historical rates of productivity growth are associated with the increased application of fertilizer to crops, the potential for productivity increases in the future may be limited, particularly in presently high-productivity settings, and may have implications for air and water resources. Advances in the biological sciences could prove useful in maintaining the rate of future productivity growth. But, genetically modified (GM) crops are not universally popular. Opposition to the deployment of GM technology cites the prospect for a variety of unintended and undesired consequences, ranging from irreversible modifications to unmanaged ecosystems to undesired health effects.4
Nuclear power has the attractive property of not emitting greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the process of producing electricity. Yet, the expanded deployment of nuclear power from fission reactors faces several challenges, most of which are associated with ancillary consequences. These include health and safety, weapons proliferation, and waste disposal. In addition, nuclear energy, like all energy technologies, must meet the test of the market. It must be able to provide power in a cost-competitive manner. In a greenhouse-constrained world, nuclear's lack of GHG emissions could be rewarded relative to competing technologies with net emissions, though not relative to nonemitting technologies. The magnitude and even existence of such a relative advantage is, however, completely dependent on the policy environment.
The ancillary issues facing nuclear power are nontrivial. Health and safety have always been matters of concern to the industry, and despite its comparatively favorable record in aggregate, major accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and other lesser events leave the question of health and safety as acute as ever. The potential for intentional misuse of nuclear fuels in the form of weapons is another issue. As the use of nuclear power grows, so too does the volume of nuclear materials to be protected and the prospect for a disastrous event. The deployment of fast-breeder reactor technology could magnify the problem by introducing potentially large volumes of weapons-grade fuels into circulation. The creation of nuclear waste is yet another ancillary consequence of the expanded deployment of nuclear technology. Technical strategies for addressing this issue exist, though "not in my back yard" (NIMBY) reactions to the establishment of long-term disposal sites persist.
The attraction of hydrogen is obvious. It is an energy carrier whose by-product emissions are limited to water vapor.5 Hydrogen can be employed in a variety of machines, including furnaces, engines, and fuel cells. Significant deployment raises a variety of questions about the nature of the production and delivery systems. Because hydrogen is not a primary energy form, it requires input of some other primary energy. Hydrocarbons—oil, gas, coal, or biomass—contain hydrogen and can be used as feed stocks to produce hydrogen for other applications. Hydrocarbons also contain carbon, which potentially could be released into the atmosphere unless that carbon can be collected and disposed in a way that permanently isolates it from the atmosphere. The exception is, of course, biomass, having derived its carbon from the atmosphere in the first place. If its carbon is captured and permanently isolated from the atmosphere, its use constitutes a negative net emission. But each of these primary energy forms has both ancillary benefits and costs. Hydrogen can also be produced by electrolysis, splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Again, however, the question arises as to the source of the electricity. Each of the potential producers of electricity has its own set of ancillary consequences. Furthermore, the hydrogen infrastructure question will doubtless have ancillary effects. Transport and storage will entail significant infrastructure requirements, and the creation of that infrastructure may bring its own set of issues. Health and safety concerns have been raised. With hydrogen as a major fuel, potentially significant water vapor will be created locally. If captured, this could be an ancillary benefit, particularly in places where water is scarce. On the other hand, the implication of large-scale consumption of H2 for local atmospheric oxidization capacity is unknown.
The simple conclusion of this essay is that the implementation of policies to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gases will have ancillary consequences—both benefits and costs. This is the inevitable implication of attempting to solve a multi-attribute control problem piecemeal. Piecemeal solutions work only with the simplest of problems or at the smallest of scales, and climate and local pollution problems are neither simple nor small in scale.
The research reported in this chapter was made possible in part by support from the Integrated Assessment program in the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, and by EPRI. I am further indebted to many people, whose comments and suggestions have served to improve the chapter, including Liz Malone, Charlette Geffen, John Clarke, Jim Dooley, Gerry Stokes, Rich Richels, and John Weyant. I retain responsibility for any remaining errors of opinion or fact.
1. For concentrations ranging from 350 ppm to 750 ppm, stabilization of the concentration of CO2 requires an emissions peak in the 21st century. Stabilization of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere may or may not require policy intervention. Under some circumstances stabilization occurs as a consequence of the pursuit of other, nonclimate goals. For example, three of the six marker scenarios in Nakicenovic and Swart (2000), the SRES B1, A1, and A1T scenarios, are consistent with stabilization of CO2 concentrations. For these scenarios, the pursuit of nonclimate goals has consequences for climate change. The converse can also occur. That is, the pursuit of climate change policies can have nonclimate consequences.
2. See the IPCC treatment of SO2 benefits and costs, Chapter 8, Metz et al. (2001).
3. In addition, the mix of strategies would be expected to evolve over time. Strategies that play a supporting role in the near term may well move to center stage in the long term.
4. Similarly, dilemmas confront the development of rice strains that produce lower methane release, as they entail change in either the rice strain planted and/or cultural norms. Fewer concerns attend GM cattle, which could conceivably be introduced to reduce ruminant methane emissions.
5. While water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the scale of emission associated with even large-scale deployment in the global energy system is presently thought to be of insufficient magnitude to affect global biogeochemical processes.
Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, I! J. van der Linden, and D. Xiaosu, eds. 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hourcade, J.-C., P. R. Shukla, L. Cifuentes, D. Davis, J. Edmonds, B. Fisher, E. Fortin, A. Golub, O. Hohmeyer, A. Krupnick, S. Kverndokk, R. Loulou, R. Richels, H. Segen-ovic, and K. Yamaji. 2001. Global, regional, and national costs and ancillary benefits of mitigation. Pp. 499—559 in Climate change 2001: Mitigation (Contribution of Working Group III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), edited by B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joh, S. 2002. Hybrid top-down and bottom-up modeling approach to integrated climate change and air quality strategies in Korea. Paper presented to Sino-Korea-U.S. Economic and Environmental Modeling Workshop, Beijing, November 7-8. Kaya, Y. 1989. Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: Interpretation of proposed scenarios. Presentation to the Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Paris, France. Metz, B., O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan, eds. 2001. Climate change 2001: Mitigation (Contribution ofWorking Group III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nakicenovic, N., and R. Swart, eds. 2000. Emissions scenarios (Special report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pitcher, H. M., C. MacCracken, S. Kim, M. Wise, R. Sands, E. Malone, K. Fisher-Van-den, and J. Edmonds. 1995. Ancillary benefits of stabilizing CO2 emissions: Conventional air pollutants. DE-AC06-76L001831, DE-AC06-76L001830. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and for the U.S. Department of Energy. Schelling, T. C. 1996. The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Climatic Change 33:303-307.
Shelby, M. 2002. The ancillary carbon benefits of SO2 reductions from a small-boiler policy in Taiyuan, China. Paper presented to Sino-Korea-U.S. Economic and Environmental Modeling Workshop, Beijing, November 7-8. United Nations. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York.
Was this article helpful?
Do we really want the one thing that gives us its resources unconditionally to suffer even more than it is suffering now? Nature, is a part of our being from the earliest human days. We respect Nature and it gives us its bounty, but in the recent past greedy money hungry corporations have made us all so destructive, so wasteful.