Abstract
Comparing costs of measures to mitigate greenhouse gas is challenging as there are many competing notions of costs, and uncertainties associated with cost estimates. In addition, there are many different types of mitigation measures, from supply-side investment solutions to demand-side efficiency improvements, which may interact, risking double-counting of abatement potentials. This paper presents a novel, transparent methodology for building a marginal abatement cost curve that allows abatement costs and potentials to be compared. This curve improves over existing methods as it allows for abatement measures to be pursued in parallel, takes into account the interplay between abatement measures and captures data on cost uncertainty. The method is applied to build the first bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve for greater material efficiency steel use in the UK. This curve is demonstrated via four material efficiency measures which do not require large changes in final uses of products: reusing steel beams in construction, specifying optimal lightweight beams in construction, choosing smaller cars and specifying high strength steel car bodies. The results show that these strategies could reduce UK steel demand and associated global emissions by approximately 12%. 17% of this potential would be viable at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) 2030 carbon price for policy appraisal (79 £/t CO2) taking into account emissions savings associated with steel demand only. Once use-phase emissions savings are taken into account this share increases to 60%. These results can be traced directly back to underlying assumptions regarding costs and emissions allocations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 39-47 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Resources, Conservation and Recycling |
| Volume | 144 |
| Early online date | 21 Jan 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 31 May 2019 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This paper has set out a novel method for building a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC). Applying this method to four material efficiency measures in the UK shows that these strategies could deliver significant abatement potential at costs that become competitive once use-phase savings are taken into account. The process of populating the MACC revealed the types of assumptions that have to be made in order to populate a MACC. These assumptions were summarised into a structured assumptions guide to aid MACC transparency. This novel approach allowed us to lay out an abatement strategy focused on material use, accounting for the uncertainty and variability of the underlying data. We would like to thank the EPSRC for their support of the Material Demand Reduction project: NMZL/112, RG82144, EPSRC reference: EP/N02351X/1. Appendix A
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier B.V.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
Funding
This paper has set out a novel method for building a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC). Applying this method to four material efficiency measures in the UK shows that these strategies could deliver significant abatement potential at costs that become competitive once use-phase savings are taken into account. The process of populating the MACC revealed the types of assumptions that have to be made in order to populate a MACC. These assumptions were summarised into a structured assumptions guide to aid MACC transparency. This novel approach allowed us to lay out an abatement strategy focused on material use, accounting for the uncertainty and variability of the underlying data. We would like to thank the EPSRC for their support of the Material Demand Reduction project: NMZL/112, RG82144, EPSRC reference: EP/N02351X/1. Appendix A
Keywords
- MACC
- Material efficiency
- Policy guidance
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Waste Management and Disposal
- Economics and Econometrics