5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemNegative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2019) Hilaire, Jérôme; Minx, Jan C.; Callaghan, Max W.; Edmonds, Jae; Luderer, Gunnar; Nemet, Gregory F.; Rogelj, Joeri; del Mar Zamora, MariaFor aiming to keep global warming well-below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, a full-fledged assessment of negative emission technologies (NETs) that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is crucial to inform science-based policy making. With the Paris Agreement in mind, we re-analyse available scenario evidence to understand the roles of NETs in 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios and, for the first time, link this to a systematic review of findings in the underlying literature. In line with previous research, we find that keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires a rapid large-scale deployment of NETs, while for 2 °C, we can still limit NET deployment substantially by ratcheting up near-term mitigation ambition. Most recent evidence stresses the importance of future socio-economic conditions in determining the flexibility of NET deployment and suggests opportunities for hedging technology risks by adopting portfolios of NETs. Importantly, our thematic review highlights that there is a much richer set of findings on NETs than commonly reflected upon both in scientific assessments and available reviews. In particular, beyond the common findings on NETs underpinned by dozens of studies around early scale-up, the changing shape of net emission pathways or greater flexibility in the timing of climate policies, there is a suite of “niche and emerging findings”, e.g. around innovation needs and rapid technological change, termination of NETs at the end of the twenty-first century or the impacts of climate change on the effectiveness of NETs that have not been widely appreciated. Future research needs to explore the role of climate damages on NET uptake, better understand the geophysical constraints of NET deployment (e.g. water, geological storage, climate feedbacks), and provide a more systematic assessment of NET portfolios in the context of sustainable development goals. © 2019, The Author(s).
- ItemInconsistencies when applying novel metrics for emissions accounting to the Paris agreement(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Nauels, Alexander; Schaeffer, Michiel; Hare, William; Rogelj, JoeriAddressing emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) is an integral part of efficient climate change mitigation and therefore an essential part of climate policy. Metrics are used to aggregate and compare emissions of short- and long-lived GHGs and need to account for the difference in both magnitude and persistence of their climatic effects. Different metrics describe different approaches and perspectives, and hence yield different numerical estimates for aggregated GHG emissions. When interpreting GHG emission reduction targets, being mindful of the underlying metrical choices thus proves to be essential. Here we present the impact a recently proposed GHG metric related to the concept of CO2 forcing-equivalent emissions (called GWP*) would have on the internal consistency and environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement. We show that interpreting the Paris Agreement goals in a metric like GWP* that is significantly different from the standard metric used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report can lead to profound inconsistencies in the mitigation architecture of the Agreement. It could even undermine the integrity of the Agreement's mitigation target altogether by failing to deliver net-zero CO2 emissions and therewith failing to ensure warming is halted. Our results indicate that great care needs to be taken when applying new concepts that appear scientifically favourable to a pre-existing climate policy context.
- ItemThe Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: Quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2019) Jones, Chris D.; Frölicher, Thomas L.; Koven, Charles; MacDougall, Andrew H.; Matthews, H. Damon; Zickfeld, Kirsten; Rogelj, Joeri; Tokarska, Katarzyna B.; Gillett, Nathan P.; Ilyina, Tatiana; Meinshausen, Malte; Mengis, Nadine; Séférian, Roland; Eby, Michael; Burger, Friedrich A.The amount of additional future temperature change following a complete cessation of CO2 emissions is a measure of the unrealized warming to which we are committed due to CO2 already emitted to the atmosphere. This “zero emissions commitment” (ZEC) is also an important quantity when estimating the remaining carbon budget – a limit on the total amount of CO2 emissions consistent with limiting global mean temperature at a particular level. In the recent IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ∘C, the carbon budget framework used to calculate the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 ∘C included the assumption that the ZEC due to CO2 emissions is negligible and close to zero. Previous research has shown significant uncertainty even in the sign of the ZEC. To close this knowledge gap, we propose the Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP), which will quantify the amount of unrealized temperature change that occurs after CO2 emissions cease and investigate the geophysical drivers behind this climate response. Quantitative information on ZEC is a key gap in our knowledge, and one that will not be addressed by currently planned CMIP6 simulations, yet it is crucial for verifying whether carbon budgets need to be adjusted to account for any unrealized temperature change resulting from past CO2 emissions. We request only one top-priority simulation from comprehensive general circulation Earth system models (ESMs) and Earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) – a branch from the 1 % CO2 run with CO2 emissions set to zero at the point of 1000 PgC of total CO2 emissions in the simulation – with the possibility for additional simulations, if resources allow. ZECMIP is part of CMIP6, under joint sponsorship by C4MIP and CDRMIP, with associated experiment names to enable data submissions to the Earth System Grid Federation. All data will be published and made freely available.
- ItemEnergy system changes in 1.5 °C, well below 2 °C and 2 °C scenarios(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2019) Gambhir, Ajay; Rogelj, Joeri; Luderer, Gunnar; Few, Sheridan; Napp, TamarynMeeting the Paris Agreement's goal to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts towards 1.5 °C is likely to require more rapid and fundamental energy system changes than the previously-agreed 2 °C target. Here we assess over 200 integrated assessment model scenarios which achieve 2 °C and well-below 2 °C targets, drawn from the IPCC's fifth assessment report database combined with a set of 1.5 °C scenarios produced in recent years. We specifically assess differences in a range of near-term indicators describing CO2 emissions reductions pathways, changes in primary energy and final energy across the economy's major sectors, in addition to more detailed metrics around the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), negative emissions, low-carbon electricity and hydrogen. © 2018 The Authors
- ItemUnintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Rogelj, Joeri; Schleussner, Carl-FriedrichThe 2015 Paris Agreement sets out that rapid reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are needed to keep global warming to safe levels. A new approach (known as GWP*) has been suggested to compare contributions of long- and short-lived GHGs, providing a close link between cumulative CO2-equivalent emissions and total warming. However, comparison factors for non-CO2 GHGs under the GWP* metric depend on past emissions, and hence raise questions of equity and fairness when applied at any but the global level. The use of GWP* would put most developing countries at a disadvantage compared to developed countries, because when using GWP* countries with high historical emissions of short-lived GHGs are exempted from accounting for avoidable future warming that is caused by sustaining these emissions. We show that when various established equity or fairness criteria are applied to GWP* (defined here as eGWP*), perceived national non-CO2 emissions vary by more than an order of magnitude, particularly in countries with high methane emissions like New Zealand. We show that national emission estimates that use GWP* are very sensitive to arbitrary choices made by countries and therewith facilitate the creation of loopholes when CO2-equivalent emissions based on the GWP* concept are traded between countries that use different approaches. In light of such equity-dependent accounting differences, GHG metrics like GWP* should only be used at the global level. A common, transparent and equity-neutral accounting metric is vital for the Paris Agreement's effectiveness and its environmental integrity.