Abstract:A B S T R A C TThis paper systematically compares modeled rates of change provided by global integrated assessment models aiming for the 2 C objective to historically observed rates of change. Such a comparison can provide insights into the difficulty of achieving such stringent climate stabilization scenarios. The analysis focuses specifically on the rates of change for technology expansion and diffusion, emissions and energy supply investments. The associated indicators vary in terms of system focus (technol… Show more
“…The different “what's” comprising decarbonization pathways have received unequal attention in the literature. It is more common to study the feasibility of expanding low‐carbon technologies (Loftus, Cohen, Long, & Jenkins, ; van Sluisveld et al, ; C. Wilson, Grubler, Bauer, Krey, & Riahi, ), but meeting stringent climate targets also requires phasing‐out carbon‐intensive sectors, possibly deploying negative emission technologies and radical energy demand reduction as well as many other actions (IPCC, ; Rogelj et al, ; Rogelj, Shindell, et al, ). The “what” question should not only address these actions, but also their interactions for example, the feasibility of simultaneously expanding low‐carbon energy supply and reducing the overall energy demand.…”
Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization.
This article is categorized under:
The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand
“…The different “what's” comprising decarbonization pathways have received unequal attention in the literature. It is more common to study the feasibility of expanding low‐carbon technologies (Loftus, Cohen, Long, & Jenkins, ; van Sluisveld et al, ; C. Wilson, Grubler, Bauer, Krey, & Riahi, ), but meeting stringent climate targets also requires phasing‐out carbon‐intensive sectors, possibly deploying negative emission technologies and radical energy demand reduction as well as many other actions (IPCC, ; Rogelj et al, ; Rogelj, Shindell, et al, ). The “what” question should not only address these actions, but also their interactions for example, the feasibility of simultaneously expanding low‐carbon energy supply and reducing the overall energy demand.…”
Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization.
This article is categorized under:
The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand
“…These tests are not completely independent of each other but they provide insights at different levels and perspectives, from deployment profiles at an individual technology level (Test 4) to deployment within the context of the whole energy system (Tests 5 and 6). This paper builds on similar studies in the literature (e.g., Sluisveld et al [39]) in two key ways: (1) it combines the tests into stepwise diagnostic approach and (2) it applies this diagnostic tool to successively constrain the model to generate scenarios that do not break certain feasibility criteria. Table 3.…”
Section: Description Of Analytical Methodsmentioning
Abstract:The scenarios generated by energy systems models provide a picture of the range of possible pathways to a low-carbon future. However, in order to be truly useful, these scenarios should not only be possible but also plausible. In this paper, we have used lessons from historical energy transitions to create a set of diagnostic tests to assess the feasibility of an example 2 • C scenario (generated using the least cost optimization model, TIAM-Grantham). The key assessment criteria included the rate of deployment of low carbon technologies and the rate of transition between primary energy resources. The rates of deployment of key low-carbon technologies were found to exceed the maximum historically observed rate of deployment of 20% per annum. When constraints were added to limit the scenario to within historically observed rates of change, the model no longer solved for 2 • C. Under these constraints, the lowest median 2100 temperature change for which a solution was found was about 2.1 • C and at more than double the cumulative cost of the unconstrained scenario. The analysis in this paper highlights the considerable challenge of meeting 2 • C, requiring rates of energy supply technology deployment and rates of declines in fossil fuels which are unprecedented.
“…Set within a largely neoliberal political landscape, the focus has mainly been on a techno-economic model involving the rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies ranging from wind to biomass, hydro and solar power (Edenhofer et al, 2010a(Edenhofer et al, , 2010bvan Sluisveld et al, 2015;von Stechow et al, 2016;Webb et al, 2016). Yet successful deployment of urban energy initiatives is not a matter of technoeconomic optimisation but a process in which the 'social' and the 'technical' are inextricably intertwined, and technologies co-evolve with programmes of governing (Webb et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Published scientific research mostly focuses on technical solutions and economic models (Dovì and Battaglini, 2015;Edenhofer et al, 2010b;Rizzi et al, 2014;van Sluisveld et al, 2015) when deploying new or improved renewable energy technologies for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumption of fossil fuels to limit global warming to less than 2°C. There is still little in the way of published research into public participation and public acceptance when deploying renewable energy, such as new wind energy farms in Japan (Motosu and Maruyama, 2016), constructing new overhead electrical transmission lines (Dovì and Battaglini, 2015;Komendantova et al, 2015) or grass-roots initiatives for community energy sectors (Webb et al, 2016).…”
2The findings are reported of ethnographic field studies carried out in two Scandinavian cities, namely Sønderborg and Växjö. The field studies investigated actors, networks and motivations that enable the deployment of renewable and energy-efficiency technologies for transition towards a fossil-fuel-free future. The research shows a pattern of different ideas and methods that contributed towards a common vision for significant reduction in energy use and emission. In the case of Växjö, the common narrative was one of protecting and valuing the environment through making good use of local resources, particularly from forestry. However, the theme for Sønderborg was one of job creation and business opportunities brought about by the creation of 'Project Zero' in a formal alliance between private and public sector organisations. Even so, both cities were characterised by dynamic communication and networking backed by political consensus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.