38 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 38
- ItemIs atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?(Heidelberg : Springer, 2013) Kriegler, Elmar; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Reuster, Lena; Luderer, Gunnar; Klein, DavidThe ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions.
- ItemGlobal emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2019) Gidden, Matthew J.; Riahi, Keywan; Smith, Steven J.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Luderer, Gunnar; Kriegler, Elmar; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; van den Berg, Maarten; Feng, Leyang; Klein, David; Calvin, Katherine; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Frank, Stefan; Fricko, Oliver; Harmsen, Mathijs; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Havlik, Petr; Hilaire, Jérôme; Hoesly, Rachel; Horing, Jill; Popp, Alexander; Stehfest, Elke; Takahashi, KiyoshiWe present a suite of nine scenarios of future emissions trajectories of anthropogenic sources, a key deliverable of the ScenarioMIP experiment within CMIP6. Integrated assessment model results for 14 different emissions species and 13 emissions sectors are provided for each scenario with consistent transitions from the historical data used in CMIP6 to future trajectories using automated harmonization before being downscaled to provide higher emissions source spatial detail. We find that the scenarios span a wide range of end-of-century radiative forcing values, thus making this set of scenarios ideal for exploring a variety of warming pathways. The set of scenarios is bounded on the low end by a 1.9 W m−2 scenario, ideal for analyzing a world with end-of-century temperatures well below 2 ∘C, and on the high end by a 8.5 W m−2 scenario, resulting in an increase in warming of nearly 5 ∘C over pre-industrial levels. Between these two extremes, scenarios are provided such that differences between forcing outcomes provide statistically significant regional temperature outcomes to maximize their usefulness for downstream experiments within CMIP6. A wide range of scenario
- ItemReduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2020) Nicholls, Zebedee R. J.; Meinshausen, Malte; Lewis, Jared; Gieseke, Robert; Dommenget, Dietmar; Dorheim, Kalyn; Fan, Chen-Shuo; Fuglestvedt, Jan S.; Gasser, Thomas; Golüke, Ulrich; Goodwin, Philip; Hartin, Corinne; Hope, Austin P.; Kriegler, Elmar; Leach, Nicholas J.; Marchegiani, Davide; McBride, Laura A.; Quilcaille, Yann; Rogelj, Joeri; Salawitch, Ross J.; Samset, Bjørn H.; Sandstad, Marit; Shiklomanov, Alexey N.; Skeie, Ragnhild B.; Smith, Christopher J.; Smith, Steve; Tanaka, Katsumasa; Tsutsui, Junichi; Xie, ZhiangReduced-complexity climate models (RCMs) are critical in the policy and decision making space, and are directly used within multiple Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports to complement the results of more comprehensive Earth system models. To date, evaluation of RCMs has been limited to a few independent studies. Here we introduce a systematic evaluation of RCMs in the form of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP). We expect RCMIP will extend over multiple phases, with Phase 1 being the first. In Phase 1, we focus on the RCMs' global-mean temperature responses, comparing them to observations, exploring the extent to which they emulate more complex models and considering how the relationship between temperature and cumulative emissions of CO2 varies across the RCMs. Our work uses experiments which mirror those found in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which focuses on complex Earth system and atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Using both scenario-based and idealised experiments, we examine RCMs' global-mean temperature response under a range of forcings. We find that the RCMs can all reproduce the approximately 1 ∘C of warming since pre-industrial times, with varying representations of natural variability, volcanic eruptions and aerosols. We also find that RCMs can emulate the global-mean temperature response of CMIP models to within a root-mean-square error of 0.2 ∘C over a range of experiments. Furthermore, we find that, for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)-based scenario pairs that share the same IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)-consistent stratospheric-adjusted radiative forcing, the RCMs indicate higher effective radiative forcings for the SSP-based scenarios and correspondingly higher temperatures when run with the same climate settings. In our idealised setup of RCMs with a climate sensitivity of 3 ∘C, the difference for the ssp585–rcp85 pair by 2100 is around 0.23∘C(±0.12 ∘C) due to a difference in effective radiative forcings between the two scenarios. Phase 1 demonstrates the utility of RCMIP's open-source infrastructure, paving the way for further phases of RCMIP to build on the research presented here and deepen our understanding of RCMs.
- ItemThe Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2016) O'Neill, Brian C.; Tebaldi, Claudia; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Eyring, Veronika; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Hurtt, George; Knutti, Reto; Kriegler, Elmar; Lamarque, Jean-Francois; Lowe, Jason; Meehl, Gerald A.; Moss, Richard; Riahi, Keywan; Sanderson, Benjamin M.Projections of future climate change play a fundamental role in improving understanding of the climate system as well as characterizing societal risks and response options. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. In this paper, we describe ScenarioMIP's objectives, experimental design, and its relation to other activities within CMIP6. The ScenarioMIP design is one component of a larger scenario process that aims to facilitate a wide range of integrated studies across the climate science, integrated assessment modeling, and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability communities, and will form an important part of the evidence base in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. At the same time, it will provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted science and policy questions that are especially relevant to scenario-based analysis, including the role of specific forcings such as land use and aerosols, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, the consequences of scenarios that limit warming to below 2°C, the relative contributions to uncertainty from scenarios, climate models, and internal variability, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century. To serve this wide range of scientific communities and address these questions, a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority. Some of these scenarios will also provide a basis for variants planned to be run in other CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs to investigate questions related to specific forcings. Harmonized, spatially explicit emissions and land use scenarios generated with integrated assessment models will be provided to participating climate modeling groups by late 2016, with the climate model simulations run within the 2017–2018 time frame, and output from the climate model projections made available and analyses performed over the 2018–2020 period.
- ItemAlternative carbon price trajectories can avoid excessive carbon removal([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2021) Strefler, Jessica; Kriegler, Elmar; Bauer, Nico; Luderer, Gunnar; Pietzcker, Robert C.; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Edenhofer, OttmarThe large majority of climate change mitigation scenarios that hold warming below 2 °C show high deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), resulting in a peak-and-decline behavior in global temperature. This is driven by the assumption of an exponentially increasing carbon price trajectory which is perceived to be economically optimal for meeting a carbon budget. However, this optimality relies on the assumption that a finite carbon budget associated with a temperature target is filled up steadily over time. The availability of net carbon removals invalidates this assumption and therefore a different carbon price trajectory should be chosen. We show how the optimal carbon price path for remaining well below 2 °C limits CDR demand and analyze requirements for constructing alternatives, which may be easier to implement in reality. We show that warming can be held at well below 2 °C at much lower long-term economic effort and lower CDR deployment and therefore lower risks if carbon prices are high enough in the beginning to ensure target compliance, but increase at a lower rate after carbon neutrality has been reached.
- ItemCombining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2021) Soergel, Bjoern; Kriegler, Elmar; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Bauer, Nico; Leimbach, Marian; Popp, AlexanderClimate change threatens to undermine efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. However, climate policies could impose a financial burden on the global poor through increased energy and food prices. Here, we project poverty rates until 2050 and assess how they are influenced by mitigation policies consistent with the 1.5 °C target. A continuation of historical trends will leave 350 million people globally in extreme poverty by 2030. Without progressive redistribution, climate policies would push an additional 50 million people into poverty. However, redistributing the national carbon pricing revenues domestically as an equal-per-capita climate dividend compensates this policy side effect, even leading to a small net reduction of the global poverty headcount (−6 million). An additional international climate finance scheme enables a substantial poverty reduction globally and also in Sub-Saharan Africa. Combining national redistribution with international climate finance thus provides an important entry point to climate policy in developing countries.
- ItemTaking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 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 SudharmmaMany 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.
- 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, MarÃa; 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).
- 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.
- 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.