4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemAll options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-5-25) Warszawski, Lila; Kriegler, Elmar; Lenton, Timothy M.; Gaffney, Owen; Jacob, Daniela; Klingenfeld, Daniel; Koide, Ryu; Máñez Costa, María; Messner, Dirk; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Schlosser, Peter; Takeuchi, Kazuhiko; Van Der Leeuw, Sander; Whiteman, Gail; Rockström, JohanClimate science provides strong evidence of the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The IPCC 1.5 °C special report (SR1.5) presents 414 emissions scenarios modelled for the report, of which around 50 are classified as '1.5 °C scenarios', with no or low temperature overshoot. These emission scenarios differ in their reliance on individual mitigation levers, including reduction of global energy demand, decarbonisation of energy production, development of land-management systems, and the pace and scale of deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. The reliance of 1.5 °C scenarios on these levers needs to be critically assessed in light of the potentials of the relevant technologies and roll-out plans. We use a set of five parameters to bundle and characterise the mitigation levers employed in the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios. For each of these levers, we draw on the literature to define 'medium' and 'high' upper bounds that delineate between their 'reasonable', 'challenging' and 'speculative' use by mid century. We do not find any 1.5 °C scenarios that stay within all medium upper bounds on the five mitigation levers. Scenarios most frequently 'over use' CDR with geological storage as a mitigation lever, whilst reductions of energy demand and carbon intensity of energy production are 'over used' less frequently. If we allow mitigation levers to be employed up to our high upper bounds, we are left with 22 of the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios with no or low overshoot. The scenarios that fulfil these criteria are characterised by greater coverage of the available mitigation levers than those scenarios that exceed at least one of the high upper bounds. When excluding the two scenarios that exceed the SR1.5 carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, this subset of 1.5 °C scenarios shows a range of 15–22 Gt CO2 (16–22 Gt CO2 interquartile range) for emissions in 2030. For the year of reaching net zero CO2 emissions the range is 2039–2061 (2049–2057 interquartile range).
- ItemEnergy system developments and investments in the decisive decade for the Paris Agreement goals(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-6-29) Bertram, Christoph; Riahi, Keywan; Hilaire, Jérôme; Bosetti, Valentina; Drouet, Laurent; Fricko, Oliver; Malik, Aman; Pupo Nogueira, Larissa; van der Zwaan, Bob; van Ruijven, Bas; van Vuuren, Detlef; Weitzel, Matthias; Dalla Longa, Francesco; de Boer, Harmen-Sytze; Emmerling, Johannes; Fosse, Florian; Fragkiadakis, Kostas; Harmsen, Mathijs; Keramidas, Kimon; Kishimoto, Paul Natsuo; Kriegler, Elmar; Krey, Volker; Paroussos, Leonidas; Saygin, Deger; Vrontisi, Zoi; Luderer, GunnarThe Paris Agreement does not only stipulate to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C, it also calls for 'making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions'. Consequently, there is an urgent need to understand the implications of climate targets for energy systems and quantify the associated investment requirements in the coming decade. A meaningful analysis must however consider the near-term mitigation requirements to avoid the overshoot of a temperature goal. It must also include the recently observed fast technological progress in key mitigation options. Here, we use a new and unique scenario ensemble that limit peak warming by construction and that stems from seven up-to-date integrated assessment models. This allows us to study the near-term implications of different limits to peak temperature increase under a consistent and up-to-date set of assumptions. We find that ambitious immediate action allows for limiting median warming outcomes to well below 2 °C in all models. By contrast, current nationally determined contributions for 2030 would add around 0.2 °C of peak warming, leading to an unavoidable transgression of 1.5 °C in all models, and 2 °C in some. In contrast to the incremental changes as foreseen by current plans, ambitious peak warming targets require decisive emission cuts until 2030, with the most substantial contribution to decarbonization coming from the power sector. Therefore, investments into low-carbon power generation need to increase beyond current levels to meet the Paris goals, especially for solar and wind technologies and related system enhancements for electricity transmission, distribution and storage. Estimates on absolute investment levels, up-scaling of other low-carbon power generation technologies and investment shares in less ambitious scenarios vary considerably across models. In scenarios limiting peak warming to below 2 °C, while coal is phased out quickly, oil and gas are still being used significantly until 2030, albeit at lower than current levels. This requires continued investments into existing oil and gas infrastructure, but investments into new fields in such scenarios might not be needed. The results show that credible and effective policy action is essential for ensuring efficient allocation of investments aligned with medium-term climate targets.
- 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.
- ItemEarly transformation of the Chinese power sector to avoid additional coal lock-in(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2020) Wang, Huan; Chen, Wenying; Bertram, Christoph; Malik, Aman; Kriegler, Elmar; Luderer, Gunnar; Després, Jacques; Jiang, Kejun; Krey, VolkerEmission reduction from the coal-dominated power sector is vital for achieving China's carbon mitigation targets. Although the coal expansion has been slowed down due to the cancellation of and delay in new construction, coal-based power was responsible for over one third of China's energy-related CO2 emissions by 2018. Moreover, with a technical lifetime of over 30 years, current investment in coal-based power could hinder CO2 mitigation until 2050. Therefore, it is important to examine whether the current coal-based power planning aligns with the long-term climate targets. This paper introduces China's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) goals and an ambitious carbon budget along with global pathways well-below 2 degrees that are divided into five integrated assessment models, which are two national and three global models. We compare the models' results with bottom-up data on current capacity additions and expansion plans to examine if the NDC targets are in line with 2-degree pathways. The key findings are: 1. NDC goals alone are unlikely to lead to significant reductions in coal-based power generation. On the contrary, more plants may be built before 2030; 2. this would require an average of 187–261 TWh of annual coal-based power capacity reduction between 2030 and 2050 to achieve a 2 °C compatible trajectory, which would lead to the stranding of large-scale coal-based power plants; 3. if the reduction in coal power can be brought forward to 2020, the average annual coal-based power reduction required would be 104–155 TWh from 2020 to 2050 and the emissions could peak earlier; 4. early regulations in coal-based power would require accelerated promotion of alternatives between 2020 and 2030, with nuclear, wind and solar power expected to be the most promising alternatives. By presenting the stranding risk and viability of alternatives, we suggest that both the government and enterprises should remain cautious about making new investment in coal-based power sector.