Abstract
This paper evaluates the effects of carbon emission mitigation options from a long-range perspective using an integrated assessment model called MARIA (Multiregional Approach for Resource and Industry Allocation). This model has been developed to assess the potential contribution of fossil, biomass, nuclear, and other energy technologies and land-use changes to future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions incorporating a simple carbon cycle and climate change model. Two types of policy options play major roles in the GHG mitigation debate; short-term economic instruments and long-term technological options. This paper describes how the model was applied to assess carbon emission stabilization options and strategies based on narrative storylines. The main focus is the long-term assessments of biomass utilization, nuclear power technologies, and carbon sequestration options for stabilizing the atmospheric carbon concentration at 450, 550, and 650ppmv. The results indicate that zero-carbon technologies such as the fast breeder reactor and carbon sequestration technologies can make a significant contribution toward emissions mitigation especially when drastic reductions are envisaged, but the “nuclear phasing out” scenario is still possible. Expansion of biomass appears to be robust.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcamo J, Leemans R, Kreileman F (1998) Global change scenarios of the 21st Century Results from the IMAGE2.1 model. Elseviers Science, London, UK
Edmonds JA, Pitcher HM, Rosenberg NJ, Wigley TML (1993) Design for the Global Change Assessment Model GCAM. IIASA Workshop on Integrated Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change, Oct. 13,1993, Laxenburg, Austria
Edmonds J, Reilly J (1983) A long-term global energy economic model of carbon dioxide release from fossil use. Energy Economics 4:21–47
Fujii Y (1993) The evaluation of CO2 mitigation options in energy systems. Tokyo University Ph.D. Thesis
Hagan R (1998) The future of nuclear power in Asia. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy 8(1):9–22
IPCC (1992) Houghton JT, Callander BA, Vamey SK (eds), Climate change 1992: The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Camridge, UK
IPCC (1994) Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, et al. (eds), Radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
IPCC (1995) Economic and social dimensions of climate change—Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Manne AS, Mendelsohn R, Richels R (1993) MERGE—A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. IIASA Workshop on Integrated Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change, Oct. 13, 1993, Laxenburg, Austria
Manne AS, Richels RG (1992) Buying greenhouse insurance. The MIT Press, Cambridge, US
Mori S (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions scenarios using an extension of MARIA model for the assessment of resource and energy technologies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change (Special issue)
Mori S, Takahashi M (1999) An integrated assessment model for the evaluation of new energy technologies and food productivity”. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 11:1–18
Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons. The MIT Press, Cambridge, US
Peck SC, Teisherg TC (1992) The importance of non-linearlities in global warming damage costs International Workshop on Costs, Impacts and Possible Benefits of CO2 Mitigation, 1992 (IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria)
Rogner H-H (1997) An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 22:217–262
Weyant JP (ed) (1999) The cost of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. The Energy Journal (Special issue)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Mori, S. Effects of carbon emission mitigation options under carbon concentration stabilization scenarios. Environ Econ Policy Stud 3, 125–142 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03354033
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03354033