Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.

Key policy insights

• Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.

• Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.

• Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.

• The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.

     

Role of energy efficiency in climate change mitigation policy for India: assessment of co-benefits and opportunities within an integrated assessment modeling framework

Addressing the challenges of global warming requires interventions on both the energy supply and demand side. With the supply side responses being thoroughly discussed in the literature, our paper focuses on analyzing the role of end use efficiency improvements for Indian climate change mitigation policy and the associated co-benefits, within the integrated assessment modeling framework of Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). Six scenarios are analyzed here in total- one no climate policy and two climate policy cases, and within each of these one scenario with reference end use energy technology assumptions and another with advance end use energy technology assumptions has been analyzed. The paper has some important insights. Final energy demand and emissions in India are significantly reduced with energy efficiency improvements, and the role of this policy is important especially for the building and transportation sector under both reference and climate policy scenarios. Though energy efficiency policy should be an integral part of climate policy, by itself it is not sufficient for achieving mitigation targets, and a climate policy is necessary for achieving mitigation goals. There are significant co-benefits of energy efficiency improvements. Energy security for India is improved with reduced oil, coal and gas imports. Significant reduction in local pollutant gases is found which is important for local health concerns. Capital investment requirement for Indian electricity generation is reduced, more so for the climate policy scenarios, and finally there are significant savings in terms of reduced abatement cost for meeting climate change mitigation goals.     

Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges

This paper assesses three key energy sustainability objectives: energy security improvement, climate change mitigation, and the reduction of air pollution and its human health impacts. We explain how the common practice of narrowly focusing on singular issues ignores potentially enormous synergies, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift toward more holistic policy approaches. Our analysis of a large ensemble of alternate energy-climate futures, developed using MESSAGE, an integrated assessment model, shows that stringent climate change policy offers a strategic entry point along the path to energy sustainability in several dimensions. Concerted decarbonization efforts can lead to improved air quality, thereby reducing energy-related health impacts worldwide: upwards of 2–32 million fewer disability-adjusted life years in 2030, depending on the aggressiveness of the air pollution policies foreseen in the baseline. At the same time, low-carbon technologies and energy-efficiency improvements can help to further the energy security goals of individual countries and regions by promoting a more dependable, resilient, and diversified energy portfolio. The cost savings of these climate policy synergies are potentially enormous: $100–600 billion annually by 2030 in reduced pollution control and energy security expenditures (0.1–0.7 % of GDP). Novel aspects of this paper include an explicit quantification of the health-related co-benefits of present and future air pollution control policies; an analysis of how future constraints on regional trade could influence energy security; a detailed assessment of energy expenditures showing where financing needs to flow in order to achieve the multiple energy sustainability objectives; and a quantification of the relationships between different fulfillment levels for energy security and air pollution goals and the probability of reaching the 2 °C climate target.     

Top-down and bottom-up modelling to support low-carbon scenarios: climate policy implications

Bottom-up and top-down models are used to support climate policies, to identify the options required to meet GHG abatement targets and to evaluate their economic impact. Some studies have shown that the GHG mitigation options provided by economic top-down and technological bottom-up models tend to vary. One reason for this is that these models tend to use different baseline scenarios. The bottom-up TIMES_PT and the top-down computable general equilibrium GEM-E3_PT models are examined using a common baseline scenario to calibrate them, and the extend of their different mitigation options and its relevant to domestic policy making are assessed. Three low-carbon scenarios for Portugal until 2050 are generated, each with different GHG reduction targets. Both models suggest close mitigation options and locate the largest mitigation potential to energy supply. However, the models suggest different mitigation options for the end-use sectors: GEM-E3_PT focuses more on energy efficiency, while TIMES_PT relies on decrease carbon intensity due to a shift to electricity. Although a common baseline scenario cannot be ignored, the models’ inherent characteristics are the main factor for the different outcomes, thereby highlighting different mitigation options.

Policy relevance

The relevance of modelling tools used to support the design of domestic climate policies is assessed by evaluating the mitigation options suggested by a bottom-up and a top-down model. The different outcomes of each model are significant for climate policy design since each suggest different mitigation options like end-use energy efficiency and the promotion of low-carbon technologies. Policy makers should carefully select the modelling tool used to support their policies. The specific modelling structures of each model make them more appropriate to address certain policy questions than others. Using both modelling approaches for policy support can therefore bring added value and result in more robust climate policy design. Although the results are specific for Portugal, the insights provided by the analysis of both models can be extended to, and used in the climate policy decisions of, other countries.     

Failure to achieve stringent carbon reduction targets in a second-best policy world

Legislation to decarbonise energy systems within overall greenhouse gas reduction targets represents an immense and unprecedented energy policy challenge. However there is a dichotomy between this level of policy ambition and prior modelling studies that find such targets economically, technologically and socially feasible under idealised ?Dfirst-best policies. This paper makes a significant contribution to current analytical efforts to account for realistic ?Dsecond-best climate mitigation policy implementation. This is achieved via a technical classification of secondbest common mode issues at a detailed national level: both internal (behavioural change, infrastructure implementation) and external (new technologies, resource availability). Under a combinatory second-best scenario, meeting targets greater than a 70% reduction in CO₂ by 2050 entail costs above a subjective barrier of 1% of GDP, while extreme mitigation scenarios (>90% CO₂ reduction) are infeasible. These high costs are equally due to disappointing progress in behavioural and technological mitigation efforts. Expensive second-best mitigation scenarios can still rely on extreme assumptions including the full deployment of the UK??s offshore wind resource or the complete diffusion of energy efficiency measures in end-use sectors. By demonstrating the fragilities of a low carbon energy system pathway, policy makers can explore protective and proactive strategies to ensure targets can actually be met. Additionally, systematic analysis of failure in stringent long term decarbonisation scenarios teaches energy analysts about the trade-offs in model efficacy vs. confidence.     

Climate or development: is ODA diverted from its original purpose?

We analyze the interaction of climate and development policy that has taken place since the early 1990s. Increasing dissatisfaction about the results of traditional development cooperation and the appeal of climate policy as a new policy field led to a rapid reorientation of aid flows. At the turn of the century, over 7% of aid flows were spent on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. However, the contribution of emissions mitigation projects to the central development objective of poverty reduction as specified in the Millennium Development Goals is limited and other project types are likely to be much more effective. Adaptation to climate change can be expected to have higher synergies with poverty alleviation than mitigation, primarily through its impact on health, the conservation of arable land and the protection against natural disasters. An analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism shows that projects addressing the poor directly are very rare; even small renewable energy projects in rural areas tend to benefit rich farmers and the urban population. Use of development aid for CDM projects and / or their preparation via capacity building is thus clearly not warranted. We further analyze whether the use of development aid for climate policy could be justified as a countermeasure against the emission increase related to successful development itself. However, countries that are achieving an improvement of human development from a low level are unlikely to increase their energy consumption substantially. Only at a level where the middle class expands rapidly, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions soar. Thus targeting middle class energy consumption by appliance efficiency standards and public transport-friendly urban planning are the most effective measures to address developing country emissions. Rural renewable energy provision in poor countries has a much higher impact on poverty, but a much lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude that while there are valid reasons for long-term collaboration with emerging economies on greenhouse gas mitigation, there should be a separate budget line for such activities to avoid “obfuscation” of a decline of resources aimed at poverty alleviation. Nevertheless, mitigation will remain attractive for donors because it ensures quick disbursements and relatively simple measures of success. Moreover, mitigation activities in developing countries provide politicians in industrialized countries with a welcome strategy to divert the attention of their constituencies from the lack of success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically.     

Global socio-economic and climate change mitigation scenarios through the lens of structural change

This paper analyses structural change in the economy as a key but largely unexplored aspect of global socio-economic and climate change mitigation scenarios. Structural change can actually drive energy and land use as much as economic growth and influence mitigation opportunities and barriers. Conversely, stringent climate policy is bound to induce specific structural and socio-economic transformations that are still insufficiently understood. We introduce Multi-Sectoral macroeconomic Integrated Assessment Models as tools to capture the key drivers of structural change and we conduct a multi-model study to assess main structural effects – changes of the sectoral composition and intensity of trade of global and regional economies – in a baseline and 2°C policy scenario by 2050. First, the range of baseline projections across models, for which we identify the main drivers, illustrates the uncertainty on future economic pathways – in emerging economies especially – and inform on plausible alternative futures with implications for energy use and emissions. Second, in all models, climate policy in the 2°C scenario imposes only a second-order impact on the economic structure at the macro-sectoral level – agriculture, manufacturing and services - compared to changes modelled in the baseline. However, this hides more radical changes for individual industries – within the energy sector especially. The study, which adopts a top-down framing of global structural change, represents a starting point to kick-start a conversation and propose a new research agenda seeking to improve understanding of the structural change effects in socio-economic and mitigation scenarios, and better inform policy assessments.     

The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds

Can near-term public support of renewable energy technologies contain the increase of mitigation costs due to delays of implementing emission caps at the global level? To answer this question we design a set of first and second best scenarios to analyze the impact of early deployment of renewable energy technologies on welfare and emission timing to achieve atmospheric carbon stabilization by 2100. We use the global multiregional energy?Ceconomy?Cclimate hybrid model REMIND-R as a tool for this analysis. An important design feature of the policy scenarios is the timing of climate policy. Immediate climate policy contains the mitigation costs at less than 1% even if the CO₂ concentration target is 410?ppm by 2100. Delayed climate policy increases the costs significantly because the absence of a strong carbon price signal continues the carbon intensive growth path. The additional costs can be decreased by early technology policies supporting renewable energy technologies because emissions grow less, alternative energy technologies are increased in capacity and their costs are reduced through learning by doing. The effects of early technology policy are different in scenarios with immediate carbon pricing. In the case of delayed climate policy, the emission path can be brought closer to the first-best solution, whereas in the case of immediate climate policy additional technology policy would lead to deviations from the optimal emission path. Hence, technology policy in the delayed climate policy case reduces costs, but in the case of immediate climate policy they increase. However, the near-term emission reductions are smaller in the case of delayed climate policies. At the regional level the effects on mitigation costs are heterogeneously distributed. For the USA and Europe early technology policy has a positive welfare effect for immediate and delayed climate policies. In contrast, India looses in both cases. China loses in the case of immediate climate policy, but profits in the delayed case. Early support of renewable energy technologies devalues the stock of emission allowances, and this effect is considerable for delayed climate policies. In combination with the initial allocation rule of contraction and convergence a relatively well-endowed country like India loses and potential importers like the EU gain from early renewable deployment.     

Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation – an analysis with REMIND

We analyze the dynamics of global fossil resource markets under different assumptions for the supply of fossil fuel resources, development pathways for energy demand, and climate policy settings. Resource markets, in particular the oil market, are characterized by a large discrepancy between costs of resource extraction and commodity prices on international markets. We explain this observation in terms of (a) the intertemporal scarcity rent, (b) regional price differentials arising from trade and transport costs, (c) heterogeneity and inertia in the extraction sector. These effects are captured by the REMIND model. We use the model to explore economic effects of changes in coal, oil and gas markets induced by climate-change mitigation policies. A large share of fossil fuel reserves and resources will be used in the absence of climate policy leading to atmospheric GHG concentrations well beyond a level of 550 ppm CO₂-eq. This result holds independently of different assumptions about energy demand and fossil fuel availability. Achieving ambitious climate targets will drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption, in particular the consumption of coal. Conventional oil and gas as well as non-conventional oil reserves are still exhausted. We find the net present value of fossil fuel rent until 2100 at 30tril.US$ with a large share of oil and a small share of coal. This is reduced by 9 and 12tril.US$ to achieve climate stabilization at 550 and 450 ppm CO₂-eq, respectively. This loss is, however, overcompensated by revenues from carbon pricing that are 21 and 32tril.US$, respectively. The overcompensation also holds under variations of energy demand and fossil fuel supply.     

Reducing global GHG emissions by replicating successful sector examples: the ‘good practice policies’ scenario

This article shows the potential impact on global GHG emissions in 2030, if all countries were to implement sectoral climate policies similar to successful examples already implemented elsewhere. This assessment was represented in the IMAGE and GLOBIOM/G4M models by replicating the impact of successful national policies at the sector level in all world regions. The first step was to select successful policies in nine policy areas. In the second step, the impact on the energy and land-use systems or GHG emissions was identified and translated into model parameters, assuming that it would be possible to translate the impacts of the policies to other countries. As a result, projected annual GHG emission levels would be about 50 GtCO₂e by 2030 (2% above 2010 levels), compared to the 60 GtCO₂e in the ‘current policies’ scenario. Most reductions are achieved in the electricity sector through expanding renewable energy, followed by the reduction of fluorinated gases, reducing venting and flaring in oil and gas production, and improving industry efficiency. Materializing the calculated mitigation potential might not be as straightforward given different country priorities, policy preferences and circumstances.

Key policy insights

• Considerable emissions reductions globally would be possible, if a selection of successful policies were replicated and implemented in all countries worldwide.

• This would significantly reduce, but not close, the emissions gap with a 2°C pathway.

• From the selection of successful policies evaluated in this study, those implemented in the sector ‘electricity supply’ have the highest impact on global emissions compared to the ‘current policies’ scenario.

• Replicating the impact of these policies worldwide could lead to emission and energy trends in the renewable electricity, passenger transport, industry (including fluorinated gases) and buildings sector, that are close to those in a 2°C scenario.

• Using successful policies and translating these to policy impact per sector is a more reality-based alternative to most mitigation pathways, which need to make theoretical assumptions on policy cost-effectiveness.

     

What future for primary aluminium production in a decarbonizing economy?

Aluminium is an energy intensive material with an environmental footprint strongly dependent on the electricity mix consumed by the smelting process. This study models prospective environmental impacts of primary aluminium production according to different integrated assessment modeling scenarios building on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their climate change mitigation scenarios. Results project a global average carbon intensity ranging between 8.6 and 18.0 kg CO₂ eq/kg in 2100, compared to 18.3 kg CO₂ eq/kg at present, that could be further reduced under mitigation scenarios. Co-benefits with other environmental indicators are observed. Scaling aluminium production impacts to the global demand shows total emission between 1250 and 1590 Gt CO₂ eq for baseline scenarios by 2050 while absolute decoupling is only achievable with stringent climate policy changing drastically the electricity mix. Achieving larger emission reductions will require circular strategies that go beyond primary material production itself and involve other stakeholders along the aluminium value chain.     

Four intermediate goals: a methodology for evaluation of climate mitigation policy packages

This study aimed to evaluate climate mitigation policy packages in various countries’ nationally determined contributions by introducing four intermediate policy goals: decarbonizing energy, improving energy efficiency, reducing demand for energy services, and enhancing carbon sinks and reducing emissions of non-CO₂ gases. The methodology was examined by using data of China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US. Climate mitigation policies introduced between 1990 and 2015 in the five countries were categorized into four intermediate policy goals. Six indicators were introduced to measure actual outcomes, each representing one of the four intermediate policy goals. A comparison between the policy categorizations and the indicator outputs led to the conclusion that the number of policies implemented partially reflects the countries’ efforts to achieve specific policy goals, even though the stringency of each policy was not taken into account. This comparison was also useful in identifying key policies that were effective in achieving policy goals, even if there was a relatively small number of policies. The methodology was useful in generating policy recommendations to fulfil all the four intermediate goals in a balanced manner.

POLICY RELEVANCE

The Paris Agreement, adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in December 2015, calls for all countries to prepare, communicate, and maintain successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions (Article 4.2). Under this new regime, methodologies to assess policy implementation have become increasingly important, especially for the post-2020 period. The methodology developed in this study is simple enough for any country to use and was effective in grasping the overall characteristics of the climate mitigation policy package in each country or region studied. The study recommends that the UNFCCC create a rule requesting countries to submit estimates of population, GDP, total energy demand, share of renewables, and other relevant factors for the target year when they submit their successive intended NDCs.     

Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways

While the international community has agreed on the long-term target of limiting global warming to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, only a few concrete climate policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been implemented. We use a set of three global integrated assessment models to analyze the implications of current climate policies on long-term mitigation targets. We define a weak-policy baseline scenario, which extrapolates the current policy environment by assuming that the global climate regime remains fragmented and that emission reduction efforts remain unambitious in most of the world’s regions. These scenarios clearly fall short of limiting warming to 2 °C. We investigate the cost and achievability of the stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm CO₂e by 2100, if countries follow the weak policy pathway until 2020 or 2030 before pursuing the long-term mitigation target with global cooperative action. We find that after a deferral of ambitious action the 450 ppm CO₂e is only achievable with a radical up-scaling of efforts after target adoption. This has severe effects on transformation pathways and exacerbates the challenges of climate stabilization, in particular for a delay of cooperative action until 2030. Specifically, reaching the target with weak near-term action implies (a) faster and more aggressive transformations of energy systems in the medium term, (b) more stranded investments in fossil-based capacities, (c) higher long-term mitigation costs and carbon prices and (d) stronger transitional economic impacts, rendering the political feasibility of such pathways questionable.     

Linkages between climate change and sustainable development

Abstract

Climate change does not yet feature prominently within the environmental or economic policy agendas of developing countries. Yet evidence shows that some of the most adverse effects of climate change will be in developing countries, where populations are most vulnerable and least likely to easily adapt to climate change, and that climate change will affect the potential for development in these countries. Some synergies already exist between climate change policies and the sustainable development agenda in developing countries, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and sustainable land-use policies. Despite limited attention from policy-makers to date, climate change policies could have significant ancillary benefits for the local environment. The reverse is also true as local and national policies to address congestion, air quality, access to energy services and energy diversity may also limit GHG emissions. Nevertheless there could be significant trade-offs associated with deeper levels of mitigation in some countries, for example where developing countries are dependent on indigenous coal and may be required to switch to cleaner yet more expensive fuels to limit emissions. The distributional impacts of such policies are an important determinant of their feasibility and need to be considered up-front. It follows that future agreements on mitigation and adaptation under the convention will need to recognise the diverse situations of developing countries with respect to their level of economic development, their vulnerability to climate change and their ability to adapt or mitigate. Recognition of how climate change is likely to influence other development priorities may be a first step toward building cost-effective strategies and integrated, institutional capacity in developing countries to respond to climate change. Opportunities may also exist in developing countries to use regional economic organisations to assist in the design of integrated responses and to exploit synergies between climate change and other policies such as those designed to combat desertification and preserve biodiversity.

© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.     

Are estimated costs of stringent mitigation biased?

We take issue with the claim by Tavoni and Tol (Clim Chang 100:769–778, 2010) that reviews of the macroeconomic costs of achieving the 2 °C climate target have been affected by selection bias and have underestimated the costs. Although many more cost estimates are available in the literature, they have restricted their survey to the data in the EMF22 study, with a limited set of model solutions for the 2 °C target. They have applied the methodology of observational meta-analysis inappropriately to policy meta-analysis, where the number of results is often very small and the basis for imputing a statistical distribution does not usually exist. They have mixed direct costs with net costs in terms of %GDP. Their method of “correcting” for missing data with (high) costs of stringent mitigation could equally be applied to correcting the data for omission of mitigation options such as biomass energy with carbon capture so reducing the cost estimates. And finally they implicitly assume that the same policy combinations and mitigation options are applied for all climate scenarios, when more stringent scenarios may require more stringent policies and options, such as regulation or BECCS. The conclusion from the literature is more appropriately that the costs are highly uncertain, that they can equally be positive or negative (gains) and that models which fail to solve for stringent mitigations are not fit for purpose.     

Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study

Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677–690]. In the post-Paris world of ‘nationally determined contributions’ to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO₂, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.

Policy relevance

Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.     

Shifting discourses of climate change in India

Developing countries like India are under international pressure to sign a legally binding emissions treaty to avert catastrophic climatic change. Developing countries, however, have argued that any international agreement must be based on historic and per capita carbon emissions, with developed countries responsible for reducing their emissions first and funding mitigation and adaptation in other countries. Recently, however, several scholars have argued that Indian government climate change discourses are shifting, primarily by recognizing the “co-benefits” of an alignment between its development and climate change objectives, and by displaying increasing “flexibility” on mitigation targets. This study investigates the factors driving shifting Indian discourses of climate change by conducting and analyzing 25 interviews of Indian climate policy elites, including scientists, energy policy experts, leading government officials, journalists, business leaders, and advocates, in addition to analysis of articles published in Economic and Political Weekly (a prominent Indian policy journal), and reports published by the government and other agencies. Our analysis suggests that India’s concerns about increasing energy access and security, along with newer concerns about vulnerability to climate change and the international leadership aspirations of the Indian government, along with emergence of new actors and institutions, has led to plurality of discourses, with potential implications for India’s climate change policies.     

Reducing fugitive methane emissions from the North American oil and gas sector: a proposed science-policy framework

The shale gas boom in the United States spurred a shift in electricity generation from coal to natural gas. Natural gas combined cycle units emit half of the CO₂ to produce the same energy as a coal unit; therefore, the market trend is credited for a reduction in GHG emissions from the US power sector. However, methane that escapes the natural gas supply chain may undercut these relative climate benefits. In 2016, Canada, the United States and Mexico pledged to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector 40–45% from 2012 levels by 2025. This article reviews the science-policy landscape of methane measurement and mitigation relevant for meeting this pledge, including changes in US policy following the 2016 presidential election. Considerable policy incoherence exists in all three countries. Reliable inventories remain elusive; despite government and private sector research efforts, the magnitude of methane emissions remains in dispute. Meanwhile, mitigation efforts vary significantly. A framework that integrates science and policy would enable actors to more effectively inform, leverage and pursue advances in methane measurement and mitigation. The framework is applied to North America, but could apply to other geographic contexts.

Key policy insights

• The oil and gas sector’s contribution to atmospheric methane concentrations is becoming an increasingly prominent issue in climate policy.

• Efforts to measure and control fugitive methane emissions do not presently proceed within a coherent framework that integrates science and policy.

• In 2016, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States pledged to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector 40–45% from 2012 levels by 2025.

• The 2016 presidential election in the United States has halted American progress at the federal level, suggesting a heavier reliance on industry and subnational efforts in that country.

• Collectively or individually, the countries, individual agencies, or private stakeholders could use the proposed North American Methane Reduction framework to direct research, enhance monitoring and evaluate mitigation efforts, and improve the chances that continental methane reduction targets will be achieved.

     

Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry

Attaining deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in industry in order to support a stringent climate change control target will be difficult without recourse to CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). Using the insights from a long-term bottom-up energy systems model, and undertaking a sectoral assessment, we investigated the importance of CCS in the industrial sector. Under climate policy aimed at limiting atmospheric concentration of GHGs to 650 ppm CO₂e, costs could increase fivefold when CCS is excluded from the portfolio of mitigation option measures in the industry sector as compared to when CCS is excluded in the power sector. This effect is driven largely by the lack of alternatives for deep emission reductions in industry. Our main policy conclusion is that a broader recognition of CCS in industrial applications in both current policy discussions and research, development, and demonstration funding programmes is justified. In recognition of the heterogeneity of the many types of industrial production processes, the size and location of industrial CO₂ sources, the specific need for CCS-retrofitting, and the exposure of most industrial sectors to international trade, policies aimed at supporting CCS must distinguish between the different challenges faced by the power and industrial sectors.     

The role of climate finance beyond renewables: demand-side management and carbon capture,usage and storage

Mobilizing climate finance for climate change mitigation is a crucial part of meeting the ‘well-below’ 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Climate finance refers to investments specifically in climate change mitigation and adaptation activities, which involve public finance and the leveraging of private finance. A large proportion of climate finance is Official Development Assistance (ODA) from OECD countries to ODA-eligible countries. The evidence shows that the largest proportion of climate finance for climate change mitigation has been channelled to the development of renewable energy, with a much smaller proportion flowing to other crucial forms of clean energy-related measures, such as demand-side management (DSM) (particularly sustainable cooling) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This forms the rationale and aim of this synthesis paper: to review the role of climate finance to develop clean energy beyond renewables. In doing so, the paper draws on practical policy and programme experiences of some donor countries, such as the UK, and Development Finance Institutions (DFIs). This paper argues that a greater amount of climate finance from OECD countries to ODA-eligible fossil fuel-intensive emerging economies and developing countries is required for sustainable cooling and CCUS, particularly in the form of technical assistance and clean energy innovation.

Key policy insights

• Demand-side management (DSM) and carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) are underfunded in climate finance compared with the promotion of renewables.

• Climate finance for sustainable cooling, in particular, represents just 0.04% of total ODA, despite cooling projected to represent 13% of global emissions by 2030.

• Public investment in CCUS is limited at US $28 billion since 2007, despite the costs of meeting the Paris Agreement estimated to be 40-128% more expensive without CCUS.

• Additional climate finance for these sectors should not come at the expense of funding for renewables but should be complementary to it.