Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm−2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage?

Combining bioenergy and carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage (CCS) technologies (BECCS) has the potential to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere while producing useful energy. BECCS has played a central role in scenarios that reduce climate forcing to low levels such as 2.6 Wm^?2. In this paper we consider whether BECCS is essential to limiting radiative forcing (RF) to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100 using the Global Change Assessment Model, a closely coupled model of biogeophysical and human Earth systems. We show that BECCS can potentially reduce the cost of limiting RF to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100 but that a variety of technology combinations that do not include BECCS can also achieve this goal, under appropriate emissions mitigation policies. We note that with appropriate supporting land-use policies terrestrial sequestration could deliver carbon storage ranging from 200 to 700 PgCO₂-equiavalent over the 21st century. We explore substantial delays in participation by some geopolitical regions. We find that the value of BECCS is substantially higher under delay and that delay results in higher transient RF and climate change. However, when major regions postponed mitigation indefinitely, it was impossible to return RF to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100. Neither finite land resources nor finite potential geologic storage capacity represented a meaningful technical limit on the ability of BECCS to contribute to emissions mitigation in the numerical experiments reported in this paper.     

The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE

This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.     

Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios

Biomass is often seen as a key component of future energy systems as it can be used for heat and electricity production, as a transport fuel, and a feedstock for chemicals. Furthermore, it can be used in combination with carbon capture and storage to provide so-called “negative emissions”. At the same time, however, its production will require land, possibly impacting food security, land-based carbon stocks, and other environmental services. Thus, the strategies adopted in the supply, conversion, and use of biomass have a significant impact on its effectiveness as a climate change mitigation measure. We use the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model to project three different global, long term scenarios spanning different socioeconomic futures with varying rates of population growth, economic growth, and technological change, and investigate the role of biomass in meeting strict climate targets. Using these scenarios we highlight different possibilities for biomass supply and demand, and provide insights on the requirements and challenges for the effective use of this resource as a climate change mitigation measure. The results show that in scenarios meeting the 1.5 °C target, biomass could exceed 20% of final energy consumption, or 115–180 EJ_Prim/yr in 2050. Such a supply of bioenergy can only be achieved without extreme levels land use change if agricultural yields improve significantly and effective land zoning is implemented. Furthermore, the results highlight that strict mitigation targets are contingent on the availability of advanced technologies such as lignocellulosic fuels and carbon capture and storage.     

The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation are key negative emission technologies suggested in many studies under 2 °C or 1.5 °C scenarios. However, these large-scale land-based approaches have raised concerns about their economic impacts, particularly their impact on food prices, as well as their environmental impacts. Here we focus on quantifying the potential scale of BECCS and its impact on the economy, taking into account technology and economic considerations, but excluding sustainability and political aspects. To do so, we represent all major components of BECCS technology in the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis model. We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals, with its deployment driven by revenues from carbon dioxide permits. Results show that global economic costs and the carbon prices needed to hit the stabilization targets are substantially lower with the technology available, and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide. If driven by economics alone, BECCS deployment increases the use of productive land for bioenergy production, causing substantial land use changes. However, the projected impact on commodity prices is quite limited at the global scale, with global commodity price indices increasing by less than 5% on average. The effect is larger at the regional scale (up to 15% in selected regions), though significantly lower than previous estimates. While BECCS deployment is likely to be constrained for environmental and/or political reasons, this study shows that the large-scale deployment of BECCS is not detrimental to agricultural commodity prices and could reduce the costs of meeting stabilization targets. Still, it is crucial that policies consider carbon dioxide removal as a complement to drastic carbon dioxide emissions reductions, while establishing a credible accounting system and sustainable limits on BECCS.     

Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly depicted as an important element of the carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio. However, critics have warned that CCS might lead to “reinforced fossil fuel lock-in”, by perpetuating a fossil fuel based energy provision system. Due to large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure, the fossil fuel based ‘regime’ would be perpetuated to at least the end of this century.In this paper we investigate if and how CCS could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. First we develop a set of criteria to estimate the degree of technological lock-in. We apply these criteria to assess the lock-in reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel socio-technical regime (FFR).In principle, carbon dioxide could be captured from any carbon dioxide point source. In the practice of present technological innovations, business strategies, and policy developments, CCS is most often coupled to coal power plants. However, there are many point sources of carbon dioxide that are not directly related to coal or even fossil fuels. For instance, many forms of bio-energy or biomass-based processes generate significant streams of carbon dioxide emissions. Capturing this carbon dioxide which was originally sequestered in biomass could lead to negative carbon dioxide emissions.We use the functional approach of technical innovations systems (TIS) to estimate in more detail the strengths of the “niches” CCS and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS). We also assess the orientation of the CCS niche towards the FFR and the risk of crowding out BECCS. Next we develop pathways for developing fossil energy carbon capture and storage, BECCS, and combinations of them, using transition pathways concepts. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in.     

Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?

The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions.     

Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers,impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options

In this article, we evaluate and compare results from three integrated assessment models (GCAM, IMAGE, and ReMIND/MAgPIE) regarding the drivers and impacts of bioenergy production on the global land system. The considered model frameworks employ linked energy, economy, climate and land use modules. By the help of these linkages the direct competition of bioenergy with other energy technology options for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, based on economic costs and GHG emissions from bioenergy production, has been taken into account. Our results indicate that dedicated bioenergy crops and biomass residues form a potentially important and cost-effective input into the energy system. At the same time, however, the results differ strongly in terms of deployment rates, feedstock composition and land-use and greenhouse gas implications. The current paper adds to earlier work by specific looking into model differences with respect to the land-use component that could contribute to the noted differences in results, including land cover allocation, land use constraints, energy crop yields, and non-bioenergy land mitigation options modeled. In scenarios without climate change mitigation, bioenergy cropland represents 10–18 % of total cropland by 2100 across the different models, and boosts cropland expansion at the expense of carbon richer ecosystems. Therefore, associated emissions from land-use change and agricultural intensification as a result of bio-energy use range from 14 and 113 Gt CO2-eq cumulatively through 2100. Under climate policy, bioenergy cropland increases to 24–36 % of total cropland by 2100.     

Role of the Tibetan plateau glaciers in the Asian summer monsoon

The expected growth in the demand for passenger and freight services exacerbates the challenges of reducing transport GHG emissions, especially as commercial low-carbon alternatives to petroleum fuels are limited for shipping, air and long-distance road travel. Biofuels can offer a pathway to significantly reduce emissions from these sectors, as they can easily substitute for conventional liquid fuels in internal combustion engines. In this paper, we assess the potential of bioenergy to reduce transport GHG emissions through an analysis leveraging various integrated assessment models and scenarios, as part of the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33). We find that bioenergy can contribute a significant, albeit not dominant, proportion of energy supply to the future transport sector: in scenarios aiming to keep the temperature increase below 2 °C by the end of the twenty-first century, models project that in 2100 bioenergy can provide on average 42 EJ/yr (ranging from 5 to 85 EJ/yr) for transport (compared to 3.7 EJ in 2018), mainly through lignocellulosic fuels. This makes up 9–62% of final transport energy use. Only a small amount of bioenergy is projected to be used in transport through electricity and hydrogen pathways, with a larger role for biofuels in road passenger transport than in freight. The association of carbon capture and storage (CCS) with bioenergy technologies (BECCS) is a key determinant in the role of biofuels in transport, because of the competition for biomass feedstock to provide other final energy carriers along with carbon removal. Among models that consider CCS in the biofuel conversion process the average market share of biofuels is 21% in 2100 (ranging from 2 to 44%), compared to 10% (0–30%) for models that do not. Cumulative direct emissions from the transport sector account for half of the emission budget (from 306 to 776 out of 1,000 GtCO₂). However, the carbon intensity of transport decreases as much as other energy sectors in 2100 when accounting for process emissions, including carbon removal from BECCS. Lignocellulosic fuels become more attractive for transport decarbonization if BECCS is not feasible for any energy sectors. Since global transport service demand increases and biomass supply is limited, its allocation to and within the transport sector is uncertain and sensitive to assumptions about political as well as technological and socioeconomic factors.

     

Impacts of different diffusion scenarios for mitigation technology options and of model representations regarding renewables intermittency on evaluations of CO2 emissions reductions

This paper evaluated the impacts of climate change mitigation technology options on CO₂ emission reductions and the effects of model representations regarding renewable intermittency on the assessment of reduction by using a world energy systems model. First, different diffusion scenarios for carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, and wind power and solar PV are selected from EMF27 scenarios to analyze their impacts on CO₂ emission reductions. These technologies are important for reducing CO₂ intensity of electricity, and the impacts of their diffusion levels on mitigation costs are significant, according to the analyses. Availability of CCS in particular, among the three kinds of technologies, has a large impact on the marginal CO₂ abatement cost. In order to analyze effects of model representations regarding renewables intermittency, four different representations are assumed within the model. A simplistic model representation that does not take into consideration the intermittency of wind power and solar PV evaluates larger contributions of the energy sources than those evaluated by a model representation that takes intermittency into consideration. Appropriate consideration of renewables intermittency within global energy systems models will be important for realistic evaluations of climate change mitigation scenarios.     

Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can be a valuable CO₂ mitigation option, but what role CCS will play in the future is uncertain. In this paper we analyze the results of different integrated assessment models (IAMs) taking part in the 27th round of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) with respect to the role of CCS in long term mitigation scenarios. Specifically we look into the use of CCS as a function of time, mitigation targets, availability of renewables and its use with different fuels. Furthermore, we explore the possibility to relate model results to general and CCS specific model assumptions. The results show a wide range of cumulative capture in the 2010–2100 period (600–3050 GtCO₂), but the fact that no model projects less than 600 GtCO₂ indicates that CCS is considered to be important by all these models. Interestingly, CCS storage rates are often projected to be still increasing in the second half of this century. Depending on the scenario, at least six out of eight, up to all models show higher storage rates in 2100 than in 2050. CCS shares in cumulative primary energy use are in most models increasing with the stringency of the target or under conservative availability of renewables. The strong variations of CCS deployment projection rates could not be related to the reported differences in the assumptions of the models by means of a cross-model comparison in this sample.     

The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies

This article presents the synthesis of results from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum Study 27, an inter-comparison of 18 energy-economy and integrated assessment models. The study investigated the importance of individual mitigation options such as energy intensity improvements, carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, solar and wind power and bioenergy for climate mitigation. Limiting the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to 450 or 550 ppm CO₂ equivalent by 2100 would require a decarbonization of the global energy system in the 21^st century. Robust characteristics of the energy transformation are increased energy intensity improvements and the electrification of energy end use coupled with a fast decarbonization of the electricity sector. Non-electric energy end use is hardest to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. Technology is a key element of climate mitigation. Versatile technologies such as CCS and bioenergy are found to be most important, due in part to their combined ability to produce negative emissions. The importance of individual low-carbon electricity technologies is more limited due to the many alternatives in the sector. The scale of the energy transformation is larger for the 450 ppm than for the 550 ppm CO₂e target. As a result, the achievability and the costs of the 450 ppm target are more sensitive to variations in technology availability.     

Towards a Multi-Criteria Methodology for Assessment of Geological Carbon Storage Options

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could achieve drastic cuts in the CO₂ emissions associated with fossil fuels in the near to medium term and has been promoted as a significant climate change mitigation option. As the profile of this family of technologies grows rapidly, there remain many uncertainties relating to its viability, effectiveness and desirability. In this paper we begin to map out some of the key issues associated with CCS, using a multi-criteria approach to explore how an (admittedly small) selection of stakeholders perceive alternative storage options and energy scenarios. We present five long-term scenarios describing alternative ways in which the UK energy system could develop and which deploy different levels of carbon storage. The key storage options considered are oil and gas fields (both disused and with enhanced oil recovery), traps in saline aquifers, saline aquifers outside traps and on-shore sites. The relative performance of the scenarios and the storage reservoirs included within them have been assessed against a set of socio-economic, technical and environmental criteria by a small selection of stakeholders to the carbon storage debate. Whilst we cannot make strong conclusions regarding precise stakeholder opinions at this stage due to the small size of the sample, the broad delineation of the arguments for and against CCS are evident. Multi-criteria assessment (MCA) appears to hold much potential as a useful tool for characterising and better understanding differences in stakeholder assessments of CCS and its implications, and for identifying options around which greater consensus on the desirability (or otherwise) of CCS as a mitigation strategy might emerge.     

White Knights: will wind and solar come to the rescue of a looming capacity gap from nuclear phase-out or slow CCS start-up?

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, countries like Germany and Japan have planned a phase-out of nuclear generation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has yet to become a commercially viable technology with little prospect of doing so without strong climate policy to spur development. The possibility of using renewable power generation from wind and solar as a non-emitting alternative to replace a nuclear phase-out or failure to deploy CCS technology is investigated using scenarios from EMF27 and the POLES model. A strong carbon price appears necessary to have significant penetration of renewables regardless of alternative generation technologies available, but especially if nuclear or CCS are absent from the energy supply system. The feasibility of replacing nuclear generation appears possible at realistic costs (evaluated as total abatement costs and final user prices to households); however for ambitious climate policies, such as a 450 ppm target, CCS could represent a critical technology that renewables will not be able to fully replace without unbearable economic costs.     

Demand vs supply-side approaches to mitigation: What final energy demand assumptions are made to meet 1.5 and 2 °C targets?

Today’s climate policies will shape the future trajectory of emissions. Consumption is the main driver behind recent increases in global greenhouse gas emissions, outpacing savings through improved technologies, and therefore its representation in the evidence base will impact on the success of policy interventions. The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR1.5) summarises global evidence on pathways for meeting below-2 °C targets, underpinned by a suite of scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs). We explore how final energy demand is framed within these, with the aim to making demand-related assumptions more transparent, and evaluating their significance, feasibility, and use or underutilisation as a mitigation lever. We investigate how the integrated assessment models compensate for higher and lower levels of final energy demand across scenarios, and how this varies when mitigating for 2 °C and 1.5 °C temperature targets through an analysis of (1) final energy demand projections, (2) energy-economy relationships and (3) differences between energy system decarbonisation and carbon dioxide removal in the highest and lowest energy demand pathways. We look across the full suite of mitigation pathways and assess the consequences of achieving different global carbon budgets. We find that energy demand in 2100 in the highest energy demand scenarios is approximately three to four times higher than the lowest demand pathways, but we do not find strong evidence that 1.5 °C-consistent pathways cluster on the lower end of demand levels, particularly when they allow for overshoot. The majority of demand reductions happen pre-2040, which assumes absolute decoupling from economic growth in the near-term; thereafter final energy demand levels generally grow to 2100. Lower energy demand pathways moderately result in lower renewable energy supply and lower energy system investment, but do not necessarily reduce reliance on carbon dioxide removal. In this sense, there is more scope for IAMs to implement energy demand reduction as a longer-term mitigation lever and to reduce reliance on negative emissions technologies. We demonstrate the need for integrated assessments to play closer attention to how final energy demand interacts with, relates to, and can potentially offset supply-side characteristics, alongside a more diverse evidence base.     

Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management

This study explores the importance of bioenergy to potential future energy transformation and climate change management. Using a large inter-model comparison of 15 models, we comprehensively characterize and analyze future dependence on, and the value of, bioenergy in achieving potential long-run climate objectives. Model scenarios project, by 2050, bioenergy growth of 1 to 10 % per annum reaching 1 to 35 % of global primary energy, and by 2100, bioenergy becoming 10 to 50 % of global primary energy. Non-OECD regions are projected to be the dominant suppliers of biomass, as well as consumers, with up to 35 % of regional electricity from biopower by 2050, and up to 70 % of regional liquid fuels from biofuels by 2050. Bioenergy is found to be valuable to many models with significant implications for mitigation and macroeconomic costs of climate policies. The availability of bioenergy, in particular biomass with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS), notably affects the cost-effective global emissions trajectory for climate management by accommodating prolonged near-term use of fossil fuels, but with potential implications for climate outcomes. Finally, we find that models cost-effectively trade-off land carbon and nitrous oxide emissions for the long-run climate change management benefits of bioenergy. The results suggest opportunities, but also imply challenges. Overall, further evaluation of the viability of large-scale global bioenergy is merited.     

CMIP6情景中主要温室气体和气溶胶排放强度的时空分布特征分析

基于不同共享社会经济路径（Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSPs）形成的8组最新的未来可能情景（SSPx-y情景）,被用于第六次耦合模式比较计划（CMIP6）,以据此来预估未来气候变化的可能幅度和趋势。本文主要对比分析了8组SSPx-y新情景中主要温室气体和气溶胶排放数据的基准年排放强度分布、未来排放强度的时空变化、以及在6个典型区域排放强度的逐年变化等特征。结果表明:二氧化碳（CO₂）、甲烷（CH₄）、黑碳（BC）、二氧化硫（SO₂）在基准年的排放强度高值区都位于东亚和南亚。相比于基准年,2100年CO₂和CH₄在高和低辐射强迫情景下表现出的排放强度变化有显著差异。此外,所有情景下2100年的BC和SO₂全球平均排放强度都弱于基准年的排放强度。在时间变化上,随着生物质能碳捕获与封存技术的不断进步,所有地区在4组不超过3.4 W/m2的低辐射强迫情景下,CO₂排放强度到2100年都呈现负值。其中,南美洲的负排放最强,2100年在SSP5-3.4情景下该地区的排放强度为－0.3 kg m－2 a－1。最后,对比东亚和南亚排放强度的逐年变化可以发现,在各情景所描述的未来发展过程中,东亚的减排行动的成效都要好于南亚。     

Impact of climate and socioeconomic changes on fire carbon emissions in the future: Sustainable economic development might decrease future emissions

Fires and their associated carbon and air pollutant emissions have a broad range of environmental and societal impacts, including negative effects on human health, damage to terrestrial ecosystems, and indirect effects that promote climate change. Previous studies investigated future carbon emissions from the perspective of response to climate change and population growth, but the compound effects of other factors like economic development and land use change are not yet well known. We explored fire carbon emissions throughout the 21st century by changing five factors (meteorology, biomass, land use, population density, and gross domestic product [GDP] per capita). Compared to the historical period (2006–2015), global future fire carbon emissions decreased, mainly caused by an increase in GDP per capita, which leads to improvement in fire management and capitalized agriculture. We found that the meteorological factor has a strong individual effect under higher warming cases. Fires in boreal forests were particularly expected to increase because of an increase in fuel dryness. Our research should help climate change researchers consider fire-carbon interactions. Incorporating future spatial changes under diverse scenarios will be helpful to develop national mitigation and adaptation plans.     

The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy,land use,and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview

This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO₂ emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO₂ to more than 120 GtCO₂ per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m² that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).     

Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change

This paper uses the MERGE integrated assessment model to identify the least-cost mitigation strategy for achieving a range of climate policies. Mitigation is measured in terms of GDP foregone. This is not a benefit-cost analysis. No attempt is made to calculate the reduction in damages brought about by a particular policy. Assumptions are varied regarding the availability of energy-producing and energy-using technologies. We find pathways with substantial reductions in temperature change, with the cost of reductions varying significantly, depending on policy and technology assumptions. The set of scenarios elucidates the potential energy system transformation demands that could be placed on society. We find that policy that allows for “overshoot” of a radiative forcing target during the century results in lower costs, but also a higher temperature at the end of the century. We explore the implications of the costs and availability of key mitigation technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy, and their combination, known as BECS, as well as nuclear and energy efficiency. The role of “negative emissions” via BECS in particular is examined. Finally, we demonstrate the implications of nationally adopted emissions timetables based on articulated goals as a counterpoint to a global stabilization approach.     

Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways

In the future, the land system will be facing new intersecting challenges. While food demand, especially for resource-intensive livestock based commodities, is expected to increase, the terrestrial system has large potentials for climate change mitigation through improved agricultural management, providing biomass for bioenergy, and conserving or even enhancing carbon stocks of ecosystems. However, uncertainties in future socio-economic land use drivers may result in very different land-use dynamics and consequences for land-based ecosystem services. This is the first study with a systematic interpretation of the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) in terms of possible land-use changes and their consequences for the agricultural system, food provision and prices as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, five alternative Integrated Assessment Models with distinctive land-use modules have been used for the translation of the SSP narratives into quantitative projections. The model results reflect the general storylines of the SSPs and indicate a broad range of potential land-use futures with global agricultural land of 4900 mio ha in 2005 decreasing by 743 mio ha until 2100 at the lower (SSP1) and increasing by 1080 mio ha (SSP3) at the upper end. Greenhouse gas emissions from land use and land use change, as a direct outcome of these diverse land-use dynamics, and agricultural production systems differ strongly across SSPs (e.g. cumulative land use change emissions between 2005 and 2100 range from −54 to 402 Gt CO₂). The inclusion of land-based mitigation efforts, particularly those in the most ambitious mitigation scenarios, further broadens the range of potential land futures and can strongly affect greenhouse gas dynamics and food prices. In general, it can be concluded that low demand for agricultural commodities, rapid growth in agricultural productivity and globalized trade, all most pronounced in a SSP1 world, have the potential to enhance the extent of natural ecosystems, lead to lowest greenhouse gas emissions from the land system and decrease food prices over time. The SSP-based land use pathways presented in this paper aim at supporting future climate research and provide the basis for further regional integrated assessments, biodiversity research and climate impact analysis.