Achievability of the Paris targets in the EU—the role of demand-side-driven mitigation in different types of scenarios

Abstract

With the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2°C until 2100, at best even 1.5°C, the question arises what this implies for the EU's mitigation targets and strategies. In this article, the reduction of carbon intensities and energy uses in the most ambitious mitigation scenarios for the EU, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK are compared to those of the EU in global 1.5 and 2°C scenarios. An index decomposition analysis is applied to energy supply and each enduse sector (industry, buildings, and transport) to identify the main differences. From this, we derive conclusions concerning policies and indicators for an EU mitigation strategy compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The index decomposition shows that reducing energy use is a stronger lever in the evaluated national scenarios than in the international scenarios for all enduse sectors. The reasons for that are the lower utilization of CCS, the inclusion of additional technology options, and a detailed consideration of sufficiency in the national scenarios. The results suggest that including more ambitious demand-side mitigation options (sufficiency, energy efficiency, electrification, and fuel switching) can significantly reduce the need for negative emissions that are required in all the existing 1.5°C-compatible global scenarios. Driving these options requires substantial enhancement of current policies for all end-use sectors. In addition, certain index decomposition approaches are shown to underrate the long-term contributions of demand-side mitigation. Accordingly, demand-side mitigation tends to be under-represented in progress indicators for the Paris Agreement, which calls for improvements.

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

“…The authors stress the need for command-and-control policy initiatives to drive behavioral change and sustainable consumption patterns. Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018) show that national mitigation scenarios based on bottom-up exercises open up opportunities for carbon emission reductions in end-use sectors that are more stringent than those observed in more aggregated scenarios. From a policy perspective, the authors conclude that emissions can be reduced by targeting specific areas, namely sufficiency, energy efficiency, electrification, and fuel switching.…”

“…However, almost three quarters of emissions currently addressed by carbon pricing mechanisms are below 10 US$/tCO 2 (World Bank et al 2017) , which is significantly lower than pricing levels consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement: 15-360 US$tCO 2-eq in 2030, 45-1000 US$tCO 2-eq in 2050, and 140-8300US$/tCO 2-eq in 2100 (Stiglitz et al 2017). Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018) conclude that the European Union's ETS is very unlikely to provide the economic incentives for decarbonizing the industrial sector unless substantial reforms are undertaken. The authors argue that although the ETS innovation fund 3 may offer better incentives, complementary demand-side policies are still urgently needed across end-use sectors.…”

“…Establishing very ambitious targets for the transport sector is critical to avoid or reduce trips, encourage a change towards highly efficient travel modes, and improve the performance of vehicles and fuels. Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018) compare reductions in energy and carbon intensities across different end-use sectors, and stress the importance of sectoral mitigation targets, particularly at the national level. They assess target-oriented national scenarios and show that conceivable emission reductions in enduse sectors can be more stringent than aggregated (IAM) scenarios suggest.…”

“…Similarly, Méjean et al (2018) highlight the importance of rigorous building standards (including energy labelling) in fostering energy-efficiency improvements and reducing energy demand in the residential sector. Building codes are also addressed by Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018), who demonstrate plausible national emission reductions based on the assumption that both new buildings and retrofits meet the highest available thermal-efficiency standards. Consistent with the available literature (Lucon et al 2014;Seto et al 2016;Ürge-Vorsatz et al 2013), the authors argue that stricter building codes in the near term are a necessary condition to avoid carbon lock-in in the sector.…”

“…The authors conclude that national performance standards should be significantly improved. Similarly, in the transport sector, Wachsmuth and Duscha (2018) and Gota et al (2018) highlight that stringent fuel-efficiency standards should be put in place to lay the foundations for a meaningfully contribution to the 1.5°C goal.…”