2019, Luderer, Gunnar, Pehl, Michaja, Arvesen, Anders, Gibon, Thomas, Bodirsky, Benjamin L., de Boer, Harmen Sytze, Fricko, Oliver, Hejazi, Mohamad, Humpenöder, Florian, Iyer, Gokul, Mima, Silvana, Mouratiadou, Ioanna, Pietzcker, Robert C., Popp, Alexander, van den Berg, Maarten, van Vuuren, Detlef, Hertwich, Edgar G.

A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.

2020, Roelfsema, Mark, van Soest, Heleen L., Harmsen, Mathijs, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Bertram, Christoph, den Elzen, Michel, Höhne, Niklas, Iacobuta, Gabriela, Krey, Volker, Kriegler, Elmar, Luderer, Gunnar, Riahi, Keywan, Ueckerdt, Falko, Després, Jacques, Drouet, Laurent, Emmerling, Johannes, Frank, Stefan, Fricko, Oliver, Gidden, Matthew, Humpenöder, Florian, Huppmann, Daniel, Fujimori, Shinichiro, Fragkiadakis, Kostas, Gi, Keii, Keramidas, Kimon, Köberle, Alexandre C., Aleluia Reis, Lara, Rochedo, Pedro, Schaeffer, Roberto, Oshiro, Ken, Vrontisi, Zoi, Chen, Wenying, Iyer, Gokul C., Edmonds, Jae, Kannavou, Maria, Jiang, Kejun, Mathur, Ritu, Safonov, George, Vishwanathan, Saritha Sudharmma

Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries.

2018, van Meijl, Hans, Havlik, Petr, Lotze-Campen, Hermann, Stehfest, Elke, Witzke, Peter, Pérez Domínguez, Ignacio, Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon, van Dijk, Michiel, Doelman, Jonathan, Fellmann, Thomas, Humpenöder, Florian, Koopman, Jason F. L., Müller, Christoph, Popp, Alexander, Tabeau, Andrzej, Valin, Hugo, van Zeist, Willem-Jan

Systematic model inter-comparison helps to narrow discrepancies in the analysis of the future impact of climate change on agricultural production. This paper presents a set of alternative scenarios by five global climate and agro-economic models. Covering integrated assessment (IMAGE), partial equilibrium (CAPRI, GLOBIOM, MAgPIE) and computable general equilibrium (MAGNET) models ensures a good coverage of biophysical and economic agricultural features. These models are harmonized with respect to basic model drivers, to assess the range of potential impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector by 2050. Moreover, they quantify the economic consequences of stringent global emission mitigation efforts, such as non-CO2 emission taxes and land-based mitigation options, to stabilize global warming at 2 °C by the end of the century under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. A key contribution of the paper is a vis-à-vis comparison of climate change impacts relative to the impact of mitigation measures. In addition, our scenario design allows assessing the impact of the residual climate change on the mitigation challenge. From a global perspective, the impact of climate change on agricultural production by mid-century is negative but small. A larger negative effect on agricultural production, most pronounced for ruminant meat production, is observed when emission mitigation measures compliant with a 2 °C target are put in place. Our results indicate that a mitigation strategy that embeds residual climate change effects (RCP2.6) has a negative impact on global agricultural production relative to a no-mitigation strategy with stronger climate impacts (RCP6.0). However, this is partially due to the limited impact of the climate change scenarios by 2050. The magnitude of price changes is different amongst models due to methodological differences. Further research to achieve a better harmonization is needed, especially regarding endogenous food and feed demand, including substitution across individual commodities, and endogenous technological change.