4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemTaking some heat off the NDCs? The limited potential of additional short-lived climate forcers’ mitigation(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2019) Harmsen, Mathijs; Fricko, Oliver; Hilaire, Jérôme; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Drouet, Laurent; Durand-Lasserve, Olivier; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Keramidas, Kimon; Klimont, Zbigniew; Luderer, Gunnar; Aleluia Reis, Lara; Riahi, Keywan; Sano, Fuminori; Smith, Steven J.Several studies have shown that the greenhouse gas reduction resulting from the current nationally determined contributions (NDCs) will not be enough to meet the overall targets of the Paris Climate Agreement. It has been suggested that more ambition mitigations of short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) emissions could potentially be a way to reduce the risk of overshooting the 1.5 or 2 °C target in a cost-effective way. In this study, we employ eight state-of-the-art integrated assessment models (IAMs) to examine the global temperature effects of ambitious reductions of methane, black and organic carbon, and hydrofluorocarbon emissions. The SLCFs measures considered are found to add significantly to the effect of the NDCs on short-term global mean temperature (GMT) (in the year 2040: − 0.03 to − 0.15 °C) and on reducing the short-term rate-of-change (by − 2 to 15%), but only a small effect on reducing the maximum temperature change before 2100. This, because later in the century under assumed ambitious climate policy, SLCF mitigation is maximized, either directly or indirectly due to changes in the energy system. All three SLCF groups can contribute to achieving GMT changes. © 2019, The Author(s).
- ItemThe role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2019) Harmsen, Mathijs; Mathijs, Detlef P.; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Chateau, Jean; Durand-Lasserve, Olivier; Drouet, Laurent; Fricko, Oliver; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Gernaat, David E.H.J.; Hanaoka, Tatsuya; Hilaire, Jérôme; Keramidas, Kimon; Luderer, Gunnar; Moura, Maria Cecilia P.; Sano, Fuminori; Smith, Steven J.; Wada, KenichiThis study examines model-specific assumptions and projections of methane (CH4) emissions in deep mitigation scenarios generated by integrated assessment models (IAMs). For this, scenarios of nine models are compared in terms of sectoral and regional CH4 emission reduction strategies, as well as resulting climate impacts. The models’ projected reduction potentials are compared to sector and technology-specific reduction potentials found in literature. Significant cost-effective and non-climate policy related reductions are projected in the reference case (10–36% compared to a “frozen emission factor” scenario in 2100). Still, compared to 2010, CH4 emissions are expected to rise steadily by 9–72% (up to 412 to 654 Mt CH4/year). Ambitious CO2 reduction measures could by themselves lead to a reduction of CH4 emissions due to a reduction of fossil fuels (22–48% compared to the reference case in 2100). However, direct CH4 mitigation is crucial and more effective in bringing down CH4 (50–74% compared to the reference case). Given the limited reduction potential, agriculture CH4 emissions are projected to constitute an increasingly larger share of total anthropogenic CH4 emissions in mitigation scenarios. Enteric fermentation in ruminants is in that respect by far the largest mitigation bottleneck later in the century with a projected 40–78% of total remaining CH4 emissions in 2100 in a strong (2 °C) climate policy case. © 2019, The Author(s).
- ItemEnhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °c stabilization: A short-term multi-model assessment(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Vrontisi, Zoi; Luderer, Gunnar; Saveyn, Bert; Keramidas, Kimon; Lara, Aleluia Reis; Baumstark, Lavinia; Bertram, Christoph; de Boer, Harmen Sytze; Drouet, Laurent; Fragkiadakis, Kostas; Fricko, Oliver; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Guivarch, Celine; Kitous, Alban; Krey, Volker; Kriegler, Elmar; Broin, Eoin Ó.; Paroussos, Leonidas; van Vuuren, DetlefThe Paris Agreement is a milestone in international climate policy as it establishes a global mitigation framework towards 2030 and sets the ground for a potential 1.5 °C climate stabilization. To provide useful insights for the 2018 UNFCCC Talanoa facilitative dialogue, we use eight state-of-the-art climate-energy-economy models to assess the effectiveness of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in meeting high probability 1.5 and 2 °C stabilization goals. We estimate that the implementation of conditional INDCs in 2030 leaves an emissions gap from least cost 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways for year 2030 equal to 15.6 (9.0–20.3) and 24.6 (18.5–29.0) GtCO2eq respectively. The immediate transition to a more efficient and low-carbon energy system is key to achieving the Paris goals. The decarbonization of the power supply sector delivers half of total CO2 emission reductions in all scenarios, primarily through high penetration of renewables and energy efficiency improvements. In combination with an increased electrification of final energy demand, low-carbon power supply is the main short-term abatement option. We find that the global macroeconomic cost of mitigation efforts does not reduce the 2020–2030 annual GDP growth rates in any model more than 0.1 percentage points in the INDC or 0.3 and 0.5 in the 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios respectively even without accounting for potential co-benefits and avoided climate damages. Accordingly, the median GDP reductions across all models in 2030 are 0.4%, 1.2% and 3.3% of reference GDP for each respective scenario. Costs go up with increasing mitigation efforts but a fragmented action, as implied by the INDCs, results in higher costs per unit of abated emissions. On a regional level, the cost distribution is different across scenarios while fossil fuel exporters see the highest GDP reductions in all INDC, 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios.
- ItemLooking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2018) Krey, Volker; Guo, Fei; Kolp, Peter; Zhou, Wenji; Schaeffer, Roberto; Awasthy, Aayushi; Bertram, Christoph; de Boer, Harmen-Sytze; Fragkos, Panagiotis; Fujimori, Shinichiro; He, Chenmin; Iyer, Gokul; Keramidas, Kimon; Köberle, Alexandre C.; Oshiro, Ken; Reis, Lara Aleluia; Shoai-Tehrani, Bianka; Vishwanathan, Saritha; Capros, Pantelis; Drouet, Laurent; Edmonds, James E.; Garg, Amit; Gernaat, David E.H.J.; Jiang, Kejun; Kannavou, Maria; Kitous, Alban; Kriegler, Elmar; Luderer, Gunnar; Mathur, Ritu; Muratori, Matteo; Sano, Fuminori; van Vuuren, Detlef P.Integrated assessment models are extensively used in the analysis of climate change mitigation and are informing national decision makers as well as contribute to international scientific assessments. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of techno-economic assumptions in the electricity sector among fifteen different global and national integrated assessment models. Particular focus is given to six major economies in the world: Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the US. The comparison reveals that techno-economic characteristics are quite different across integrated assessment models, both for the base year and future years. It is, however, important to recognize that techno-economic assessments from the literature exhibit an equally large range of parameters as the integrated assessment models reviewed. Beyond numerical differences, the representation of technologies also differs among models, which needs to be taken into account when comparing numerical parameters. While desirable, it seems difficult to fully harmonize techno-economic parameters across a broader range of models due to structural differences in the representation of technology. Therefore, making techno-economic parameters available in the future, together with of the technology representation as well as the exact definitions of the parameters should become the standard approach as it allows an open discussion of appropriate assumptions. © 2019 The Authors