Search

Decision makers facing emission-reduction targets need to decide which abatement measures to implement, and in which order. This article investigates how marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves can inform such a decision. We re-analyse a MAC curve built for Brazil by 2030, and show that misinterpreting MAC curves as abatement supply curves can lead to suboptimal strategies. It would lead to (1) under-investment in expensive, long-to-implement and large-potential options, such as clean transportation infrastructure, and (2) over-investment in cheap but limited-potential options such as energy-efficiency improvement in refineries. To mitigate this issue, the article proposes a new graphical representation of MAC curves that explicitly renders the time required to implement each measure. Policy relevance In addition to the cost and potential of available options, designing optimal short-term policies requires information on long-term targets (e.g. halving emissions by 2050) and on the speed at which measures can deliver emission reductions. Mitigation policies are thus best investigated in a dynamic framework, building on sector-scale pathways to long-term targets. Climate policies should seek both quantity and quality of abatement, by combining two approaches: a ‘synergy approach’ that focuses on the cheapest mitigation options and maximizes co-benefits, and an ‘urgency approach’ that starts from a long-term objective and works backward to identify actions that need to be implemented early. Accordingly, sector-specific policies may be used (1) to remove implementation barriers on negative- and low-cost options and (2) to ensure short-term targets are met with abatement of sufficient quality. Indeed, such policies can avoid under-investment in the long-to-implement options required to reach long-term targets, which are otherwise difficult to enforce. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]