New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants

Allen, Myles; Fuglestvedt, Jan S.; Shine, Keith P.; Reisinger, Andy; Pierrehumbert, Raymond T.; Forster, Piers M.

doi:10.1038/nclimate2998

Cited by 200 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

187

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given these shortcomings of the GWP (Allen et al., ; Daniel et al., ; IPCC ; Myhre et al., ; Shine, ), scientific and political opinions remain divided on the importance of reducing emissions of short‐lived climate pollutants such as CH 4 . Positions range from strong support for prioritizing such reductions (CCAC ; Shindell et al., ; Victor, Zaelke, & Ramanathan, ) to concern that such efforts could dilute the nonsubstitutable priority of reducing global CO 2 emissions to zero over the 21st century (Allen et al., ; Bowerman et al., ; Pierrehumbert, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming?

Reisinger

Clark

2017

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture directly contributes about 10%-12% of current global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from livestock. However, such percentage estimates are based on global warming potentials (GWPs), which do not measure the actual warming caused by emissions and ignore the fact that methane does not accumulate in the atmosphere in the same way as CO . Here, we employ a simple carbon cycle-climate model, historical estimates and future projections of livestock emissions to infer the fraction of actual warming that is attributable to direct livestock non-CO emissions now and in future, and to CO from pasture conversions, without relying on GWPs. We find that direct livestock non-CO emissions caused about 19% of the total modelled warming of 0.81°C from all anthropogenic sources in 2010. CO from pasture conversions contributed at least another 0.03°C, bringing the warming directly attributable to livestock to 23% of the total warming in 2010. The significance of direct livestock emissions to future warming depends strongly on global actions to reduce emissions from other sectors. Direct non-CO livestock emissions would contribute only about 5% of the warming in 2100 if emissions from other sectors increase unabated, but could constitute as much as 18% (0.27°C) of the warming in 2100 if global CO emissions from other sectors are reduced to near or below zero by 2100, consistent with the goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C. These estimates constitute a lower bound since indirect emissions linked to livestock feed production and supply chains were not included. Our estimates demonstrate that expanding the mitigation potential and realizing substantial reductions of direct livestock non-CO emissions through demand and supply side measures can make an important contribution to achieve the stringent mitigation goals set out in the Paris Agreement, including by increasing the carbon budget consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming?

Reisinger

Clark

2017

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To apply the findings from the slcp segmentation hypothesis of Allen et al . (), the MSW methane disposal emissions were segmented. Given increasing waste growth and continued low disposal cost (Arif ) without any future IWM capacity intervention, degradation of the disposed MSW would cause an ongoing and increasing regional warming pulse of methane emissions that would contribute to the 2 degree COP21 limit being exceeded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The combination of GHG estimates of CO 2eq using greenhouse warming potentials for short lived climate pollutants ( slpc ) such as methane, which represents the most significant emission source from the disposal of MSW has been questioned due to the generation of a unique warming pulse generated from slcp emission irradiation within a short and limited time range (Allen et al . ).

{CO}_{2 eq} = \sum_{i = 1 to n}^{n} true({GHG}_{i} \times {GWP}_{i} true)

where CO 2eq , emissions in CO 2eq ; GHG, greenhouse gas ( i ); n , number of GHG's emitted from source.…”

Section: Background and Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Regional development and climate change mitigation modelling of municipal solid waste emissions in the middle east

Dumble¹

2017

Water & Environment J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study adapts a climate change mitigation model to assess impacts of municipal solid wastes in the Middle East and North Africa region, taking into account the future development of integrated waste management infrastructure involving collection, treatment and disposal. Mitigated and unmitigated disposal scenarios including waste growth reduction are used to estimate disposal methane emission changes at regional and subregional level. This study shows that unmitigated regional emissions by 2050 could rise to 296 542 GgCO2eq from a current level in 2015 of 128 184 GgCO2eq additionally decreasing annually by up to 8.75% falling to 10.16% due to waste characterisation changes as developing countries in the region progress to developed country status. A further annual rise, due to hotter drier climate conditions experienced as desertification, of up to a range of 1.70% increasing to 2.29% is also demonstrated. The findings enable regional planners to better assess and develop plans for implementation of integrated waste management policies.

show abstract

“…The climate change mitigation value of bioenergy ultimately rests on its ability to deliver end‐use energy with lower climate impacts than its fossil energy counterparts. However, the climate system response varies over time and space (Zanchi et al, ), and there is not a single indicator that can capture this variability (Allen et al, ; Cherubini, Fuglestvedt, et al, ). A variety of methods have therefore been devised that take different approaches to quantifying various aspects of climate change (Helin et al, ; Levasseur et al, ; Plattner et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing concern over climate change has led to interest in replacing fossil energy with bioenergy. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we have focused on a range of published impact assessment methods that vary due to conceptual differences in the treatment of biogenic carbon fluxes, the type of climate change impacts they address and differences in time horizon and time preference. Specifically, this paper reviews fifteen different methods and applies these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies: (a) woody biomass grown on previously forested land; (b) woody biomass grown on previous pasture land; and (b) annual energy crop grown on previously cropped land. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy, particularly when a mature forest is converted to bioenergy use as it involves a substantial reduction in biomass carbon stocks. Results are more uniform in other case studies. In general, results are more sensitive to specific impact assessment methods when they involve both emissions and removals at different points in time, such as for forest bioenergy, but have a much smaller influence on agricultural bioenergy systems grown on land previously used for pasture or annual cropping. The development of effective policies for climate change mitigation through renewable energy use requires consistent and accurate approaches to identification of bioenergy systems that can result in climate change mitigation. The use of different methods for the same purpose: estimating the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. A full interpretation of the results generated with different methods must be based on an understanding that the different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.

show abstract

New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants

Cited by 200 publications

References 24 publications

How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming?

How much do direct livestock emissions actually contribute to global warming?

Regional development and climate change mitigation modelling of municipal solid waste emissions in the middle east

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About