The timing of CO2 emissions reductions: the debate revisited Online publication date: Wed, 13-Aug-2003
by Christian Azar
International Journal of Environment and Pollution (IJEP), Vol. 10, No. 3/4, 1998
Abstract: Almost two years before the Kyoto conference, Wigley et al. (1996) published a paper that claimed not only that delaying emissions reductions would be compatible with eventual stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO2, but also that it would be less costly than early abatement. Four arguments were raised in favour of their conclusion. Nevertheless, in Kyoto, policy-makers decided to adopt near-term targets. In this paper, the arguments for and against deferral of emissions reductions are revisited. It is shown that these arguments can not be assessed in the absence of a discussion about the stabilization target. If a low stabilisation target is chosen, then early efforts to abate emissions are necessary, whereas a high stabilisation target (say 650 ppm) does not require much effort over the next couple of decades. Finally, a brief discussion of the way that the arguments in favour of delay were perceived in the policy-making community is provided.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Environment and Pollution (IJEP):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook