Page 683

CO2 that would produce the same amount of forcing at the surface is calculated. This is the CO2 equivalent for that specific concentration of the other greenhouse gas. The respective costs per ton for different options can then be compared directly. It is important to recognize, however, that these calculations allow comparison only of initial contributions. They do not account for changes in energy-trapping effectiveness over the various lifetimes of these gases in the atmosphere.

35. What mitigation options are most cost-effective?

The panel ranks options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere according to their cost-effectiveness. Some of these options have net savings or very low net implementation costs compared to other investments. The options range from net savings to more than $100 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent emissions avoided or removed from the atmosphere. The most cost-effective mitigation options are presented in Table A.5.

36. What are examples of options with large potential to reduce or offset emissions?

The so-called geoengineering options have the potential of substantially affecting atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. They have the ability to screen incoming sunlight, stimulate uptake of CO2 by plants and animals in the oceans, or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Although they appear feasible, they require additional investigation because of their potential environmental impacts.

37. How much would it cost to significantly reduce current U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?

It depends on the level of emission reduction desired and how it is done. The most cost-effective options are those that enhance efficient use of energy: efficiency improvements in lighting and appliances, white roofs and paving to enhance reflectivity, and improvement in building and construction practices.

Figure A.4 compares mitigation options, and Table A.5 gives the panel's estimates of net cost and emission reductions for several options. It must be emphasized that the table presents the panel's estimates of the maximum technical potential for each option. The calculation of cost-effectiveness of lighting efficiency, for example, does not consider whether the supply of light bulbs could meet the demand with current production capacities. Nor does it consider the trade-off between expenditures on light bulbs and on health care, education, or basic shelter for low-income families. In addition, there is a danger of some "double counting." For example, in the area of energy supply both nuclear and natural gas energy options assume replacement