LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rickels, Wilfried (2011)
Publisher: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Kiel
Languages: English
Types: Research
Subjects: Welt, Luftreinhaltung, ocean sequestration, Atmospheric ceiling, Umweltschutzkosten, Q30, atmospheric ceiling, global carbon cycle, ocean sequestration, Q54, global carbon cycle, Kohlenstoffsenke, Klimaschutz, Soziale Kosten
ddc: ddc:330
jel: jel:Q54, jel:Q30
I investigate the optimal role of carbon sequestration for mitigation in the presence of a ceiling on atmospheric carbon concentration and consider aspects that have so far only been analyzed in the context of a damage function to measure the consequences of climate change for society. I assume extraction costs to be stock-dependent, replace the proportional decay description of the global carbon cycle by a two-box model, investigate the differences resulting from linear versus convex sequestration costs, and consider oceanic instead of geological carbon storage. Using a two-box model allows the non-renewable aspects of the global carbon cycle to be accounted for and implies that carbon emissions have to decline at the ceiling due to the ongoing saturation of the ocean with respect to anthropogenic carbon. Convex sequestration costs result in a continuous use of such a technology and allow the ceiling to be reached later than without sequestration, whereas linear sequestration costs result in a discontinuous use of such a technology and earlier reaching of the ceiling. Consequently, taking into the account the uncertainties in defining an appropriate ceiling, the policy recommendations with respect to carbon sequestration differ crucially according to the underlying assumptions of sequestration costs. Furthermore, the ocean might be a storage option for captured carbon, but even though its storage capacity is probably not scarce by itself, the ongoing saturation of the complete carbon cycle has to be taken into account.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1The rather moderate emission reductions in the Copenhagen Accord until 2020 are estimated to cost an additional 1 trillion USD of investment costs in the period from 2010 to 2035 compared to a more efficient mitigation path (IEA, 2010).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article