Search Results
Road to glory or highway to hell? Global road access and climate change mitigation
Transportation infrastructure is considered a key factor for economic development and poverty alleviation. The United Nations have explicitly included the provision of transport infrastructure access, e.g. through all-season road access, in their Sustainable Development Goal agenda (SDGs, target 9.1). Yet, little is known about the number of people lacking access to roads worldwide, the costs of closing existing access gaps and the implications of additional roads for other sustainability concerns such as climate change mitigation (SDG-13). Here we quantify, for 250 countries and territories, the percentage of population without road access in 2 km. We find that infrastructure investments required to provide quasi-universal road access are about USD 3 trillion. We estimate that the associated cumulative CO2 emissions from construction work and additional traffic until the end of the century amount to roughly 16 Gt. Our geographically explicit global analysis provides a starting point for refined regional studies and for the quantification of further environmental and social implications of SDG-9.1.
Projecting the impact of air pollution on child stunting in India—synergies and trade-offs between climate change mitigation, ambient air quality control, and clean cooking access
Many children in India face the double burden of high exposure to ambient (AAP) and household air pollution, both of which can affect their linear growth. Although climate change mitigation is expected to decrease AAP, climate policies could increase the cost of clean cooking fuels. Here, we develop a static microsimulation model to project the air pollution-related burden of child stunting in India up to 2050 under four scenarios combining climate change mitigation (2 °C target) with national policies for AAP control and subsidised access to clean cooking. We link data from a nationally representative household survey, satellite-based estimates of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a multi-dimensional demographic projection and PM2.5 and clean cooking access projections from an integrated assessment model. We find that the positive effects on child linear growth from reductions in AAP under the 2 °C Paris Agreement target could be fully offset by the negative effects of climate change mitigation through reduced clean cooking access. Targeted AAP control or subsidised access to clean cooking could shift this trade-off to result in net benefits of 2.8 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 1.4, 4.2) or 6.5 (UI: 6.3, 6.9) million cumulative prevented cases of child stunting between 2020–50 compared to business-as-usual. Implementation of integrated climate, air quality, and energy access interventions has a synergistic impact, reducing cumulative number of stunted children by 12.1 (UI: 10.7, 13.7) million compared to business-as-usual, with the largest health benefits experienced by the most disadvantaged children and geographic regions. Findings underscore the importance of complementing climate change mitigation efforts with targeted air quality and energy access policies to concurrently deliver on carbon mitigation, health and air pollution and energy poverty reduction goals in India.
Peatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation
Peatlands cover only about 3% the global land area, but store about twice as much carbon as global forest biomass. If intact peatlands are drained for agriculture or other human uses, peat oxidation can result in considerable CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases (GHG) for decades or even centuries. Despite their importance, emissions from degraded peatlands have so far not been included explicitly in mitigation pathways compatible with the Paris Agreement. Such pathways include land-demanding mitigation options like bioenergy or afforestation with substantial consequences for the land system. Therefore, besides GHG emissions owing to the historic conversion of intact peatlands, the increased demand for land in current mitigation pathways could result in drainage of presently intact peatlands, e.g. for bioenergy production. Here, we present the first quantitative model-based projections of future peatland dynamics and associated GHG emissions in the context of a 2 °C mitigation pathway. Our spatially explicit land-use modelling approach with global coverage simultaneously accounts for future food demand, based on population and income projections, and land-based mitigation measures. Without dedicated peatland policy and even in the case of peatland protection, our results indicate that the land system would remain a net source of CO2 throughout the 21st century. This result is in contrast to the outcome of current mitigation pathways, in which the land system turns into a net carbon sink by 2100. However, our results indicate that it is possible to reconcile land use and GHG emissions in mitigation pathways through a peatland protection and restoration policy. According to our results, the land system would turn into a global net carbon sink by 2100, as projected by current mitigation pathways, if about 60% of present-day degraded peatlands would be rewetted in the coming decades, next to the protection of intact peatlands.
Reply to Burgess et al: Catastrophic climate risks are neglected, plausible, and safe to study
What is important for achieving 2 °C? UNFCCC and IPCC expert perceptions on obstacles and response options for climate change mitigation
Global mitigation efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C. While a growing academic literature analyzes this problem, perceptions of which obstacles inhibit goal attainment and which responses might be most effective seem to differ widely. This makes prioritization and agreement on the way forward difficult. To inform prioritization in global climate policy and research agendas, we present quantitative data on how 917 experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC perceive the importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2 °C. On average, respondents consider opposition from special interest groups the most important obstacle and technological R&D the most important response. Our survey also finds that the majority of experts perceives a wide range of issues as important, supporting an agenda that is inclusive in terms of coverage. Average importance ratings differ between experts from the Global North and South, suggesting that balanced representation in global fora and regionally differentiated agendas are important. In particular, opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from North America, Europe and Oceania. Investigating the drivers of individual importance ratings, we find little difference between experts from the IPCC and the UNFCCC, while expert's perceptions correlate with their academic training and their national scientific, regulatory, and financial contexts.
Reply to Bhowmik et al.: Democratic climate action and studying extreme climate risks are not in tension
[no abstract available]
Carbon dioxide removal technologies are not born equal
Technologies 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.
Trade-Offs for Climate-Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate
Forests mitigate climate change by storing carbon and reducing emissions via substitution effects of wood products. Additionally, they provide many other important ecosystem services (ESs), but are vulnerable to climate change; therefore, adaptation is necessary. Climate-smart forestry combines mitigation with adaptation, whilst facilitating the provision of many ESs. This is particularly challenging due to large uncertainties about future climate. Here, we combined ecosystem modeling with robust multi-criteria optimization to assess how the provision of various ESs (climate change mitigation, timber provision, local cooling, water availability, and biodiversity habitat) can be guaranteed under a broad range of climate futures across Europe. Our optimized portfolios contain 29% unmanaged forests, and implicate a successive conversion of 34% of coniferous to broad-leaved forests (11% vice versa). Coppices practically vanish from Southern Europe, mainly due to their high water requirement. We find the high shares of unmanaged forests necessary to keep European forests a carbon sink while broad-leaved and unmanaged forests contribute to local cooling through biogeophysical effects. Unmanaged forests also pose the largest benefit for biodiversity habitat. However, the increased shares of unmanaged and broad-leaved forests lead to reductions in harvests. This raises the question of how to meet increasing wood demands without transferring ecological impacts elsewhere or enhancing the dependence on more carbon-intensive industries. Furthermore, the mitigation potential of forests depends on assumptions about the decarbonization of other industries and is consequently crucially dependent on the emission scenario. Our findings highlight that trade-offs must be assessed when developing concrete strategies for climate-smart forestry.