Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals

Riahi, Keywan; Kriegler, Elmar; Johnson, Nils; Bertram, Christoph; Elzen, Michel den; Eom, Jiyong; Schaeffer, Michiel; Edmonds, Jae; Isaac, Morna; Krey, Volker; Longden, Thomas; Luderer, Gunnar; Méjean, Aurélie; McCollum, David; Mima, Silvana; Turton, Hal; Vuuren, Detlef van; Wada, Kazumi; Bosetti, Valentina; Capros, Pantélis; Criqui, Patrick; Hamdi-Chérif, Meriem; Kainuma, Mikiko; Edenhofer, Ottmar

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016

Cited by 303 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

254

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The required global mitigation rate to meet the quota is 5.5% per year (independent of sharing index) -more than twice the reduction rate 1/T if exponential decline could start immediately, because of persistence in emissions growth. This result is consistent with scenario-based analyses that account for policy delay 46,47 .…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any limit on future global warming is associated with a quota on cumulative global CO emissions. We translate this global carbon quota to regional and national scales, on a spectrum of sharing principles that extends from continuation of the present distribution of emissions to an equal per-capita distribution of cumulative emissions. A blend of these endpoints emerges as the most viable option. For a carbon quota consistent with a 2°C warming limit (relative to pre-industrial levels), the necessary long-term mitigation rates are very challenging (typically over 5% per year), both because of strong limits on future emissions from the global carbon quota and also the likely short-term persistence in emissions growth in many regions

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 88%

Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though cross-model comparison literature has developed fast, it has so far mostly reported on global issues 7,11,12,45 . Information from an MIP regarding the regional impacts of post 2020 climate policies is limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated assessment models can help quantifying the implications of international climate agreements and regional climate action. This paper reviews scenario results from model intercomparison projects to explore different possible outcomes of post 2020 climate negotiations, recently announced pledges and their relation to 2°C. We provide key information for all the major economies such as the year of emission peaking, the regional carbon budgets and emissions allowances. We highlight the distributional consequences of climate policies, and discuss the role of carbon markets for financing clean energy investments, and achieving efficiency and equity.So far, international climate policy has been ineffective in curbing the rise of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Still, ambitious climate targets such as the 2°C target require a phase-out of global emissions by the end of the century, and an active participation of all world regions in climate policy 1 . Given the many obstacles to global cooperative action on climate change, the question remains how diverse national climate policies can be coordinated and strengthened globally. Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Durban Platform for Enhanced 2 Action 2 provides an important platform for a post-2020 international climate agreement. It contains several innovative elements, most notably a focus on the major economies that goes beyond the traditional divide between Annex I and non-Annex I countries. The Durban platform calls for a new climate treaty to be agreed in 2015 and implemented as early as 2020. The recently announced USChina climate deal and the EU climate framework provide encouraging steps forwards, but aligning the incentives of the major emitters in pursuing stringent climate policies remains a challenge. In this paper, we aim at assessing the implications of post 2020 climate policies with specific reference to the major economies. We provide quantitative estimates of regional emission budgets, timing of emission peaking, and distribution of mitigation costs. We examine the role of carbon markets and different burden sharing schemes to alleviate distributional inequalities and finance the investment needs in low carbon mitigation technologies. In order to quantify these policy relevant variables, we resort to global models.Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are tools designed to investigate the implications of achieving climate and other objectives in an integrated and rigorous framework. They are numerical models that account for major interactions among energy, land-use, economic and climate systems. Model differ in the economic, technological and sectoral representation and in the way they are solved, with some models maximizing an inter-temporal objective function (such as economic activity) and others simulating a set of equilibria (see the SOM for individual model description and references to documentation). Models generate global long-term scenarios for a number of regions or countries that ca...

show abstract

“…Interestingly, a higher tax (ranging from 20 US$/tCO 2 in 2020 to 53 US$/tCO 2 in 2040) is shown to deliver the same emission reductions and keep the sector within the 1.5°C target; however costs are much higher in the absence of complementary demand-side policies. This emphasizes that increased energy efficiency (or lower energy intensity) reduces mitigation costs (Grubler et al 2018;Luderer et al 2013;Riahi et al 2015;Rogelj et al 2013).…”

Section: Carbon Pricing and Complementary Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modeling studies consistently show that demand-side measures play a critical role in meeting ambitious mitigation targets (Clarke et al 2014;Riahi et al 2015). Creutzig et al (2016) argue that a better understanding and integration of demandside mitigation strategies may help to reduce or remove reliance on large-scale CDR options or (even more controversial) solar radiation management technologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mundaca

Ürge-Vorsatz²,

Wilson

2018

Energy Efficiency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Climate Agreement defined an ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. This has triggered research on stringent emission reduction targets and corresponding mitigation pathways across energy economy and societal systems. Driven by methodological considerations, supply side and carbon dioxide removal options feature prominently in the emerging pathway literature, while much less attention has been given to the role of demand-side approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, and aims to broaden and strengthen the knowledge base in this key research and policy area. This editorial paper synthesizes the special issue's contributions horizontally through three shared themes we identify: policy interventions, demand-side measures, and methodological approaches. The review of articles is supplemented by insights from other relevant literature. Overall, our paper underlines that stringent demand-side policy portfolios are required to drive the pace and direction of deep decarbonization pathways and keep the 1.5°C target within reach. It confirms that insufficient attention has been paid to demand-side measures, which are found to be inextricably linked to supply-side decarbonization and able to complement supply-side measures. The paper also shows that there is an abundance of demand-side measures to limit warming to 1.5°C, but it warns that not all of these options are Bseen^or captured by current quantitative tools or progress indicators, and some remain insufficiently represented in the current policy discourse. Based on the set of papers presented in the special issue, we conclude that demand-side mitigation in line with the 1.5°C goal is possible; however, it remains enormously challenging and dependent on both innovative technologies and policies, and behavioral change. Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires, more than ever, a plurality of methods and integrated behavioral and technology approaches to better support policymaking and resulting policy interventions.

show abstract

Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals

Cited by 303 publications

References 60 publications

Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions

Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions

Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About