Policy Brief

AUGUST 2009

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Cost-Effective Actions to Tackle

Climate Change
What is the Introduction
economic rationale Governments around the world have reached consensus on the need to achieve
for ambitious large cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the coming decades. They
action against are working towards an international agreement on actions required to achieve
climate change? these reductions at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) under the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen at the
How important is end of 2009.
carbon pricing?
Considering the costs and risks of inaction, taking action now, even in the
What if not midst of a global economic crisis, makes good economic sense. Delaying
all countries emission cuts would simply postpone the inevitable and undoubtedly require
larger cuts at a later date, thus making it more costly than a more gradual
participate?
approach. In addition, there is an opportunity now to use the economic
How will a stimulus packages that governments are putting in place to invest in
innovative, clean technologies – which could both help stimulate the world’s
global carbon
struggling economies and also shift them onto a low-carbon growth path.
market evolve?
Given the magnitude of emission cuts required to stabilise GHG concentrations
How do actions at an acceptable level, it is imperative that such action to mitigate climate
compare across change is taken at the lowest cost. OECD analyses show that the cost of action
countries? would be minimised if a cost-effective set of policy instruments, with a focus
on carbon pricing, were applied as broadly as possible across all emission
How can countries sources, including all countries, sectors, and greenhouse gases.
be encouraged
In practice, broad-based international action covering all main emitters might
to participate? be difficult to achieve immediately. Incentives for countries to participate
For further in such ambitious international action can be enhanced through a range of
instruments, including financial and technological support. This Policy Brief
information
summarises the key findings from OECD analyses of the policies and actions
For further reading urgently required to tackle climate change. n

Where to contact us?

© OECD 2009
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

What is the The OECD projects that, without new policy action, world GHG emissions
economic rationale would increase by about 70% by 2050 and continue to grow thereafter. While
for ambitious historically OECD countries have been responsible for most of these emissions,
growing emissions in non-OECD countries account for most of this projected
action against
increase. This could lead to a rise in world temperatures of 4 °C above
climate change?
pre‑industrial levels, and possibly 6 °C, by 2100. Considering the costs and,
even more important, the risks of inaction, there is a need for ambitious
actions to reduce emissions.
Mitigation actions will be neither cheap nor easy to implement. But the current
global recession is no excuse for inaction: policies to tackle climate change
must be put in place urgently. Even though the contraction in global economic
output will result in reduced emissions, this reduction will be temporary and
insufficient to deliver lasting emission cuts. Analysis suggests that initial
actions to implement a cost-effective, international climate agreement can be
relatively inexpensive, with the costs increasing over time once the economy
is on the mend. For instance, action to prevent the mean global temperature
from increasing by more than 3 °C would reduce average world GDP growth
projected over 2012-2050 by 0.11 percentage points annually – or a nearly
4% reduction in GDP in 2050 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. To put
this in perspective, world GDP would still be expected to grow by more than
250% over the same period, even if emissions are cut significantly. While world
population is also projected to grow, citizens will still be financially better off,
on average, than they are today. But if GHG emissions continue to accumulate
in the atmosphere at current rates, the cost of reducing concentrations to
an acceptable level later will be prohibitively high. Developing carbon-free
technologies will also take time, and investors need a clear and credible
long-term price signal now to make the appropriate investment decisions.
The benefits of reducing emissions are difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, OECD
analysis finds that when non‑market impacts, risks of inaction and co-benefits
in other policy areas are factored in, ambitious action makes good economic
sense. Some of these co-benefits, such as reduced air pollution, biodiversity
and improved energy security, can be large, but they also vary significantly
according to location. n

How important is No single policy instrument will be sufficient to tackle the wide range of
carbon pricing? sources and sectors emitting GHGs. The use of market-based instruments, such
as carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes (ETS), will be crucial to keep
the costs of action low. These policies put a price on GHG emissions, which
discourages the behaviour that generates emissions. They encourage emitters
to look for and implement the cheapest abatement options. Carbon taxes and
ETS are already in place in several OECD countries, including all EU member
states.
Removing environmentally-harmful subsidies to energy consumption and
production is another important first step in pricing carbon because these
subsidies amount to a de facto reward for carbon emissions. Removing these
subsidies would lower the overall cost of meeting a given emission-reduction
target. Energy subsidies are particularly high in Russia, other non-EU eastern
European countries, and a number of large developing countries, including
India. Joint analysis by the OECD and the International Energy Agency suggests
that removing these subsidies could reduce GHG emissions in some of these
countries by over 30% by 2050, and reduce global emissions by 10%. Global
cuts will be even larger if binding caps on emissions are adopted in developed
countries. Removing subsidies would also increase the efficiency of these

2 ■ © OECD 2009
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

economies, leading to increased GDP growth, and would lower the global cost
of stabilising GHG concentrations.
Market-based instruments should be complemented with other approaches,
such as building codes and standards for household electrical appliances,
measures to encourage the development and adoption of low-carbon
technologies, and information campaigns to encourage changes in behaviour.
Development of low-carbon technologies will need to be supported through
R&D policies. According to OECD calculations, a market-based policy that seeks
to stabilise CO2 eq concentrations at 550 ppm could provide incentives for a
four-fold increase in world energy R&D spending by 2050. In practice, however,
pricing carbon is unlikely to be enough to spur sufficient investment in R&D
because barriers to innovation are large. The most obvious barrier is political
uncertainty about future climate policy, and thus uncertainty about returns on
R&D investment. But R&D funding remains a complement to, not a substitute
for, carbon pricing. While R&D funding could help to develop new technologies,
such as carbon capture and storage, it is unlikely that these will be aggressively
deployed without complementary policies that place a sufficiently high price
on carbon.
However, policies that overlap can generate some cost. Once a total emission-
reduction objective is set through a national emission-trading scheme,
additional targets, such as for renewables or biofuels, will not necessarily
reduce emissions beyond the cap-and-trade target. Thus, potentially
overlapping policies should only be used in situations where they can
be justified on other grounds, for instance, as a way to boost low-carbon
technologies or improve energy security. n

Figure 1. 2020 2050

REMOVING ENERGY % change in emissions compared to baseline
SUBSIDIES IN NON‑OECD 20
COUNTRIES WOULD
CUT GREENHOUSE 10
GAS EMISSIONS
SIGNIFICANTLY 0

−10

−20

−30

−40

−50
tri rn

tri ng

an d

xI 2
al an
l-e sia

da
a

xI

ld
ld

N e u s t z il

es

TA
un s t e

es 1

d
es

un r ti

di

in

pa

or
or

at
na

ne
EF
Ze a
s

Ch
In

ne
co x po

Br

Ja
co ea

w r a li

W
ew
Ru

St

An
Ca

An
us
an U

d
th

n-
pl
pe -E

ite
Oi

No
of
ro Non

27
Un
st

EU
Re
Eu

1. The region includes the Middle East, Algeria-Lybia-Egypt, Indonesia, and Venezuela.
2. Annex I countries are countries that have agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the
Kyoto Protocol. They include most OECD member states and some countries from Central and Eastern
Europe in transition to a market economy.
Source: OECD, ENV-Linkages model.

© OECD 2009 ■ 3
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

What if not Reaching even a moderately ambitious GHG-concentration target at a

all countries manageable cost will be difficult unless as many countries, industries and
participate? emission sources as possible are engaged in action to reduce emissions.
Considering how rapidly emissions are projected to rise in a number of fast-
growing regions, significant actions will be required by 2050 not only by all
developed countries, but also by major emitters among developing countries,
such as China and India.
Industry must also play its part. Exempting energy-intensive industries from
carbon pricing, for example, could raise the cost – by 50% in 2050 – of stabilising
concentrations at 550 ppm CO2 eq.
Fears of “carbon leakage”, the risk that emission reductions in one set of
countries are partly offset by increases in other countries, should not be
exaggerated. Unless only a few countries take action against climate change,
leakage rates are found to be almost negligible. For example, OECD analysis
suggests that if the EU acted alone to reduce GHG emissions, almost 12%
of their emission reductions would be offset by emission increases in other
countries. However, if all developed countries were to act, this leakage rate
would be reduced to below 2%.
OECD simulations indicate that some of the proposals to address
competitiveness and leakage effects of mitigation policies may be costly. For
example, some countries are considering imposing border tax adjustments
(BTAs), which are import fees levied by carbon-restricting countries on goods
manufactured in non-carbon-restricting countries. This measure can reduce
carbon leakage to some extent, but at a relatively high cost to the economy
of the implementing country or group of countries, and without significantly
addressing competitiveness concerns. For instance, in the case of a 50%
reduction of emissions in EU countries from 2005 levels by 2050, adding BTAs
to the policy mix does not reduce the output losses of its energy-intensive
industries, raises the cost of action in the EU (from 1.5% of GDP to 1.8% of GDP
in 2050), and imposes a cost on trading-partner countries. BTAs could also be
difficult to design and administer, and they risk triggering trade retaliation.
Broadening participation in actions to reduce GHG emissions to include the
largest emitting emerging economies and, later, all developing countries
remains the most cost-effective way to tackle carbon leakage. n

How will a The development of a global carbon market can encourage participation by
global carbon further lowering the cost of mitigation actions. In the near future, a global
market evolve? carbon market may gradually develop through links between national and
regional emissions-trading schemes (ETSs) or through crediting mechanisms
or other trading systems. Any eventual linking of ETSs would require some
international harmonisation of features, including levels and/or procedures
for setting emission caps, the adoption of safety valves, and the use of
international offsets.
By broadening participation to include developing countries and lowering the
carbon price differential between participating and non-participating countries,
crediting mechanisms can also extend the carbon market, thereby reducing
carbon leakage and related concerns. One such crediting arrangement is the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows the countries listed in
Annex I to the Kyoto Protocol (the countries that have agreed to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions under the Protocol) to invest in projects that reduce
emissions in developing countries.

4 ■ © OECD 2009
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

Analysis shows that the cost-saving potential for developed countries using well-
designed crediting mechanisms could be very large. However, there are serious
concerns about the effectiveness and administrative burden of the current CDM,
which is largely project-based. To address some of these concerns, it might be
advisable to negotiate emission baselines at the sectoral level. Industries that
reduce their emissions below their baseline would generate credits that could be
sold in international carbon markets. Environmental effectiveness of emission
cuts could be improved by setting these baselines significantly below the
emission levels that would prevail if no further actions were to be taken.
In the long run, however, to achieve ambitious global emission reductions at
low cost, such approaches will need to be integrated in a unified, global carbon
market, such as using binding caps with trading. If well-designed, binding
sectoral caps for energy-intensive industries and the power sector in developing
countries, which account for almost half of current world GHG emissions
from fossil-fuel combustion, could lower the cost of achieving a given global
emissions target, broaden participation in actions to tackle climate change,
and alleviate leakage and competitiveness concerns. Even so, they would need
to be ambitious in order to be effective. Other sectoral initiatives, such as
voluntary, technology-oriented approaches, can help diffuse cleaner process
and technologies, but are unlikely to provide sufficient incentives for individual
firms to reduce emissions as they put no explicit cost on carbon emissions.
Emissions from deforestation are substantial, and studies suggest that they
can be avoided at relatively low cost, reducing carbon prices by up to 40% in
2020. Incorporating a mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD) in a global policy framework also raises a number of
implementation issues, including how to measure, report and verify emission
reductions. Funding from developed countries could help some developing
countries to build the capacities needed to meet well-designed eligibility criteria.

Table 1. Simulated target GDP in 2020

MANY COUNTRIES HAVE Results for year 2020 % change from % change from Explanation of target1
1990 baseline2
ADOPTED OR SUGGESTED
Australia and New Zealand 0 -0.7 Australia -15% from 2000; NZ -10% by 2020
EMISSION REDUCTION
TARGETS FOR 2020 Canada 0 -0.3 -20% from 2006
EU27 plus EFTA -30 -0.3 EU27 and Switzerland -30% from 1990; Norway -30%
from 1990; Iceland -15% from 1990
Japan -8 -0.1 -15% from 2005 domestic reduction only
Non-EU eastern European -18 -1.6 Ukraine -20% from 1990; Belarus -10% from 1990;
countries both “under consideration”
Russia -20 -2.0 -20% from 1990; not yet decided
United States 0 -0.3 Waxman-Markey bill -17% from 2005 (covering 85%
of emissions); Obama/Stern “return to 1990 levels”
Brazil none 0.0 No target announced
China none 0.0 Ambitious target on energy intensity not translated into
national cap on emissions
India none 0.1 No target announced
Middle East none -0.3 No target announced
Rest of the world none 0.0 South Africa “peak emissions between 2020 and
2025”; Korea will announce target later in 2009
Annex I -14 -0.3
Non-Annex I 0.0
World -0.2
1. Based on submissions to the UNFCCC (July 2009) and, where appropriate, official declarations by
and consultation of governments.
2. Assuming trading among Annex I and a maximum of 20% of reductions to be achieved through
offsets; offsets are in addition to domestic reductions for Japan.

© OECD 2009 ■ 5
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

As carbon pricing gradually develops among the main emitting nations,

the potential size of the global carbon market could become significant. For
instance, if all Annex I countries bring their emissions down to a level that
by 2050 is 50% below the level of 1990, and then link their carbon markets
together, the size of the global carbon market could grow significantly. If a
carbon tax or auctioned permits are used, the size of fiscal revenues could
reach 2.5% of GDP in those countries by 2020. These revenues could, in turn,
be used to bolster economies in the aftermath of the current economic crisis,
reduce existing taxes, finance technological development and diffusion, or
support adaptation and emission reductions in developing countries. n

How do actions In the lead-up to COP15, several countries and the European Union have adopted,
compare across declared or suggested emission reduction targets for 2020. Assuming that the more
countries? ambitious targets are implemented in a context of fully harmonised emissions-
trading schemes, they would together imply a 14% reduction of emissions in
Annex I countries by 2020 from 1990 levels, including offsets in developing
countries. Given the strong projected growth in emissions in non-Annex I
countries, world emissions in 2020 would still rise by more than 20% above their
2005 levels, compared to more than 35% in a business-as-usual scenario. These
declared targets and actions would not reduce emissions sufficiently to prevent
temperatures from increasing by more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, which
is the objective recently supported by major developing and developed countries.
Even though ambitious stabilisation targets would still be achievable, far more
significant efforts may be needed after 2020, at a higher cost.
The OECD has assessed emission reductions from key developed countries and
the European Union and associated costs of a variety of carbon taxes applied
across all Annex I countries. Both total costs and emission reductions achieved
in 2020 compared with 1990 levels for a given carbon price vary substantially
across regions. For several countries/regions, namely Australia and New
Zealand, Canada, and the United States, carbon prices of at least USD 50 per
tonne of CO2 eq would be required if emissions are to return to 1990 levels
by 2020. n

Figure 2. Australia and New Zealand Canada United States Japan

BOTH TOTAL COSTS AND EU27 + EFTA Tax 50 USD/tCO 2 eq Tax 100 USD/tCO 2 eq Tax 150 USD/tCO 2 eq
EMISSION REDUCTIONS % change in GDP in 2020 compared to baseline
ACHIEVED FOR A GIVEN 0
CARBON TAX VARY
ACROSS COUNTRIES −0.5

−1.0

−1.5

−2.0

−2.5

−3.0

−3.5
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 −50
% change in GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels
Source: OECD, ENV-Linkages model.

6 ■ © OECD 2009
Policy Brief
COST-EFFECTIVE ACTIONS TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

How can countries Incentives to participate in mitigation action are likely to be lower in countries
be encouraged where the costs of action are relatively high and/or the expected damages
to participate? from climate change are relatively low, unless international financial transfers
or other support is provided. Given the differences in incentives among
countries, and the large global environmental and economic costs that would
result from low levels of participation, mechanisms for sharing the costs of
action are needed to ensure that all major emitters participate. “Common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, a cornerstone of the
UNFCCC, implies some decoupling between where emission reductions take
place and who bears the cost. Allocating negotiated emission targets across
countries can be an effective way of encouraging countries to participate.
OECD analysis suggests that, compared with a harmonised world carbon tax
or full permit-auctioning with ETSs, developing countries are projected to
gain significantly from permit-allocation rules under which their emission
rights cover their business-as-usual emissions or are inversely related to their
contribution to past emission levels. Developing countries would also benefit
from rules based on population size or GDP per capita, albeit to a somewhat
lesser extent. All of these rules generally impose significant costs on developed
countries, although the costs vary widely from country to country. Setting
national, or even sectoral, intensity targets, expressed as emission levels per
unit of output, is another way of encouraging emerging economies to reduce
GHGs without undermining their growth prospects.
There are several other ways to encourage participation in actions to reduce
GHG emissions:
• International public funding to support mitigation actions in developing
countries has gained prominence recently with a proliferation of multilateral
funds and a number of bilateral initiatives. To enhance their effectiveness, these
funds should be targeted primarily at those emission sources and/or market
imperfections not covered by other market-based financing mechanisms, and in
a way to encourage private-sector investment.
• A cost-effective way to boost international deployment of low-carbon
technologies is to remove barriers to trade and foreign direct investment, and
strengthen intellectual property rights.
• Climate-related R&D could be better incorporated in the portfolio of activities of
existing multilateral funds.
• Any international agreement on mitigation will inevitably also have to address
the issue of adaptation to climate change. International financing to support
adaptation investments will be particularly important for least developed
countries. n

For further For more information on this Policy Brief and on OECD work on the economics of
information climate change, please contact:
Alain de Serres, tel.: +33 1 45 24 88 33, e-mail: [email protected] or
Jean-Marc Burniaux, tel.: +33 1 45 24 97 36, e-mail: [email protected].
Visit the OECD’s website on the economics of climate change at
www.oecd.org/env/cc/econ.
More information on the OECD’s work on climate change can be found at
www.oecd.org/env/cc.

© OECD 2009 ■ 7
 The OECD Policy Briefs are available on the OECD’s Internet site:
www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

For further reading OECD (2009), The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation: Policies and
Options for Global Action beyond 2012, ISBN 978-92-64-05606-0, € 40, 200 pages.
Bollen, J., B. Guay, S. Jamet and J. Corfee-Morlot (2009), “Co-benefits of Climate
change Mitigation Policies: Literature Review and New Results”, OECD Economics
Department Working Paper, No. 692.
Bosetti, V., C. Carraro, E. de Cian, R. Duval, E. Massetti and M. Tavoni (2009),
“The Incentives to Participate in and the Stability of International Climate
Coalitions: a Game-Theoretic Analysis Using the WITCH Model”, OECD Economics
Department Working Paper, No. 702.
Burniaux, J-M. J. Chateau, R. Dellink, R. Duval and S. Jamet (2009), “The
Economics of Climate Change Mitigation: How to Build the Necessary Global
Action in a Cost-effective Manner”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper,
No. 701.
Burniaux, J-M. and J. Chateau (2008), “An Overview of the OECD ENV-Linkages
Model”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper, No. 653.
Burniaux, J-M. J. Chateau, R. Duval and S. Jamet (2008), “The Economics of
Climate Change Mitigation: Policies and Options for the Future”, OECD Economics
Department Working Paper, No. 658.
Duval, R. (2008), “A Taxonomy of Instruments to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and their Interactions”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper,
No. 636.
OECD (2008), Climate Change Mitigation: What Do We Do?
ISBN 978-92-64-05961-0.
OECD (2008), Environmental Outlook to 2030, ISBN 978-92-64-04048-9, € 90,
520 pages.

OECD publications can be purchased from our online bookshop:

www.oecd.org/bookshop
OECD publications and statistical databases are also available via our online library:
www.SourceOECD.org

Where to contact us?

OECD HEADQUARTERS GERMANY JAPAN MEXICO UNITED STATES
2, rue André-Pascal OECD Berlin Centre OECD Tokyo Centre OECD Mexico Centre OECD Washington Center
75775 PARIS Cedex 16 Schumannstrasse 10 Nippon Press Center Bldg Av. Presidente Mazaryk 526 2001 L Street N.W., Suite 650
Tel.: (33) 01 45 24 81 67 D-10117 BERLIN 2-2-1 Uchisaiwaicho, Colonia: Polanco WASHINGTON DC. 20036-4922
Fax: (33) 01 45 24 19 50 Tel.: (49-30) 288 8353 Chiyoda-ku C.P. 11560 MEXICO, D.F. Tel.: (1-202) 785 6323
E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (49-30) 288 83545 TOKYO 100-0011 Tel.: (00.52.55) 9138 6233 Fax: (1-202) 785 0350
Internet: www.oecd.org E-mail: Tel.: (81-3) 5532 0021 Fax: (00.52.55) 5280 0480 E-mail:
[email protected] Fax: (81-3) 5532 0035 E-mail: [email protected]
00 2009 1 L 1 P4

Internet: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Internet: www.oecdwash.org

www.oecd.org/berlin Internet: www.oecdtokyo.org Internet: Toll free: (1-800) 456 6323
www.oecd.org/centrodemexico

The OECD Policy Briefs are prepared by the Public Affairs Division, Public Affairs and Communications
Directorate. They are published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General.

© OECD 2009