What Does the 2°c Target Imply for a Global Climate Agreement in 2020? The Limits Study on Durban Platform Scenarios

Kriegler, Elmar; Tavoni, Massimo; Aboumahboub, Tino; Luderer, Gunnar; Calvin, Katherine; Demaere, Gauthier; Krey, Volker; Riahi, Keywan; Rösler, H.; Schaeffer, Michiel; Vuuren, Detlef P. van

doi:10.1142/s2010007813400083

Cited by 118 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…on the order of 10-15 years for some developing countries. Reaching 2°C after following the pledges till 2030 would still be feasible but would come at a significantly higher cost 13 . 4 …”

Section: Regional Mitigation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-CO 2 gases contribute to 10-20% in terms of abatement, and represent a significant share of residual emissions, since some emissions such as CH 4 and N 2 O gases from agriculture are hard to mitigate 53 . The overall picture is that, while energy supply has the highest mitigation potential, regional characteristics imply different patterns of mitigation across sectors 54 , which will also be influenced by the stringency of the climate target 13,55 .…”

Section: Figure 2 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information from an MIP regarding the regional impacts of post 2020 climate policies is limited. This review aims at synthetizing insights from the most comprehensive MIP on this subject, the LIMITS project 13,14,98 . Though other MIPs have explored the role of fragmented regional mitigation effort and staged accession to climate cooperation (EMF22 33 , AMPERE 34 , EMF27 1 ), globally delayed participation (RECIPE 35 , ROSE 36 , AMPERE 12 ), and burden-sharing schemes (RECIPE 37 ), none except of LIMITS has focused on potential outcomes of the Durban platform negotiations, i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated assessment models can help quantifying the implications of international climate agreements and regional climate action. This paper reviews scenario results from model intercomparison projects to explore different possible outcomes of post 2020 climate negotiations, recently announced pledges and their relation to 2°C. We provide key information for all the major economies such as the year of emission peaking, the regional carbon budgets and emissions allowances. We highlight the distributional consequences of climate policies, and discuss the role of carbon markets for financing clean energy investments, and achieving efficiency and equity.So far, international climate policy has been ineffective in curbing the rise of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, ambitious climate targets such as the 2°C target require a phase-out of global emissions by the end of the century, and an active participation of all world regions in climate policy 1 . Given the many obstacles to global cooperative action on climate change, the question remains how diverse national climate policies can be coordinated and strengthened globally. Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Durban Platform for Enhanced 2 Action 2 provides an important platform for a post-2020 international climate agreement. It contains several innovative elements, most notably a focus on the major economies that goes beyond the traditional divide between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. The Durban platform calls for a new climate treaty to be agreed in 2015 and implemented as early as 2020. The recently announced USChina climate deal and the EU climate framework provide encouraging steps forwards, but aligning the incentives of the major emitters in pursuing stringent climate policies remains a challenge. In this paper, we aim at assessing the implications of post 2020 climate policies with specific reference to the major economies. We provide quantitative estimates of regional emission budgets, timing of emission peaking, and distribution of mitigation costs. We examine the role of carbon markets and different burden sharing schemes to alleviate distributional inequalities and finance the investment needs in low carbon mitigation technologies. In order to quantify these policy relevant variables, we resort to global models.Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are tools designed to investigate the implications of achieving climate and other objectives in an integrated and rigorous framework. They are numerical models that account for major interactions among energy, land-use, economic and climate systems. Model differ in the economic, technological and sectoral representation and in the way they are solved, with some models maximizing an inter-temporal objective function (such as economic activity) and others simulating a set of equilibria (see the SOM for individual model description and references to documentation). Models generate global long-term scenarios for a number of regions or countries that ca...

show abstract

Section: Regional Mitigation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 2 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coupled energy-land-use analyses of NETs using IAMs have so far focussed primarily on BECCS 7,34,35 and AR [36][37][38][39] strategies, and suggest that they may have considerable cost-competitive potential. Although other NET options have also been studied 13,19,40 , they are not yet represented in most IAMs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from two recent modelling exercises 10,35,44 show that median BECCS deployment of around 3.3 Gt C yr −1 (Supplementary Table S3) is observed for scenarios consistent with the <2 °C target (430-480 ppm CO 2 eq); we assess other NETs for deployment levels that give the same negative emissions in 2100 (see Supplementary Methods).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1 D espite two decades of effort to curb emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions grew faster during the 2000s than in the 1990s 1 , and by 2010 had reached ~50 Gt CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) yr −1 (refs 2,3). The continuing rise in emissions is a growing challenge for meeting the international goal of limiting warming to less than 2 °C relative to the pre-industrial era, particularly without stringent climate policies to decrease emissions in the near future 2-4 . As negative emissions technologies (NETs) seem ever more necessary 3,[5][6][7][8][9][10] To have a >50% chance of limiting warming below 2 °C, most recent scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) require large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). These are technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We quantify potential global impacts of the different NETs on various factors (such as land, greenhouse gas emissions, water, albedo, nutrients and energy) to determine the biophysical limits to, and economic costs of, their widespread application. Resource implications vary between technologies and need to be satisfactorily addressed if NETs are to have a significant role in achieving climate goals.options, to be able to decide which pathways are most desirable for dealing with climate change.There are distinct classes of NETs, such as: (1) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) 11,12 ; (2) direct air capture of CO 2 from ambient air by engineered chemical reactions (DAC) 13,14 ; (3) enhanced weathering of minerals (EW) 15 , where natural weathering to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere is accelerated and the products stored in soils, or buried in land or deep ocean [16][17][18][19] ; (4) afforestation and reforestation (AR) to fix atmospheric carbon in biomass and soils [20][21][22] ; (5) manipulation of carbon uptake by the ocean, either

show abstract

Adjusting Mitigation Pathways to Stabilize Climate at 1.5°C and 2.0°C Rise in Global Temperatures to Year 2300

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To avoid the most dangerous consequences of anthropogenic climate change, the Paris Agreement provides a clear and agreed climate mitigation target of stabilizing global surface warming to under 2.0°C above preindustrial, and preferably closer to 1.5°C. However, policy makers do not currently know exactly what carbon emissions pathways to follow to stabilize warming below these agreed targets, because there is large uncertainty in future temperature rise for any given pathway. This large uncertainty makes it difficult for a cautious policy maker to avoid either: (1) allowing warming to exceed the agreed target or (2) cutting global emissions more than is required to satisfy the agreed target, and their associated societal costs. This study presents a novel Adjusting Mitigation Pathway (AMP) approach to restrict future warming to policy‐driven targets, in which future emissions reductions are not fully determined now but respond to future surface warming each decade in a self‐adjusting manner. A large ensemble of Earth system model simulations, constrained by geological and historical observations of past climate change, demonstrates our self‐adjusting mitigation approach for a range of climate stabilization targets ranging from 1.5°C to 4.5°C, and generates AMP scenarios up to year 2300 for surface warming, carbon emissions, atmospheric CO2, global mean sea level, and surface ocean acidification. We find that lower 21st century warming targets will significantly reduce ocean acidification this century, and will avoid up to 4 m of sea‐level rise by year 2300 relative to a high‐end scenario.

show abstract

What Does the 2°c Target Imply for a Global Climate Agreement in 2020? The Limits Study on Durban Platform Scenarios

Cited by 118 publications

References 37 publications

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

Adjusting Mitigation Pathways to Stabilize Climate at 1.5°C and 2.0°C Rise in Global Temperatures to Year 2300

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About