Search Results
2°C and SDGs: United they stand, divided they fall?
2016, von Stechow, Christoph, Minx, Jan C., Riahi, Keywan, Jewell, Jessica, McCollum, David L., Callaghan, Max W., Bertram, Christoph, Luderer, Gunnar, Baiocchi, Giovanni
The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the new international climate treaty could put 2015 into the history books as a defining year for setting human development on a more sustainable pathway. The global climate policy and SDG agendas are highly interconnected: the way that the climate problem is addressed strongly affects the prospects of meeting numerous other SDGs and vice versa. Drawing on existing scenario results from a recent energy-economy-climate model inter-comparison project, this letter analyses these synergies and (risk) trade-offs of alternative 2 °C pathways across indicators relevant for energy-related SDGs and sustainable energy objectives. We find that limiting the availability of key mitigation technologies yields some co-benefits and decreases risks specific to these technologies but greatly increases many others. Fewer synergies and substantial trade-offs across SDGs are locked into the system for weak short-term climate policies that are broadly in line with current Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), particularly when combined with constraints on technologies. Lowering energy demand growth is key to managing these trade-offs and creating synergies across multiple energy-related SD dimensions. We argue that SD considerations are central for choosing socially acceptable 2 °C pathways: the prospects of meeting other SDGs need not dwindle and can even be enhanced for some goals if appropriate climate policy choices are made. Progress on the climate policy and SDG agendas should therefore be tracked within a unified framework.
Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies
2013, Bertram, Christoph, Johnson, Nils, Luderer, Gunnar, Riahi, Keywan, Isaac, Morna, Eom, Jiyong
Stringent long-term climate targets necessitate a limit on cumulative emissions in this century for which sufficient policy signals are lacking. Using nine energy-economy models, we explore how policies pursued during the next two decades impact long-term transformation pathways towards stringent long-term climate targets. Less stringent near-term policies (i.e., those with larger emissions) consume more of the long-term cumulative emissions budget in the 2010–2030 period, which increases the likelihood of overshooting the budget and the urgency of reducing GHG emissions after 2030. Furthermore, the larger near-term GHG emissions associated with less stringent policies are generated primarily by additional coal-based electricity generation. Therefore, to be successful in meeting the long-term target despite near-term emissions reductions that are weaker than those implied by cost-optimal mitigation pathways, models must prematurely retire significant coal capacity while rapidly ramping up low-carbon technologies between 2030 and 2050 and remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere in the latter half of the century. While increased energy efficiency lowers mitigation costs considerably, even with weak near-term policies, it does not substantially reduce the short-term reliance on coal electricity. However, increased energy efficiency does allow the energy system more flexibility in mitigating emissions and, thus, facilitates the post-2030 transition.
Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy
2014, Kriegler, Elmar, Riahi, Keywan, Bauer, Nico, Schwanitz, Valeria Jana, Petermann, Nils, Bosetti, Valentina, Marcucci, Adriana, Otto, Sander, Paroussos, Leonidas, Rao, Shilpa, Currás, Tabaré Arroyo, Ashina, Shuichi, Bollen, Johannes, Eom, Jiyong, Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem, Longden, Thomas, Kitous, Alban, Méjean, Aurélie, Sano, Fuminori, Schaeffer, Michiel, Wada, Kenichi, Capros, Pantelis, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Edenhofer, Ottmar
This study explores a situation of staged accession to a global climate policy regime from the current situation of regionally fragmented and moderate climate action. The analysis is based on scenarios in which a front runner coalition – the EU or the EU and China – embarks on immediate ambitious climate action while the rest of the world makes a transition to a global climate regime between 2030 and 2050. We assume that the ensuing regime involves strong mitigation efforts but does not require late joiners to compensate for their initially higher emissions. Thus, climate targets are relaxed, and although staged accession can achieve significant reductions of global warming, the resulting climate outcome is unlikely to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees. The addition of China to the front runner coalition can reduce pre-2050 excess emissions by 20–30%, increasing the likelihood of staying below 2 degrees. Not accounting for potential co-benefits, the cost of front runner action is found to be lower for the EU than for China. Regions that delay their accession to the climate regime face a trade-off between reduced short term costs and higher transitional requirements due to larger carbon lock-ins and more rapidly increasing carbon prices during the accession period.