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.     

Fairness critically conditions the carbon budget allocation across countries

Countries’ nationally determined contributions to mitigate global warming translate to claims of country specific shares of the remaining carbon budget. The remaining global budget is limited by the aim of staying well below 2 °C, however. Here we show how fairness concerns quantitatively condition the allocation of this global carbon budget across countries. Minimal fairness requirements include securing basic needs, attributing historical responsibility for past emissions, accounting for benefits from past emissions, and not exceeding countries’ societally feasible emission reduction rate. The argument in favor of taking into account these fairness concerns reflects a critique of both simple equality- and sovereignty-principled reduction approaches, the former modelled here as the equal-per-capita distribution from now on, the latter as prolonging the inequality of the status-quo levels of emissions into the transformation period (considered a form of “grandfathering”). We find the option most in line with fairness concerns to be a four-fold qualified version of the equal-per-capita approach that incorporates a limited form of grandfathering.     

基于各国NDC/INDC目标的全球减排不确定性研究

基于各国提交的165份国家自主贡献文件,以其中提出的减排目标为基准,尽可能充分地考虑了减排目标的范围不确定性、不同经济情景带来的碳强度减排目标不确定性、减排气体种类边界差异、碳排放达峰约束等因素,并通过蒙特卡洛模拟的方法对全球、各区域和主要经济体的温室气体排放总量、不确定度及其来源进行了定量分析.结果表明,到2030年...     

Good practice policies to bridge the emissions gap in key countries

One key aspect of the Paris Agreement is the goal to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C by the end of the century. To achieve the Paris Agreement goals, countries need to submit, and periodically update, their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Recent studies show that NDCs and currently implemented national policies are not sufficient to cover the ambition level of the temperature limit agreed upon in the Paris Agreement, meaning that we need to collectively increase climate action to stabilize global warming at levels considered safe. This paper explores the generalization of previously adopted good practice policies (GPPs) to bridge the emissions gap between current policies, NDCs ambitions and a well below 2 °C world, facilitating the creation of a bridge trajectory in key major-emitting countries. These GPPs are implemented in eleven well-established national Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union (EU), India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States, that provide least-cost, low-carbon scenarios up to 2050. Results show that GPPs can play an important role in each region, with energy supply policies appearing as one of the biggest contributors to the reduction of carbon emissions. However, GPPs by themselves are not enough to close the emission gap, and as such more will be needed in these economies to collectively increase climate action to stabilize global warming at levels considered safe.     

Can U.S. multi-state climate mitigation agreements work? A perspective from embedded emission flows

Subnational and non-governmental actors are expected to provide important contributions to broader climate actions. A consistent and accurate quantification of their GHG emissions is an important prerequisite for the success of such efforts. However, emissions embodied in domestic and international supply chains, that can undermine the effectiveness of climate agreements, add challenges to the quantification of emissions originating from the consumption of goods and services produced elsewhere. We examine emission transfers between the states that have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance (USCA) and others. Our results show that states pledging to curb emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement were responsible for approximately 40% of total U.S. territorial GHG emissions. However, when accounting for transferred emissions through international and interstate supply chains of the products they consume, the share of Alliance states increased to 52.4% of the national total GHG emissions. The consumption-based emissions for some Alliance states, such as Massachusetts and New York, could be more than 1.5 times higher than their production-based emissions. Our detailed sectoral analysis highlights the challenges facing such agreements to extend cooperation in the future for larger joint benefit given the potential for carbon leakage from member states implementing stricter environmental policies that could lead to higher emissions from non-member states. It is critical for these arrangements to pay close attention to transferred emissions.     

National contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target

Globally, agriculture and related land use change contributed about 17% of the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 (8.4 GtCO₂e yr^?1), making GHG mitigation in the agriculture sector critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s 2°C goal. This article proposes a range of country-level targets for mitigation of agricultural emissions by allocating a global target according to five approaches to effort-sharing for climate change mitigation: responsibility, capability, equality, responsibility-capability-need and equal cumulative per capita emissions. Allocating mitigation targets according to responsibility for total historical emissions or capability to mitigate assigned large targets for agricultural emission reductions to North America, Europe and China. Targets based on responsibility for historical agricultural emissions resulted in a relatively even distribution of targets among countries and regions. Meanwhile, targets based on equal future agricultural emissions per capita or equal per capita cumulative emissions assigned very large mitigation targets to countries with large agricultural economies, while allowing some densely populated countries to increase agricultural emissions. There is no single ‘correct’ framework for allocating a global mitigation goal. Instead, using these approaches as a set provides a transparent, scientific basis for countries to inform and help assess the significance of their commitments to reducing emissions from the agriculture sector.

Key policy insights

• Meeting the Paris Agreement 2°C goal will require global mitigation of agricultural non-CO₂ emissions of approximately 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 by 2030.

• Allocating this 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 according to various effort-sharing approaches, it is found that countries will need to mitigate agricultural business-as-usual emissions in 2030 by a median of 10%. Targets vary widely with criteria used for allocation.

• The targets calculated here are in line with the ambition of the few countries (primarily in Africa) that included mitigation targets for the agriculture sector in their (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions.

• For agriculture to contribute to meeting the 2°C or 1.5°C targets, countries will need to be ambitious in pursuing emission reductions. Technology development and transfer will be particularly important.

     

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.     

Great expectations: can international emissions trading deliver an equitable climate regime?

Climate change equity debates tend to focus on achieving a fair and global ‘allocation’ of emission rights among countries. Allocation proposals typically envision, if implicitly, two purposes for international emissions trading. First, trading is expected to serve as a cost-effective means of promoting compliance with emissions targets. Second, trading is posited as a means to generate financial transfers, typically from industrialized to transitioning and developing countries.This article investigates the common assumption that international emissions trading will effectively serve both of these purposes. We conclude that the two purposes might not be mutually supportive, and that efforts to use international emissions trading as a financial transfer mechanism may potentially undermine cost-effectiveness goals. International emissions trading on a global scale would create new risks in terms of both cost-effectiveness and environmental performance, some of which will be challenging to manage. In particular, uncertainties over market prices and trading eligibility, coupled with the costs of participation, may together be the Achilles heel of some allocation proposals that entail large financial transfers from industrialized to developing countries. Any proposal for an ‘equitable’ allocation of emission allowances, we conclude, must be cognizant of the risks and costs implied by a reliance on international emissions trading. We offer some suggestions to this end.     

全球实施碳税政策对碳减排及世界经济的影响评估

该研究模拟了全球各区域2008-2050年的经济发展和碳排放状况,并将该模拟结果设定为基准情景。在基准情景中全球GDP随时间增长,而全球的碳排放同样表现出增长趋势。为了模拟碳税政策的减排效应及其对经济的影响,本文构建了其他3种碳税政策情景。情景1,将碳税收入作为一般性财政收入,此时全球升温减缓,世界碳排放下降显著,但中国、印度、俄罗斯、马来西亚和印度尼西亚等发展中国家经济发展严重受创,世界经济不均衡加剧。情景2,将各区域的碳税收入汇总之后按照比例统一分配,该情景下,世界碳减排规模较情景1略有下降,但世界各区域的经济较基准情景得到更好的发展。情景3,碳税税率随时间阶段性增长,此时,碳税政策对全球升温的控制更显著;世界各区域,尤其是发展中国家（地区）,经济增长更迅速。另外,碳税收入用来提升区域技术进步,在一定程度上促进了产业的优化升级。碳税政策与技术进步的协同减排政策,考虑了区域经济发展的不均衡性,兼顾了气候治理的公平性,是一种有效、可行的全球气候治理政策。     

Can developed economies combat dangerous anthropogenic climate change without near-term reductions from developing economies?

Developing economy greenhouse gas emissions are growing rapidly relative to developed economy emissions (Boden et al. 2010) and developing economies as a group have greater emissions than developed economies. These developments are expected to continue (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2010), which has led some to question the effectiveness of emissions mitigation in developed economies without a commitment to extensive mitigation action from developing economies. One often heard argument against proposed U.S. legislation to limit carbon emissions to mitigate climate change is that, without participation from large developing economies like China and India, stabilizing temperature at 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial (United Nations 2009), or even reducing global emissions levels, would be impossible (Driessen 2009; RPC Energy Facts 2009) or prohibitively expensive (Clarke et al. 2009). Here we show that significantly delayed action by rapidly developing countries is not a reason to forgo mitigation efforts in developed economies. This letter examines the effect of a scenario with no explicit international climate policy and two policy scenarios, full global action and a developing economy delay, on the probability of exceeding various global average temperature changes by 2100. This letter demonstrates that even when developing economies delay any mitigation efforts until 2050 the effect of action by developed economies will appreciably reduce the probability of more extreme levels of temperature change. This paper concludes that early carbon mitigation efforts by developed economies will considerably affect the distribution over future climate change, whether or not developing countries begin mitigation efforts in the near term.     

Great expectations: can international emissions trading deliver an equitable climate regime?

Abstract

Climate change equity debates tend to focus on achieving a fair and global ‘allocation’ of emission rights among countries. Allocation proposals typically envision, if implicitly, two purposes for international emissions trading. First, trading is expected to serve as a cost-effective means of promoting compliance with emissions targets. Second, trading is posited as a means to generate financial transfers, typically from industrialized to transitioning and developing countries.

This article investigates the common assumption that international emissions trading will effectively serve both of these purposes. We conclude that the two purposes might not be mutually supportive, and that efforts to use international emissions trading as a financial transfer mechanism may potentially undermine cost-effectiveness goals. International emissions trading on a global scale would create new risks in terms of both cost-effectiveness and environmental performance, some of which will be challenging to manage. In particular, uncertainties over market prices and trading eligibility, coupled with the costs of participation, may together be the Achilles heel of some allocation proposals that entail large financial transfers from industrialized to developing countries. Any proposal for an ‘equitable’ allocation of emission allowances, we conclude, must be cognizant of the risks and costs implied by a reliance on international emissions trading. We offer some suggestions to this end.     

“经济大国能源与气候论坛”进展及前景展望

"经济大国能源与气候论坛"在推动全球主要国家就应对气候变化主要议题达成一致方面取得了进展,已初步显示出其作为联合国气候谈判晴雨表的特征。该论坛的实质是主要发达国家为转移减排责任和压力,降低减排成本,绑架主要发展中国家在全球应对气候变化领域实施的集体强权政治。论坛的核心目标在于推动全球量化减排,目的是借全球量化减排,营造低碳和气候友好技术的广大市场,使得具有技术优势的这些经济大国拥有新的主导全球经济的力量。我国应坚持"共同但有区别的责任"原则,联合与会发展中国家强调气候变化的历史责任,反对为全球温室气体排放设限等不公平提议,团结广大发展中国家,同时抓住论坛力推低碳经济和低碳技术发展的机遇,使我国站在全球新一轮技术革命的前沿。     

RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2��C

The RCP2.6 emission and concentration pathway is representative of the literature on mitigation scenarios aiming to limit the increase of global mean temperature to 2°C. These scenarios form the low end of the scenario literature in terms of emissions and radiative forcing. They often show negative emissions from energy use in the second half of the 21st century. The RCP2.6 scenario is shown to be technically feasible in the IMAGE integrated assessment modeling framework from a medium emission baseline scenario, assuming full participation of all countries. Cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases from 2010 to 2100 need to be reduced by 70% compared to a baseline scenario, requiring substantial changes in energy use and emissions of non-CO₂ gases. These measures (specifically the use of bio-energy and reforestation measures) also have clear consequences for global land use. Based on the RCP2.6 scenario, recommendations for further research on low emission scenarios have been formulated. These include the response of the climate system to a radiative forcing peak, the ability of society to achieve the required emission reduction rates given political and social inertia and the possibilities to further reduce emissions of non-CO₂ gases.     

Economic impacts of alternative greenhouse gas emission metrics: a model-based assessment

In this paper we study the impact of alternative metrics on short- and long-term multi-gas emission reduction strategies and the associated global and regional economic costs and emissions budgets. We compare global warming potentials with three different time horizons (20, 100, 500 years), global temperature change potential and global cost potentials with and without temperature overshoot. We find that the choice of metric has a relatively small impact on the CO₂ budget compatible with the 2° target and therefore on global costs. However it substantially influences mid-term emission levels of CH₄, which may either rise or decline in the next decades as compared to today’s levels. Though CO₂ budgets are not affected much, we find changes in CO₂ prices which substantially affect regional costs. Lower CO₂ prices lead to more fossil fuel use and therefore higher resource prices on the global market. This increases profits of fossil-fuel exporters. Due to the different weights of non-CO₂ emissions associated with different metrics, there are large differences in nominal CO₂ equivalent budgets, which do not necessarily imply large differences in the budgets of the single gases. This may induce large shifts in emission permit trade, especially in regions where agriculture with its high associated CH₄ emissions plays an important role. Furthermore it makes it important to determine CO₂ equivalence budgets with respect to the chosen metric. Our results suggest that for limiting warming to 2 °C in 2100, the currently used GWP100 performs well in terms of global mitigation costs despite its conceptual simplicity.     

Technology transfer by CDM projects

Abstract

Technology development and transfer is an important feature of both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol. Although the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) does not have an explicit technology transfer mandate, it may contribute to technology transfer by financing emission reduction projects using technologies currently not available in the host countries. This article analyses the claims about technology transfer made by CDM project participants in their project design documents. Roughly one-third of all CDM projects, accounting for almost two-thirds of the annual emission reductions, involve technology transfer. Technology transfer varies widely across project types and is more common for larger projects and projects with foreign participants. Equipment transfer is more common for larger projects, while smaller projects involve transfers of both equipment and knowledge or of knowledge alone. Technology transfer does not appear to be closely related to country size or per-capita GDP, but a host country can influence the extent of technology transfer involved in its CDM projects.     

Creating a global warming implementation regime

This paper proposes a global warming implementation regime which addresses the issues of equity, flexibility, cost minimization, and population growth. Previously proposed international policy instruments, such as country by country targets, carbon taxes, and tradable permits, face major difficulties as stand alone proposals. The key element of the regime proposed here is to combine annual tradable permits which are allocated based on population in a fixed year with a small carbon tax ($5–10/tonne) on emissions in excess of permits. Both permits and carbon taxes are applied to national level governments, which in turn would use whatever mix of policies desired to reduce national emissions. It is suggested that the initial number of permits correspond to total global emissions in the base year; over time, the number of permits could be reduced and the tax rate increased if improved scientific knowledge so dictates. By allocating permits based on population the equity concerns of developing countries are addressed, while taxing emissions in excess of permit holdings removes the rigidity of a quota system and limits resource transfers by effectively capping the permit trading price, which is a major concern of industrialized countries. To accommodate the difficulties of countries which have not yet achieved the demographic transition, the permit allocation scheme could be subject to a one-time adjustment after 10–15 years based on some weighting of the initial and then-current populations. The proposed scheme is based on the premise that there is a large potential for reducing emissions in developed countries or limiting emission increases in developing countries, and the intention is to create competition between national level governments in implementing cost-effective emission reduction.     

Climate change in a changing world: Socio-economic and technological transitions,regulatory frameworks and trends on global greenhouse gas emissions from EDGAR v.5.0

Over the last three decades, socio-economic, demographic and technological transitions have been witnessed throughout the world, modifying both sectorial and geographical distributions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Understanding these trends is central to the design of current and future climate change mitigation policies, requiring up-to-date methodologically robust emission inventories such as the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), the European Commission’s in-house, independent global emission inventory. EDGAR is a key tool to track the evolution of GHG emissions and contributes to quantifying the global carbon budget, providing independent and systematically calculated emissions for all countries.According to the results of the EDGAR v.5.0 release, total anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emissions (excluding land use, land use change and forestry) were estimated at 49.1 Gt CO_2eq in 2015, 50 % higher than in 1990, despite a monotonic decrease in GHG emissions per unit of economic output. Between 1990 and 2015, emissions from developed countries fell by 9%, while emissions from low to medium income countries increased by 130%, predominantly from 2000 onwards. The 27 Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom led the pathway for emission reductions in industrialised economies whilst, in developing countries, the rise in emissions was driven by higher emissions in China, India, Brazil and nations in the South-East Asian region. This diversity of patterns shows how different patterns for GHG emissions are and the need for identifying regionally tailored emission reduction measures.     

Temperature control,emission abatement and costs: key EMF 27 results from Environment Canada’s Integrated Assessment Model

This paper investigates the potential impacts of alternative international climate change scenarios based on different policies and technological circumstances on future emission pathways and abatement costs. It also examines if these hypothetical scenarios could result in significant emission reductions required to control the global temperature from rising to no more than 2.5 °C above preindustrial level. Using an integrated assessment model, this paper examines these issues under 12 scenarios derived from four policy perspectives and three technology dimensions. Results show that the no-policy-change baseline scenarios lead to high global average temperatures in the future. To control the temperature efficiently, every global region will be required to undertake considerable abatement efforts. Current country pledges alone, even if fully implemented, cannot control the global temperature in the future to within a comfortable zone. There will still be large gap between the reductions needed to meet the 2.5 degree objective, associated with 550 ppm and the reductions associated with existing abatement efforts. Further stringent policies together with favourable technological conditions may lead to the desired level of temperature control. Participation by only a subset of nations not only makes achieving the temperature goal difficult but also costly. To achieve temperature control efficiently, global coordination and full participation by all regions are necessary and global participation may reduce global abatement costs. It is worth noting that abatement costs vary widely across regions under different policy and technology scenarios.     

主要发达经济体从碳达峰到碳中和的路径及启示

随着气候变化影响加剧,全球气候治理进程加速,实现碳达峰已经成为全球气候行动的核心,各国也相继制定碳中和目标并开展行动。中国在第75届联合国大会一般性辩论上提出了碳达峰碳中和目标,部分已实现碳达峰的发达经济体也提出了各自的碳中和承诺。文中从“整体-阶段”及“焦点-公平”视角分析了欧盟和美国等主要发达经济体碳达峰的历程和特点,以及其碳中和目标和规划。研究发现,发达经济体在碳达峰过程中普遍经历了较长的爬坡期（58~136年）和平台期（4~20年),在碳达峰时,发达经济体的能源结构以油气为主,油气占一次能源消费比重为57%~77%,其人均排放量、历史累计排放以及人均GDP也都处于较高水平,在碳达峰前后总体处于经济与碳排放脱钩状态。各发达经济体的碳中和路径均以能源转型为重点,采用了多元化的政策工具,并且注重低碳和负碳技术的革新。根据发达经济体的政策展望,在实现碳中和时,均难以将绝对排放量降为零,都需要通过碳移除手段进行抵消。通过对比分析,发现中国的碳达峰和碳中和目标是具有雄心的气候承诺,相较其他发达经济体需要付出更大努力。建议运用全面综合的政策工具支撑碳中和目标的有效落实,加快中国的气候立法,在兼顾公正转型的同时推动能源结构调整,注重可再生能源和能效方面的新技术开发应用。     

Energy,land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm

This paper describes the possible developments in global energy use and production, land use, emissions and climate changes following the SSP1 storyline, a development consistent with the green growth (or sustainable development) paradigm (a more inclusive development respecting environmental boundaries). The results are based on the implementation using the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model and are compared with a) other IMAGE implementations of the SSPs (SSP2 and SSP3) and b) the SSP1 implementation of other integrated assessment models. The results show that a combination of resource efficiency, preferences for sustainable production methods and investment in human development could lead to a strong transition towards a more renewable energy supply, less land use and lower anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2100 than in 2010, even in the absence of explicit climate policies. At the same time, climate policy would still be needed to reduce emissions further, in order to reduce the projected increase of global mean temperature from 3 °C (SSP1 reference scenario) to 2 or 1.5 °C (in line with current policy targets). The SSP1 storyline could be a basis for further discussions on how climate policy can be combined with achieving other societal goals.