Consistent assessments of pathways toward sustainable development and climate stabilization

Akimoto, Keigo; Sano, Fuminori; Hayashi, Ayami; Homma, Takashi; Oda, Junichiro; Wada, Kazumi; Nagashima, Miyuki; Tokushige, Kohko; Tomoda, Toshimasa

doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012.01460.x

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…climate change | mitigation | water deficit | Earth system model | integrated assessment E arlier work addressing the impact of emissions mitigation on water supply and demand has produced conflicting results (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). The reasons are complex.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, changes in water demands caused by socioeconomic drivers alone may surpass the effects of climate change on water availability (12). Several studies (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) have assessed the consequences of mitigation on some measure of water deficit. Each study used its own integrated assessment and global hydrologic models, generally with varying underlying socioeconomic and technological assumptions, climate inputs, measures of water deficit, and a wide range of spatial and temporal resolutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this modeling framework, a regional integrated assessment model (IAM) simulates water demand for both irrigation and nonirrigation sectors (a result of its equilibrium modeling of markets for energy, agriculture, and land); a regional ESM projects regional climate change; and a coupled system of land surface, river routing, and water-management models simulates natural and regulated flow, water supply, and deficits on a daily basis. The integrated system provides a telescoping focus over the conterminous United States at a resolution of one-eighth of a degree (∼12 km 2 ) to project and compare water deficits under two scenarios: the baseline emissions scenario of the Representative Concentration Pathways (scenario RCP8.5) (14, 15) and a mitigation scenario in which a global carbon price is implemented to stabilize global radiative forcing by the year 2100 at 4.5 W/m 2 (scenario RCP4.5) (14, 16). Given our scenario assumptions (16), the results clearly show that climate change mitigation (i.e., scenario RCP4.5) exacerbates total water deficits in the United States compared with no mitigation (scenario RCP8.5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating

Hejazi

Voisin

Liu

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

149

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is evidence that warming leads to greater evapotranspiration and surface drying, thus contributing to increasing intensity and duration of drought and implying that mitigation would reduce water stresses. However, understanding the overall impact of climate change mitigation on water resources requires accounting for the second part of the equation, i.e., the impact of mitigationinduced changes in water demands from human activities. By using integrated, high-resolution models of human and natural system processes to understand potential synergies and/or constraints within the climate-energy-water nexus, we show that in the United States, over the course of the 21st century and under one set of consistent socioeconomics, the reductions in water stress from slower rates of climate change resulting from emission mitigation are overwhelmed by the increased water stress from the emissions mitigation itself. The finding that the human dimension outpaces the benefits from mitigating climate change is contradictory to the general perception that climate change mitigation improves water conditions. This research shows the potential for unintended and negative consequences of climate change mitigation.climate change | mitigation | water deficit | Earth system model | integrated assessment E arlier work addressing the impact of emissions mitigation on water supply and demand has produced conflicting results (1-5). The reasons are complex. Earth system models (ESMs) and climate models are generally in agreement that a lack of climate change mitigation would lead to greater warming and intensification of the global water cycle (6), increasing precipitation intensity (7), changes in runoff that amplify the existing wet/dry patterns (8), and increasing flood risk (9) as well as aridity (10). However, changes in seasonal patterns and the increasing probability of extreme events may complicate the general patterns of wet/dry trends (11). Additionally, changes in water demands caused by socioeconomic drivers alone may surpass the effects of climate change on water availability (12). Several studies (1-5) have assessed the consequences of mitigation on some measure of water deficit. Each study used its own integrated assessment and global hydrologic models, generally with varying underlying socioeconomic and technological assumptions, climate inputs, measures of water deficit, and a wide range of spatial and temporal resolutions. A key distinction of the study presented here is its coupling of regional ESMs and human systems models using finer spatial and/or temporal resolutions than previous efforts.Extending the work of Hejazi et al. (4) and Voisin et al. (13), integrated regional models of human and natural systems with enhanced capabilities are used at high temporal and spatial resolution while maintaining consistency with regional and global climate and economic modeling. In this modeling framework, a regional integrated assessment model (IAM) simulates water demand for both irrigation and nonirrigation sectors (a resu...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating

Hejazi

Voisin

Liu

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

149

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were obtained from our previous study, in which the temperature change was estimated based on the greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission scenarios (Akimoto et al, 2012). The scenarios + 4 °C and + 2 °C correspond to a baseline GHGs emission scenario and a severe GHGs mitigation scenario, respectively.…”

Section: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the GDP losses due to climate mitigation measures and climate change impacts are taken into account, the GDP value is expected to be lower than that initially assumed without considering these effects. According to our previous study, a change of several percentage points can be expected for the world total in 2100 (Akimoto et al, 2012), and such figures are not large enough to seriously affect the evaluation of water; therefore, we adopted one set of GDP scenario for scenarios A+4 and A+2, regardless the level of global mean temperature change. ALPS-B (Low population growth and high per capita GDP growth) + 4 °C *1: Global mean temperature change in 2100 relative to the pre-industrial level (see Table 3).…”

Section: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change in the Annual Water Withdrawal-to-Availability Ratio and Its Major Causes: An Evaluation for Asian River Basins Under Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change Scenarios

Hayashi¹,

Akimoto²,

Homma³

et al. 2014

EER

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than half of the world's population lives in Asia, and ensuring a stable water supply is a critical issue. This study evaluates changes in the annual water withdrawal-to-availability ratio (WAR), and the major causes thereof, for each of Asian river basins under different socioeconomic development and climate change scenarios. According to our evaluation, the WAR will increase in 59%-61% of the Asian river basin areas by around 2030, as a result of population growth and the increase in per capita municipal and industrial water withdrawals. On the other hand, the WAR will decrease in 8%-16% of such areas, due to the increase in water availability associated with global warming and a decrease in per capita water agricultural withdrawal. After 2030, there will be a reduction of areas with increasing WAR because of a slowdown in the growth of both population and per capita municipal and industrial water withdrawals, while there will be an expansion of areas with decreasing WAR caused by continual decrease in per capita agricultural water withdrawal and intensified water availability.

show abstract

Global energy‐climate scenarios and models: a review

Krey

2014

WIREs Energy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term energy scenarios are an important input to policy-relevant assessment reports on climate change such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the United Nations Environment Programme to just name a few examples. They are also used by government agencies to support their decision making in the context of climate change mitigation and other energyrelated challenges. In response to this demand, two broader categories of model development are currently pursued by the scientific community: (1) the degree of integration is increasing, in other words, the system boundaries of models are being extended, in particular to address the interlinkages between the energy, land, food, water, and climate more comprehensively and (2) the heterogeneity of the representation of various entities (e.g., spatial, sectoral, socio-economic) is increasing to adequately address distributional effects (e.g., countries within regions, urban vs rural areas, different types of households). Moreover, the energyclimate scenarios that are being developed are designed to be more 'realistic' by going beyond very stylized designs and integrate features that are observed in the real world. This includes delayed action on climate mitigation or fragmented approaches to mitigation that not only exclude major emitters from climate action, but also the exclusion of specific technologies from the portfolio of mitigation options in response to technical challenges or public acceptance issues. Finally, an attempt is made to summarize robust insights that have emerged from individual studies and particularly from modeling comparison exercises.as to government agencies directly. The majority of the existing energy scenario literature relies on formal quantitative models, although more qualitative approaches are also used. 2,5 Quantitative models are widely different in terms of their system boundaries, i.e., which natural, human and technical systems they cover, the detail of representation of various system parts and the (mathematical) solution concept. As a result, models have different strengths and weaknesses that are important to take into account when interpreting their results. 6 Modelers are typically well aware of the limitations of their models and results whereas users of model results are sometimes not-not only because of insufficient communication from the modelers, but also because of misunderstandings about the purpose of model-based scenario analyses (see Box 1) and lacking expertise of decision makers about the models and their results.

show abstract

Consistent assessments of pathways toward sustainable development and climate stabilization

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating

21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating

Change in the Annual Water Withdrawal-to-Availability Ratio and Its Major Causes: An Evaluation for Asian River Basins Under Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change Scenarios

Global energy‐climate scenarios and models: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About