Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Item

Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °c stabilization: A short-term multi-model assessment

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, Detlef

The 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.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Item

Energy system changes in 1.5 °C, well below 2 °C and 2 °C scenarios

2019, Gambhir, Ajay, Rogelj, Joeri, Luderer, Gunnar, Few, Sheridan, Napp, Tamaryn

Meeting the Paris Agreement's goal to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts towards 1.5 °C is likely to require more rapid and fundamental energy system changes than the previously-agreed 2 °C target. Here we assess over 200 integrated assessment model scenarios which achieve 2 °C and well-below 2 °C targets, drawn from the IPCC's fifth assessment report database combined with a set of 1.5 °C scenarios produced in recent years. We specifically assess differences in a range of near-term indicators describing CO2 emissions reductions pathways, changes in primary energy and final energy across the economy's major sectors, in addition to more detailed metrics around the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS), negative emissions, low-carbon electricity and hydrogen. © 2018 The Authors

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Item

Energy system developments and investments in the decisive decade for the Paris Agreement goals

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, Gunnar

The 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.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Item

Short term policies to keep the door open for Paris climate goals

2018, Kriegler, Elmar, Bertram, Christoph, Kuramochi, Takeshi, Jakob, Michael, Pehl, Michaja, Stevanović, Miodrag, Höhne, Niklas, Luderer, Gunnar, Minx, Jan C, Fekete, Hanna, Hilaire, Jérôme, Luna, Lisa, Popp, Alexander, Steckel, Jan Christoph, Sterl, Sebastian, Yalew, Amsalu Woldie, Dietrich, Jan Philipp, Edenhofer, Ottmar

Climate policy needs to account for political and social acceptance. Current national climate policy plans proposed under the Paris Agreement lead to higher emissions until 2030 than cost-effective pathways towards the Agreements' long-term temperature goals would imply. Therefore, the current plans would require highly disruptive changes, prohibitive transition speeds, and large long-term deployment of risky mitigation measures for achieving the agreement's temperature goals after 2030. Since the prospects of introducing the cost-effective policy instrument, a global comprehensive carbon price in the near-term, are negligible, we study how a strengthening of existing plans by a global roll-out of regional policies can ease the implementation challenge of reaching the Paris temperature goals. The regional policies comprise a bundle of regulatory policies in energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, and land use and moderate, regionally differentiated carbon pricing. We find that a global roll-out of these policies could reduce global CO2 emissions by an additional 10 GtCO2eq in 2030 compared to current plans. It would lead to emissions pathways close to the levels of cost-effective likely below 2 °C scenarios until 2030, thereby reducing implementation challenges post 2030. Even though a gradual phase-in of a portfolio of regulatory policies might be less disruptive than immediate cost-effective carbon pricing, it would perform worse in other dimensions. In particular, it leads to higher economic impacts that could become major obstacles in the long-term. Hence, such policy packages should not be viewed as alternatives to carbon pricing, but rather as complements that provide entry points to achieve the Paris climate goals.