Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action

This paper compares the results of the three state of the art climate-energy-economy models IMACLIM-R, ReMIND-R, and WITCH to assess the costs of climate change mitigation in scenarios in which the implementation of a global climate agreement is delayed or major emitters decide to participate in the agreement at a later stage only. We find that for stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450?ppm CO₂-only, postponing a global agreement to 2020 raises global mitigation costs by at least about half and a delay to 2030 renders ambitious climate targets infeasible to achieve. In the standard policy scenario??in which allocation of emission permits is aimed at equal per-capita levels in the year 2050??regions with above average emissions (such as the EU and the US alongside the rest of Annex-I countries) incur lower mitigation costs by taking early action, even if mitigation efforts in the rest of the world experience a delay. However, regions with low per-capita emissions which are net exporters of emission permits (such as India) can possibly benefit from higher future carbon prices resulting from a delay. We illustrate the economic mechanism behind these observations and analyze how (1) lock-in of carbon intensive infrastructure, (2) differences in global carbon prices, and (3) changes in reduction commitments resulting from delayed action influence mitigation costs.     

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.     

Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs

On the basis of the IPCC B2, A1b and B1 baseline scenarios, mitigation scenarios were developed that stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 650, 550 and 450 and – subject to specific assumptions – 400 ppm CO₂-eq. The analysis takes into account a large number of reduction options, such as reductions of non-CO₂ gases, carbon plantations and measures in the energy system. The study shows stabilization as low as 450 ppm CO₂-eq. to be technically feasible, even given relatively high baseline scenarios. To achieve these lower concentration levels, global emissions need to peak within the first two decades. The net present value of abatement costs for the B2 baseline scenario (a medium scenario) increases from 0.2% of cumulative GDP to 1.1% as the shift is made from 650 to 450 ppm. On the other hand, the probability of meeting a two-degree target increases from 0%–10% to 20%–70%. The mitigation scenarios lead to lower emissions of regional air pollutants but also to increased land use. The uncertainty in the cost estimates is at least in the order of 50%, with the most important uncertainties including land-use emissions, the potential for bio-energy and the contribution of energy efficiency. Furthermore, creating the right socio-economic and political conditions for mitigation is more important than any of the technical constraints.     

Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Integrated Modeling Framework Approach

This paper presents an approach to estimating world-regional carbon mitigation cost functions for the years 2020, 2050, and 2100. The approach explicitly includes uncertainty surrounding such carbon reduction costs. It is based on the analysis of global energy-economy-environment scenarios described for the 21st century. We use one baseline scenario and variants thereof to estimate cumulative costs of carbon mitigation as a function of cumulative carbon emission reductions. For our baseline for estimating carbon mitigation cost curves, we use the so-called IIASA F scenario. The F scenario is a high-growth, high-emissions scenario designed specifically to be used as a reference against which to evaluate alternatives. Carbon emissions and energy systems costs in the F scenario are then compared with (reduced) emissions and (higher) costs (including macroeconomic adjustment costs) of alternative scenarios taken from the IIASA scenario database. As a kind of sensitivity analysis of our approach, we also present the results of a scenario involving assumptions on particularly rapid technological progress.     

Renewable and low-carbon energies as mitigation options of climate change for China

This article discusses how renewable and low-carbon energies can serve as mitigation options of climate change in China’s power sector. Our study is based on scenarios developed in PowerPlan, a bottom-up model simulating a countries’ power sector and its emissions. We first adjusted the model to China’s present-day economy and power sector. We then developed different scenarios based on story lines for possible future developments in China. We simulated China’s carbon-based electricity production system of today and possible future transitions towards a low-carbon system relying on renewable and low-carbon energies. In our analysis, we compare the business-as-usual scenarios with more sustainable energy scenarios. We found that by increasing the share of renewable and nuclear energies to different levels, between 17% and 57% of all CO₂ emissions from the power sector could be avoided by 2030 compared to the business-as-usual scenario. We also found that electricity generation costs increase when more sustainable power plants are installed. As a conclusion, China has two options: choosing for high climate change mitigation and high costs or choosing for moderate climate change mitigation and moderate costs. In case high climate change mitigation will be chosen, development assistance is likely to be needed to cover the costs.     

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.     

The effects of adaptation and mitigation on coastal flood impacts during the 21st century. An application of the DIVA and IMAGE models

This paper studies the effects of mitigation and adaptation on coastal flood impacts. We focus on a scenario that stabilizes concentrations at 450 ppm-CO₂-eq leading to 42 cm of global mean sea-level rise in 1995–2100 (GMSLR) and an unmitigated one leading to 63 cm of GMSLR. We also consider sensitivity scenarios reflecting increased tropical cyclone activity and a GMSLR of 126 cm. The only adaptation considered is upgrading and maintaining dikes. Under the unmitigated scenario and without adaptation, the number of people flooded reaches 168 million per year in 2100. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1.4, adaptation by factor 461 and both options together by factor 540. The global annual flood cost (including dike upgrade cost, maintenance cost and residual damage cost) reaches US$ 210 billion per year in 2100 under the unmitigated scenario without adaptation. Mitigation reduces this number by factor 1.3, adaptation by factor 5.2 and both options together by factor 7.8. When assuming adaptation, the global annual flood cost relative to GDP falls throughout the century from about 0.06 % to 0.01–0.03 % under all scenarios including the sensitivity ones. From this perspective, adaptation to coastal flood impacts is meaningful to be widely applied irrespective of the level of mitigation. From the perspective of a some less-wealthy and small island countries, however, annual flood cost can amount to several percent of national GDP and mitigation can lower these costs significantly. We conclude that adaptation and mitigation are complimentary policies in coastal areas.     

Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation

Many stabilization scenarios have examined the implications of stabilization on the assumption that all regions and all sectors of all of the world's economies undertake emissions mitigations wherever and whenever it is cheapest to do so. This idealized assumption is just one of many ways in which emissions mitigation actions could play out globally, but not necessarily the most likely. This paper explores the implications of generic policy regimes that lead to stabilization of CO₂ concentrations under conditions in which non-Annex I regions delay emissions reductions and in which carbon prices vary across participating regions. The resulting stabilization scenarios are contrasted with the idealized results. Delays in the date by which non-Annex I regions begin to reduce emissions raise the price of carbon in Annex I regions relative to the price of carbon in Annex I in an idealized regime for any given CO₂ concentration limit. This effect increases the longer the delay in non-Annex I accession, the lower the non-Annex I carbon prices relative to the Annex I prices, and the more stringent the stabilization level. The effect of delay is very pronounced when CO₂ concentrations are stabilized at 450 ppmv, however the effect is much less pronounced at 550 ppmv and above. For long delays in non-Annex I accession, 450 ppmv stabilization levels become infeasible.     

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.     

Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments

International negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change could take several different approaches to advance future mitigation commitments. Options range from trying to reach consensus on specific long-term atmospheric concentration targets (e.g. 550 ppmv) to simply ignoring this contentious issue and focusing instead on what can be done in the nearer term. This paper argues for a strategy that lies between these two extremes. Internationally agreed threshold levels for certain categories of impacts or of risks posed by climate change could be translated into acceptable levels of atmospheric concentrations. This could help to establish a range of upper limits for global emissions in the medium term that could set the ambition level for negotiations on expanded GHG mitigation commitments. The paper thus considers how physical and socio-economic indicators of climate change impacts might be used to guide the setting of such targets. In an effort to explore the feasibility and implications of low levels of stabilisation, it also quantifies an intermediate global emission target for 2020 that keeps open the option to stabilise at 450 ppmv CO₂ If new efforts to reduce emissions are not forthcoming (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or similar mitigation efforts fail), there is a significant chance that the option of 450 ppmv CO₂ is out of reach as of 2020. Regardless of the preferred approach to shaping new international commitments on climate change, progress will require improved information on the avoided impacts climate change at different levels of mitigation and careful assessment of mitigation costs.     

中国交通部门低碳排放措施和路径研究综述

为实现2℃全球温升控制目标,中国交通部门亟待低碳转型.分析了当前交通部门的温室气体排放现状和发展趋势,结合已有减排措施的减排潜力和减排成本,探究中国交通部门未来低碳发展的可能路径.在未来若干年,中国交通部门碳排放将长期保持较快增长,其中道路运输在总排放中的占比仍然较高,而民航运输碳排放增速最快.现有减排措施主要可分为交...     

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.     

Delayed action and uncertain stabilisation targets. How much will the delay cost?

Despite the growing concern about actual on-going climate change, there is little consensus on the scale and timing of actions needed to stabilise the concentrations of greenhouse gases. Many countries are unwilling to implement mitigation strategies, at least in the short term, and no agreement on an ambitious global stabilisation target has yet been reached. It is thus likely that international climate policies will be characterized by a high degree of uncertainty over the stringency of the climate objective, and that some countries might delay their participation to global action. What additional economic costs will this delay in the adoption of mitigation measures imply? What would the optimal short-term strategy be given the uncertainty surrounding the climate policy to come? Is there a hedging strategy that decision makers can adopt to cope with delayed action and uncertain targets? This paper addresses these questions by quantifying the economic implications of delaying mitigation action, and by computing the optimal abatement strategy in the presence of uncertainty about a global stabilisation target (which will be agreed upon in future climate negotiations). Results point to short-term inaction as the key determinant for the economic costs of ambitious climate policies. They also indicate that there is an effective hedging strategy that could minimise the cost of climate policy uncertainty over the global stabilisation target: a short-term moderate climate policy would be a good strategy to reduce the costs of delayed action and to cope with uncertainty about the outcome of future climate negotiations. By contrast, failing to curb emissions in the short term imposes rapidly increasing additional costs of compliance.     

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.     

Interpretation of IPCC AR6 on buildings北大核心CSCD

IPCC于2022年4月正式发布了第六次评估报告(AR6)第三工作组(WGⅢ)报告《气候变化2022:减缓气候变化》,该报告以已发布的第一和第二工作组报告作为基础,评估了各领域减缓气候变化的进展。报告的第九章建筑章节系统全面地评估了全球建筑领域的温室气体排放现状、趋势和驱动因素,综述并评估了建筑减缓气候变化的措施、潜力、成本和政策。报告主要结论认为,全球建筑领域有可能在2050年实现温室气体净零排放,但如果政策措施执行不力,将有可能在建筑领域形成长达几十年的高碳锁定效应。报告的主要结论将成为全球建筑领域应对气候变化行动的重要参考,对于我国建筑领域实现碳达峰、碳中和目标也有非常重要的借鉴意义。     

中国交通部门污染物与温室气体协同控制模拟研究

开展交通领域大气污染物与温室气体协同减排研究对于实现能源、环境和气候变化综合管理具有重要意义.文中以我国交通部门污染物与温室气体协同治理为切入点,开展道路、铁路、水运、航空和管道运输等各子部门未来需求预测,并运用长期能源可替代规划系统模型(LEAP),通过构建基准情景、污染减排情景、绿色低碳情景和强化低碳情景,模拟分析...     

Estimates of the Climate Response to Aircraft CO2 and NO x Emissions Scenarios

A combination of linear response models is used to estimate the transient changes in the global means of carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration, surface temperature, and sea level due to aviation. Apart from CO₂, the forcing caused by ozone (O₃) changes due to nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions from aircraft is also considered. The model is applied to aviation using several CO₂ emissions scenarios, based on reported fuel consumption in the past and scenarios for the future, and corresponding NO_x emissions. Aviation CO₂ emissions from the past until 1995 enlarged the atmospheric CO₂ concentration by 1.4 ppmv (1.7% of the anthropogenic CO₂ increase since 1800). By 1995, the global mean surface temperature had increased by about 0.004 K, and the sea level had risen by 0.045 cm. In one scenario (Fa1), which assumes a threefold increase in aviation fuel consumption until 2050 and an annual increase rate of 1% thereafter until 2100, the model predicts a CO₂ concentration change of 13 ppmv by 2100, causing temperature increases of 0.01, 0.025, 0.05 K and sea level increases of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 cm in the years 2015, 2050, and 2100, respectively. For other recently published scenarios, the results range from 5 to 17 ppmv for CO₂ concentration increase in the year 2050, and 0.02 to 0.05 K for temperature increase. Under the assumption that present-day aircraft-induced O₃ changes cause an equilibrium surface warming of 0.05 K, the transient responses amount to 0.03 K in surface temperature for scenario Fa1 in 1995. The radiative forcing due to an aircraft-induced O₃ increase causes a larger temperature change than aircraft CO₂ forcing. Also, climate reacts more promptly to changes in O₃ than to changes in CO₂ emissions from aviation. Finally, even under the assumption of a rather small equilibrium temperature change from aircraft-induced O₃ (0.01 K for the 1992 NO_x emissions), a proposed new combustor technology which reduces specific NO_x emissions will cause a smaller temperature change during the next century than the standard technology does, despite a slightly enhanced fuel consumption. Regional effects are not considered here, but may be larger than the global mean responses.     

Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios

Based on a large number of energy-economic and integrated assessment models, the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 27 study systematically explores the implications of technology cost and availability for feasibility and macroeconomic costs of energy system transformations toward climate stabilization. At the highest level, the technology strategy articulated in all the scenarios in EMF27 includes three elements: decarbonization of energy supply, increasing the use of low-carbon energy carriers in end-use, and reduction of energy use. The way that the scenarios differ is in the degree to which these different elements of strategy are implemented, the timing of those implementations, and the associated macroeconomic costs. The study also discusses the value of individual technologies for achieving climate stabilization. A robust finding is that the unavailability of carbon capture and storage and limited availability of bioenergy have the largest impact on feasibility and macroeconomic costs for stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at low levels, mostly because of their combined ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Constraining options in the electric sector such as nuclear power, wind and solar energy in contrast has a much smaller impact on the cost of mitigation.     

Oceanic transport and storage of carbon emissions

Using a global carbon cycle model (GLOCO) that considers seven terrestrial biomes, surface and deep ocean layers based on the HILDA model and a single mixed atmosphere, we analyzed the response of atmospheric CO₂ concentration and oceanic DIC and DOC depth profiles to additions of carbon to the atmosphere and ocean. The rate of transport of carbon to the deepest oceanic layers is rather insensitive to the atmosphereic-ocean surface gas exchange coefficient over a wide range, hence discrepancies between researchers on the precise global average value of this coefficient do not significantly affect predictions of atmospheric response to anthropogenic inputs. Upwelling velocity, on the other hand, amplifies oceanic response by increasing primary production in the upper ocean layers, resulting in a larger flux into DOC and sediments and increased carbon storage; experiments to reduce the uncertainty in this parameter would be valuable.The location of the carbon addition, whether it is released in the atmosphere or in the middle of the oceanic thermocline, has a significant impact on the maximum atmospheric CO₂ concentration (pCO₂) subsequently reached, suggesting that oceanic burial of a significant fraction of carbon emissions (e.g. via clathrate hydrides) may be an important management option for limiting pCO₂ buildup. Our analysis indicates that the effectiveness of ocean burial decreases asymptotically below about 1000 m depth. With a constant emissions scenario (at 1990 levels), pCO₂ at year 2100 is reduced from 501 ppmv considering all emissions go to the atmosphere, to 422 ppmv with ocean burial at a depth of 1000 m of 50% of the fossil fuel emissions. An alternative scenario looks at stabilizing pCO₂ at 450 ppmv; with no ocean burial of fossil fuel emissions, the rate of emissions has to be cut drastically after the year 2010, whereas oceanic burial of 2 GtC/yr allows for a smoother transition to alternative energy sources.     

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.