A global study of the size and cost of measures
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions yields important
insights for businesses and policy makers.
The debate about greenhouse gases is heating
up. Across a wide spectrum, some voices argue that
emissions and climate aren’t linked, while others urge
immediate concerted global action to reduce the flow
of emissions into the atmosphere. Even the
advocates of action disagree about timing, goals,
and means. Despite the controversy, one thing is
certain: any form of intensified regulation would have
profound implications for business.
- A study of the relative economics of different
approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
offers surprising insights for policy makers and
business leaders.
- For starters, in a 25-year perspective, power
generation and manufacturing industry offer less than
half of the potential for reducing emissions.
- Almost a quarter of possible emission reductions
would result from measures (such as better insulation
in buildings) that carry no net life cycle cost—in
effect, they come free of charge.
- The study finds that a substantial share of the
overall opportunities, including a large potential to
reduce emissions by protecting and replanting
forests, lies in developing economies.
Read the whole article:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx
?ar=1911&L2=3&L3=41&srid=27&gp=0
Our contribution on this topic is not to evaluate
the science of climate change or to address the
question of whether and how countries around the
world should act to reduce emissions.
In this
article we aim instead to give policy makers, if they
choose to act, an understanding of the significance
and cost of each possible method of reducing
emissions and of the relative importance of different
regions and sectors.
The supply of abatement approaches
Our analysis offers some noteworthy insights. It
would be technically possible, for one thing, to
capture 26.7 gigatons of abatement by addressing
only measures costing no more than 40 euros a ton.
But because these lower-cost possibilities are highly
fragmented across sectors and regions—for instance,
more than half of the potential abatements with a
cost of 40 euros a ton or less are located in
developing economies—an effective global abatement
system would be needed to do so. Politically, this
may be very challenging.
What’s more, power generation and
manufacturing industry, so often the primary focus of
the climate change debate, account for less than
half of the relatively low-cost potential (at a cost of
up to 40 euros a ton) for reducing emissions
The
implication is that if policy makers want to realize
abatement measures in order of increasing cost, they
must also find ways to effectively address
opportunities in transportation, buildings, forestry,
and agriculture. This potential is more difficult to
capture, as it involves billions of small emitters—
often consumers—rather than a limited number of big
companies already subject to heavy regulation.
Looking at specific measures, nearly one-quarter of
the abatement potential at a cost of up to 40 euros
a ton involves efficiency-enhancing measures (mainly
in the buildings and transportation sectors) that
would reduce demand for energy and carry no net
cost. The measures we include in this category do
not require changes in lifestyle or reduced levels of
comfort but would force policy makers to address
existing market imperfections by aligning the
incentives of companies and consumers.
Further, we found a strong correlation between
economic growth and the ability to implement low-
cost measures to reduce emissions, for it is cheaper
to apply clean or energy-efficient technologies when
building a new power plant, house, or car than to
retrofit an old one. Finally, in a 2030 perspective,
almost three-quarters of the potential to reduce
emissions comes from measures that are either
independent of technology or rely on mature rather
than new technologies.
The role of developing economies
Even though developed economies emit
substantially more greenhouse gases relative to the
population than developing ones, we found that the
latter account for more than half of the total
abatement potential at a cost of no more than 40
euros a ton. Developing economies have such a high
share for three reasons: their large populations, the
lower cost of abating new growth as opposed to
reducing existing emissions (especially in
manufacturing industry and power generation of high-
cost developed markets), and the fact that tropical
countries have much of the potential to avoid
emissions in forestry for 40 euros a ton or less.
Forestry measures—protecting, planting, and
replanting forests—make up 6.7 gigatons of the
overall 26.7 gigatons of the potential abatement at a
cost up to 40 euros per ton.7 We estimate that for
no more than 40 euros a ton, tropical deforestation
rates could be reduced by 50 percent in Africa and
by 75 percent in Latin America, for example, and that
this effort could generate nearly 3 gigatons of annual
abatement by 2030. Major abatements in Asia’s
forests would cost more, since land is scarce and
commercial logging has a higher opportunity cost
than subsistence farming in Africa and commercial
agriculture in Latin America.
In agriculture and waste disposal, which produce
greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous
oxide, developing economies also represent more
than half of the 1.5 gigatons of possible abatements
costing no more than 40 euros a ton.
Abatement
measures in this sector would include shifting to
fertilization and tillage techniques that generate
fewer emissions and capturing methane from landfills.
Reducing growth in energy demand
An additional 6 gigatons—almost a quarter of the
total abatement potential at a cost of 40 euros a ton
or less—could be gained through measures with a
zero or negative net life cycle cost. This potential
appears mainly in transportation and in buildings.
Improving the insulation of new ones, for example,
would lower demand for energy to heat them and
thus reduce emissions. Lower energy bills would more
than compensate for the additional insulation costs.
According to our model, measures like these, as well
as some in manufacturing industry, hold the potential
to almost halve future growth in global electricity
demand, to approximately 1.3 percent a year, from
2.5 percent.
As for measures that would have a net cost, we
found that around 35 percent of all potential
abatements with a net cost of up to 40 euros a ton
involve forestry; 28 percent, manufacturing industry;
25 percent, the power sector; 6 percent, agriculture;
and 6 percent, transportation.
A power perspective
The power sector represented 9.4 gigatons, or
24 percent, of global greenhouse gas emissions in
2002, the latest year that consistent global figures
are available across all sectors. In the IEA’s business-
as-usual scenario, emissions from power generation
will increase to 16.8 gigatons a year in 2030 as a
result of a doubling of global electricity demand. Five
key groups of abatement measures costing 40 euros
a ton or less are relevant to the power sector:
reducing demand, carbon capture and storage,
renewables, nuclear power, and improving the
greenhouse gas efficiency of fossil fuel plants. Com-
bined, these measures hold the potential to reduce
the power sector’s total emissions to 7.2 gigatons by
2030.
Among power generation technologies, nuclear
(at 0 to 5 euros a ton for avoided emissions) is the
cheapest source of abatement and nearly cost
competitive with power generated by fossil fuels. We
estimate that abatements from carbon capture and
storage could cost 20 to 30 euros a ton by 2030;
those from wind power could average around 20
euros a ton, with a wide cost range depending on
the location and on the previous penetration of
weather-dependent electricity sources. In our model,
the overall additional cost to the power sector of
achieving the target of 450 parts per million,
compared with the business-as-usual scenario, would
be around 120 billion euros annually in 2030. This
figure illustrates the very significant potential
implications, for companies in the power sector, of
any further actions that regulators may take to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Addressing the abatement potential described
above would likely create a major shift from
traditional coal and gas power generation to coal
plants with carbon capture and storage, to
renewables, and to nuclear power. In our model, coal-
fired plants using carbon capture and storage would
increase their share of the world’s power generation
capacity from nothing in 2002 to 17 percent by
2030; renewables (including a big but slow-growing
share for large-scale hydropower), to 32 percent,
from 18 percent; and nuclear power, to 21 percent,
from 17 percent. Fossil fuel power generated without
carbon capture and storage would decrease to 30
percent, from 65 percent.
Low-tech abatement
The role of technology in reducing emissions is
much debated. We found that some 70 percent of
the possible abatements at a cost below or equal to
40 euros a ton would not depend on any major
technological developments. These measures either
involve very little technology (for example, those in
forestry or agriculture) or rely primarily on mature
technologies, such as nuclear power, small-scale
hydropower, and energy-efficient lighting. The
remaining 30 percent of abatements depend on new
technologies or significantly lower costs for existing
ones, such as carbon capture and storage, biofuels,
wind power, and solar panels. The point is not that
technological R&D has no importance for abatement
but rather that low-tech abatement is important in a
2030 perspective.
What are the implications?
Our analysis has revealed a number of important
implications for each sector and region, should
regulators choose to reduce emissions. We
summarize the primary overall conclusions below.
Costs for reducing emissions
For the global economy, the cost of the 450-
parts-per-million scenario described in this article
would depend on the ability to capture all of the
available abatement potential that costs up to 40
euros a ton. If that happens, our cost curve
indicates that the annual worldwide cost could be
around 500 billion euros in 2030, 0.6 percent of that
year’s projected GDP. However, should more
expensive approaches be required to reach the
abatement goal, the cost could be as high as 1,100
billion euros, 1.4 percent of global GDP.
If, as some participants in the climate debate
argue, the cost of reducing emissions could be an
insurance policy against the potentially severe
consequences of unchecked emissions in the future,
it might be relevant to compare the costs with the
global insurance industry’s turnover (excluding life
insurance)—some 3.3 percent of global GDP in 2005.
Cost-conscious regulation
Should regulators choose to step up current
programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they
should bear in mind four types of measures to
restrain costs:
- . Ensuring strict technical standards and rules
for the energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles
- . Establishing stable long-term incentives to
encourage power producers and industrial companies
to develop and deploy greenhouse gas-efficient
technologies
- . Providing sufficient incentives and support to
improve the cost efficiency of selected key
technologies, including carbon capture and storage
- . Ensuring that the potential in forestry and
agriculture is addressed effectively, primarily in
developing countries; such a system would need to
be closely linked to their overall development
agenda.
Shifting business environment
For companies in the power sector and energy-
intensive industries, heightened greenhouse gas
regulation would mean a shift in the global business
environment on the same order of magnitude as the
one launched by the oil crisis of the 1970s. It would
have a fundamental impact on key issues of business
strategy, such as production economics, cost
competitiveness, investment decisions, and the value
of different types of assets. Companies in these
industries would therefore be wise to think through
the effects of different types of greenhouse gas
regulation, strive to shape it, and position
themselves accordingly.
No matter whether, how, or when countries
around the globe act to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, policy makers and business leaders can
benefit from a thorough understanding of the relative
economics of different possible approaches to
abatement, as well as their implications for business
and the global economy.
Source: McKinsey and Company, 2007