Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry

Delhotal, Katherine Casey; Chesnaye, Francisco C. de la; Gardiner, Ann; Bates, Judith; Sankovski, Alexei

doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-volsi2006-nosi3-3

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The GCAM SLCF scenario has three elements. First, methane emissions are reduced to the maximal extent technically feasible in all sectors, based on published estimates (20,21). This results in a reduction in 2030 of 170 Tg of CH 4 relative to the counterfactual case with no methane reduction and a 120-Tg reduction of CH 4 relative to the reference scenario, where some economically driven reductions in CH 4 emissions already occur (SI Appendix, section 4).…”

Section: Scenarios and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near-term climate mitigation by short-lived forcers

Smith

Mizrahi

2013

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emissions reductions focused on anthropogenic climate-forcing agents with relatively short atmospheric lifetimes, such as methane (CH 4 ) and black carbon, have been suggested as a strategy to reduce the rate of climate change over the next several decades. We find that reductions of methane and black carbon would likely have only a modest impact on near-term global climate warming. Even with maximally feasible reductions phased in from 2015 to 2035, global mean temperatures in 2050 would be reduced by 0.16°C, with a range of 0.04-0.35°C because of uncertainties in carbonaceous aerosol emissions and aerosol forcing per unit of emissions. The high end of this range is only possible if total historical aerosol forcing is relatively small. More realistic emission reductions would likely provide an even smaller climate benefit. We find that the climate benefit from reductions in short-lived forcing agents are smaller than previously estimated. These nearterm climate benefits of targeted reductions in short-lived forcers are not substantially different in magnitude from the benefits from a comprehensive climate policy.M itigation focused on short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) is a potentially attractive option to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change, given the potential for a shorterterm influence on climate compared with carbon dioxide mitigation (1-4). These proposals have focused on methane (CH 4 ) and black carbon (BC), which are thought to be the two most important positive forcing agents after carbon dioxide (5, 6).Current forcing from methane, including its effect on tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor, is of the order 0.65 W/m 2 , and the impact of BC was recently assessed to be 1 W/m 2 , although with very high uncertainty (6). A forcing reduction of 0.5 W/m 2 , less than a third of the central estimate for total BC and CH 4 forcing, would result in a long-term temperature decrease of 0.4°C, for a central equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.0°C per CO 2 doubling. As discussed in SI Appendix, section 2, however, only a portion of this reduction would be realized in the short term.Although this simple calculation points to the potential benefit from SLCF mitigation, this potential is subject to many uncertainties, including the impact of coemitted pollutants and the large uncertainty in both aerosol forcing and carbonaceous aerosol emissions. With respect to BC mitigation, a critical constraint is that there is strong evidence that net aerosol forcing is negative (SI Appendix, section 6) (7-10).In addition, the potential for SLCF-focused policies must be examined within a consistent, evolving context. This is particularly true for the so-called developing world, where, in many regions, incomes are growing, and, as a result, pollution control polices are rapidly changing. In the parlance of scenarios research, this means that potential SLCF polices need to be evaluated against a consistent reference scenario, as described below. Any near-term reductions will take place within a con...

show abstract

Section: Scenarios and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near-term climate mitigation by short-lived forcers

Smith

Mizrahi

2013

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of sector specific studies were carried out in the late 1990s and early 2000s [7][8][9], many of which formed the basis of more comprehensive assessments [10][11][12]. These studies were undertaken in order to construct marginal abatement cost curves for 2010, which were then extrapolated for use in integrated assessment studies [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation to Achieving Long-Term Temperature Goals

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses the emissions and cost impacts of mitigation of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) at a global level, in scenarios aimed at meeting a range of long-term temperature goals (LTTGs). The study combines an integrated assessment model (TIAM-Grantham) representing CO 2 emissions (and their mitigation) from the fossil fuel combustion and industrial sectors, coupled with a model covering non-CO 2 emissions (GAINS), using the latest global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. We illustrate that in general non-CO 2 mitigation measures are less costly than CO 2 mitigation measures, with the majority of their abatement potential achievable at US2005$100/tCO 2 e or less throughout the 21st century (compared to a marginal CO 2 mitigation cost which is already greater than this by 2030 in the most stringent mitigation scenario). As a result, the total cumulative discounted cost over the period 2010-2100 (at a 5% discount rate) of limiting global average temperature change to 2.5 • C by 2100 is $48 trillion (about 1.6% of cumulative discounted GDP over the period 2010-2100) if only CO 2 from the fossil fuel and industrial sectors is targeted, whereas the cost falls to $17 trillion (0.6% of GDP) by including non-CO 2 GHG mitigation in the portfolio of options-a cost reduction of about 65%. The criticality of non-CO 2 mitigation recommends further research, given its relatively less well-explored nature when compared to CO 2 mitigation.

show abstract

“…Methane emissions from coal mining and from oil and gas production and distribution amounts to only about 5% of the total (2000) global GHG emissions; however, currently available technology can reduce this amount by around 60% compared to baseline levels in 2010 (Delhotal et al, 2006) and by up to 90% towards the end of the century. Therefore, as emissions from this sector can be reduced drastically, emissions from fossil fuel production are treated as a separate sector.…”

Section: Fossil Fuel Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%