4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemIntroduction to the AMPERE model intercomparison studies on the economics of climate stabilization(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2014) Kriegler, Elmar; Riahi, Keywan; Bosetti, Valentina; Capros, Pantelis; Petermann, Nils; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Weyant, John P.; Edenhofer, Ottmar[No abstract available]
- ItemMaking or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 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, OttmarThis 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.
- ItemLocked into Copenhagen pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2013) Riahi, Keywan; Kriegler, Elmar; Johnson, Nils; Bertram, Christoph; den Elzen, Michel; Eom, Jiyong; Schaeffer, Michiel; Edmonds, Jae; Isaac, Morna; Krey, Volker; Longden, Thomas; Luderer, Gunnar; Méjean, Aurélie; McCollum, David L.; Mima, Silvana; Turton, Hal; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Wada, Kenichi; Bosetti, Valentina; Capros, Pantelis; Criqui, Patrick; Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem; Kainuma, Mikiko; Edenhofer, OttmarThis paper provides an overview of the AMPERE modeling comparison project with focus on the implications of near-term policies for the costs and attainability of long-term climate objectives. Nine modeling teams participated in the project to explore the consequences of global emissions following the proposed policy stringency of the national pledges from the Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements to 2030. Specific features compared to earlier assessments are the explicit consideration of near-term 2030 emission targets as well as the systematic sensitivity analysis for the availability and potential of mitigation technologies. Our estimates show that a 2030 mitigation effort comparable to the pledges would result in a further “lock-in” of the energy system into fossil fuels and thus impede the required energy transformation to reach low greenhouse-gas stabilization levels (450 ppm CO2e). Major implications include significant increases in mitigation costs, increased risk that low stabilization targets become unattainable, and reduced chances of staying below the proposed temperature change target of 2 °C in case of overshoot. With respect to technologies, we find that following the pledge pathways to 2030 would narrow policy choices, and increases the risks that some currently optional technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or the large-scale deployment of bioenergy, will become “a must” by 2030.
- ItemMid- and long-term climate projections for fragmented and delayed-action scenarios(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2013) Schaeffer, Michiel; Gohar, Laila; Kriegler, Elmar; Lowe, Jason; Riahi, Keywan; van Vuuren, DetlefThis paper explores the climate consequences of “delayed near-term action” and “staged accession” scenarios for limiting warming below 2 °C. The stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels requires a large-scale transformation of the energy system. Depending on policy choices, there are alternative pathways to reach this objective. An “optimal” path, as emerging from energy-economic modeling, implies immediate action with stringent emission reductions, while the currently proposed international policies translate into reduction delays and higher near-term emissions. In our delayed action scenarios, low stabilization levels need thus to be reached from comparatively high 2030 emission levels. Negative consequences are higher economic cost as explored in accompanying papers and significantly higher mid-term warming, as indicated by a rate of warming 50% higher by the 2040s. By contrast, both mid- and long-term warming are significantly higher in another class of scenarios of staged accession that lets some regions embark on emission reductions, while others follow later, with conservation of carbon-price pathways comparable to the optimal scenarios. Not only is mid-term warming higher in staged accession cases, but the probability to exceed 2 °C in the 21st century increases by a factor of 1.5.