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.
The global economic long-term potential of modern biomass in a climate-constrained world
Low-stabilization scenarios consistent with the 2 °C target project large-scale deployment of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass. In case a GHG price regime integrates emissions from energy conversion and from land-use/land-use change, the strong demand for bioenergy and the pricing of terrestrial emissions are likely to coincide. We explore the global potential of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass and ask the question how the supply prices of biomass depend on prices for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the land-use sector. Using the spatially explicit global land-use optimization model MAgPIE, we construct bioenergy supply curves for ten world regions and a global aggregate in two scenarios, with and without a GHG tax. We find that the implementation of GHG taxes is crucial for the slope of the supply function and the GHG emissions from the land-use sector. Global supply prices start at $5 GJ−1 and increase almost linearly, doubling at 150 EJ (in 2055 and 2095). The GHG tax increases bioenergy prices by $5 GJ−1 in 2055 and by $10 GJ−1 in 2095, since it effectively stops deforestation and thus excludes large amounts of high-productivity land. Prices additionally increase due to costs for N2O emissions from fertilizer use. The GHG tax decreases global land-use change emissions by one-third. However, the carbon emissions due to bioenergy production increase by more than 50% from conversion of land that is not under emission control. Average yields required to produce 240 EJ in 2095 are roughly 600 GJ ha−1 yr−1 with and without tax.
Economic mitigation challenges: How further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets
While the international community aims to limit global warming to below 2 ° C to prevent dangerous climate change, little progress has been made towards a global climate agreement to implement the emissions reductions required to reach this target. We use an integrated energy–economy–climate modeling system to examine how a further delay of cooperative action and technology availability affect climate mitigation challenges. With comprehensive emissions reductions starting after 2015 and full technology availability we estimate that maximum 21st century warming may still be limited below 2 ° C with a likely probability and at moderate economic impacts. Achievable temperature targets rise by up to ~0.4 ° C if the implementation of comprehensive climate policies is delayed by another 15 years, chiefly because of transitional economic impacts. If carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unavailable, the lower limit of achievable targets rises by up to ~0.3 ° C. Our results show that progress in international climate negotiations within this decade is imperative to keep the 2 ° C target within reach.
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.
National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement
In June 2015, the G7 agreed to two global mitigation goals: 'a decarbonization of the global economy over the course of this century' and 'the upper end of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendation of 40%–70% reductions by 2050 compared to 2010'. These IPCC recommendations aim to preserve a likely (>66%) chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C but are not necessarily consistent with the stronger ambition of the subsequent Paris Agreement of 'holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels'. The G7 did not specify global or national emissions scenarios consistent with its own agreement. Here we identify global cost-optimal emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models that match the G7 agreement. These scenarios have global 2030 emissions targets of 11%–43% below 2010, global net negative CO2 emissions starting between 2056 and 2080, and some exhibit net negative greenhouse gas emissions from 2080 onwards. We allocate emissions from these global scenarios to countries according to five equity approaches representative of the five equity categories presented in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCCAR5): 'capability', 'equality', 'responsibility-capability-need', 'equal cumulative per capita' and 'staged approaches'. Our results show that G7 members' Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDCs) mitigation targets are in line with a grandfathering approach but lack ambition to meet various visions of climate justice. The INDCs of China and Russia fall short of meeting the requirements of any allocation approach. Depending on how their INDCs are evaluated, the INDCs of India and Brazil can match some equity approaches evaluated in this study.
Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies
The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO2), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO2) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
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.
Reply to Burgess et al: Catastrophic climate risks are neglected, plausible, and safe to study
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.
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.