4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemTargeted policies can compensate most of the increased sustainability risks in 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Bertram, Christoph; Luderer, Gunnar; Popp, Alexander; Minx, Jan Christoph; Lamb, William F; Stevanović, Miodrag; Humpenöder, Florian; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Kriegler, ElmarMeeting the 1.5 °C goal will require a rapid scale-up of zero-carbon energy supply, fuel switching to electricity, efficiency and demand-reduction in all sectors, and the replenishment of natural carbon sinks. These transformations will have immediate impacts on various of the sustainable development goals. As goals such as affordable and clean energy and zero hunger are more immediate to great parts of global population, these impacts are central for societal acceptability of climate policies. Yet, little is known about how the achievement of other social and environmental sustainability objectives can be directly managed through emission reduction policies. In addition, the integrated assessment literature has so far emphasized a single, global (cost-minimizing) carbon price as the optimal mechanism to achieve emissions reductions. In this paper we introduce a broader suite of policies—including direct sector-level regulation, early mitigation action, and lifestyle changes—into the integrated energy-economy-land-use modeling system REMIND-MAgPIE. We examine their impact on non-climate sustainability issues when mean warming is to be kept well below 2 °C or 1.5 °C. We find that a combination of these policies can alleviate air pollution, water extraction, uranium extraction, food and energy price hikes, and dependence on negative emissions technologies, thus resulting in substantially reduced sustainability risks associated with mitigating climate change. Importantly, we find that these targeted policies can more than compensate for most sustainability risks of increasing climate ambition from 2 °C to 1.5 °C.
- ItemCarbon dioxide removal technologies are not born equal(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-7-1) Strefler, Jessica; Bauer, Nico; Humpenöder, Florian; Klein, David; Popp, Alexander; Kriegler, ElmarTechnologies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere have been recognized as an important part of limiting warming to well below 2 °C called for in the Paris Agreement. However, many scenarios so far rely on bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage as the only CDR technology. Various other options have been proposed, but have scarcely been taken up in an integrated assessment of mitigation pathways. In this study we analyze a comprehensive portfolio of CDR options in terms of their regional and temporal deployment patterns in climate change mitigation pathways and the resulting challenges. We show that any CDR option with sufficient potential can reduce the economic costs of achieving the 1.5 °C target substantially without increasing the temperature overshoot. CDR helps to reduce net CO2 emissions faster and achieve carbon neutrality earlier. The regional distribution of CDR deployment in cost-effective mitigation pathways depends on which options are available. If only enhanced weathering of rocks on croplands or re- and afforestation are available, Latin America and Asia cover nearly all of global CDR deployment. Besides fairness and sustainability concerns, such a regional concentration would require large international transfers and thus strong international institutions. In our study, the full portfolio scenario is the most balanced from a regional perspective. This indicates that different CDR options should be developed such that all regions can contribute according to their regional potentials.
- ItemPeatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2020) Humpenöder, Florian; Karstens, Kristine; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Leifeld, Jens; Menichetti, Lorenzo; Barthelmes, Alexandra; Popp, AlexanderPeatlands cover only about 3% the global land area, but store about twice as much carbon as global forest biomass. If intact peatlands are drained for agriculture or other human uses, peat oxidation can result in considerable CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases (GHG) for decades or even centuries. Despite their importance, emissions from degraded peatlands have so far not been included explicitly in mitigation pathways compatible with the Paris Agreement. Such pathways include land-demanding mitigation options like bioenergy or afforestation with substantial consequences for the land system. Therefore, besides GHG emissions owing to the historic conversion of intact peatlands, the increased demand for land in current mitigation pathways could result in drainage of presently intact peatlands, e.g. for bioenergy production. Here, we present the first quantitative model-based projections of future peatland dynamics and associated GHG emissions in the context of a 2 °C mitigation pathway. Our spatially explicit land-use modelling approach with global coverage simultaneously accounts for future food demand, based on population and income projections, and land-based mitigation measures. Without dedicated peatland policy and even in the case of peatland protection, our results indicate that the land system would remain a net source of CO2 throughout the 21st century. This result is in contrast to the outcome of current mitigation pathways, in which the land system turns into a net carbon sink by 2100. However, our results indicate that it is possible to reconcile land use and GHG emissions in mitigation pathways through a peatland protection and restoration policy. According to our results, the land system would turn into a global net carbon sink by 2100, as projected by current mitigation pathways, if about 60% of present-day degraded peatlands would be rewetted in the coming decades, next to the protection of intact peatlands.
- ItemComparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050(Bristol : IOP Publ., 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-JanSystematic 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.