2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemEnvironmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2019) Luderer, Gunnar; Pehl, Michaja; Arvesen, Anders; Gibon, Thomas; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; de Boer, Harmen Sytze; Fricko, Oliver; Hejazi, Mohamad; Humpenöder, Florian; Iyer, Gokul; Mima, Silvana; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Pietzcker, Robert C.; Popp, Alexander; van den Berg, Maarten; van Vuuren, Detlef; Hertwich, Edgar G.A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.
- 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.