Filters

2013 - 20152

More filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20221
Reset filters

Settings

Author: McCollum, David L. × Subject: Mitigation ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Mitigation choices impact carbon budget size compatible with low temperature goals
    (Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Rogelj, Joeri; Reisinger, Andy; McCollum, David L.; Knutti, Reto; Riahi, Keywan; Meinshausen, Malte
    Global-mean temperature increase is roughly proportional to cumulative emissions of carbon-dioxide (CO2). Limiting global warming to any level thus implies a finite CO2 budget. Due to geophysical uncertainties, the size of such budgets can only be expressed in probabilistic terms and is further influenced by non-CO2 emissions. We here explore how societal choices related to energy demand and specific mitigation options influence the size of carbon budgets for meeting a given temperature objective. We find that choices that exclude specific CO2 mitigation technologies (like Carbon Capture and Storage) result in greater costs, smaller compatible CO2 budgets until 2050, but larger CO2 budgets until 2100. Vice versa, choices that lead to a larger CO2 mitigation potential result in CO2 budgets until 2100 that are smaller but can be met at lower costs. In most cases, these budget variations can be explained by the amount of non-CO2 mitigation that is carried out in conjunction with CO2, and associated global carbon prices that also drive mitigation of non-CO2 gases. Budget variations are of the order of 10% around their central value. In all cases, limiting warming to below 2 °C thus still implies that CO2 emissions need to be reduced rapidly in the coming decades.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Locked 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, Ottmar
    This 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.