Climat : papiers de recherche moissonnés (24/05/2018)
Pollution, green union and network industry / Luciano Fanti and Domenico Buccella, Economics, discussion paper n° 2018-40, 17/05/2018 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2018-40
In this paper the authors investigate whether and how, in a network industry, the intensity of network effects affect the total pollution under the presence of a union interested to « local » environmental damages (e.g. polluting production processes damaging workers’ health and the local environment where workers live). Under monopoly, it is shown that network effects tend to increase, on the one hand, the investments in the cleaning technology but, on the other hand, the polluting output, so that their effects on the total pollution are theoretically ambiguous. In particular, the authors find that total pollution is reduced (resp. increased) with increasing network effects intensity if the market is sufficiently large (resp. small). Moreover the pollution-reducing result of the increasing network effect is more likely when the existing network effects, the union’s environmental concerns and the technological efficiency are sufficiently large. These findings are qualitatively confirmed also under different union’s preferences, Government’s environmental standard and Cournot duopoly, and thus offer interesting empirical as well as policy implications.
Living. Moving. Breathing: Ranking of European Cities in Sustainable Transport / Santhosh Kodukula, Frederic Rudolph, Ulrich Jansen, and Eva Amon. Greenpeace ; Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, May 2018, 102 p. https://cdn.greenpeace.fr/site/uploads/2018/05/Living-Moving-Breathing-Greenpeace-City-Ranking-Report-FINAL.pdf
Où en sont les grandes villes européennes sur les transports et la pollution de l’air ? Cette étude propose un classement de treize grandes villes du continent : elle montre que le remplacement de volumes importants de voitures par des volumes importants de cyclistes et de piétons permet d’améliorer la qualité de l’air et d’assurer une meilleure sécurité sur la route… lire la suite
Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment / Zoi Vrontisi, Gunnar Luderer, Bert Saveyn, Kimon Keramidas, Lara Aleluia Reis, Lavinia Baumstark, Christoph Bertram, Harmen Sytze De Boer, Laurent Drouet, Kostas Fragkiadakis, Oliver Fricko, Shinichiro Fujimori, Céline Guivarch, Alban Kitous, Volker Krey, Elmar Kriegler, Eoin Broin, Leonidas Paroussos, Detlef Van Vuuren, Environmental Research Letters, IOP Publishing, 2018, 13 (4) https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01782274
The Paris Agreement is a milestone in international climate policy as it establishes a global mitigation framework towards 2030 and sets the ground for a potential 1.5 ◦C climate stabilization. To provide useful insights for the 2018 UNFCCC Talanoa facilitative dialogue, we use eight state-of-the-art climate-energy-economy models to assess the effectiveness of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in meeting high probability 1.5 and 2 ◦C stabilization goals. We estimate that the implementation of conditional INDCs in 2030 leaves an emissions gap from least cost 2 ◦C and 1.5 ◦C pathways for year 2030 equal to 15.6 (9.0–20.3) and 24.6 (18.5–29.0) GtCO2eq respectively. The immediate transition to a more efficient and low-carbon energy system is key to achieving the Paris goals. The decarbonization of the power supply sector delivers half of total CO2 emission reductions in all scenarios, primarily through high penetration of renewables and energy efficiency improvements. In combination with an increased electrification of final energy demand, low-carbon power supply is the main short-term abatement option. We find that the global macroeconomic cost of mitigation efforts does not reduce the 2020–2030 annual GDP growth rates in any model more than 0.1 percentage points in the INDC or 0.3 and 0.5 in the 2 ◦C and 1.5◦C scenarios respectively even without accounting for potential co-benefits and avoided climate damages. Accordingly, the median GDP reductions across all models in 2030 are 0.4%, 1.2% and 3.3% of reference GDP for each respective scenario. Costs go up with increasing mitigation efforts but a fragmented action, as implied by the INDCs, results in higher costs per unit of abated emissions. On a regional level, the cost distribution is different across scenarios while fossil fuel exporters see the highest GDP reductions in all INDC, 2 ◦C and 1.5◦C scenarios.