The Contribution of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation to Achieving Long-Term Temperature Goals

Abstract

This paper analyses the emissions and cost impacts of mitigation of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) at a global level, in scenarios aimed at meeting a range of long-term temperature goals (LTTGs). The study combines an integrated assessment model (TIAM-Grantham) representing CO 2 emissions (and their mitigation) from the fossil fuel combustion and industrial sectors, coupled with a model covering non-CO 2 emissions (GAINS), using the latest global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. We illustrate that in general non-CO 2 mitigation measures are less costly than CO 2 mitigation measures, with the majority of their abatement potential achievable at US2005$100/tCO 2 e or less throughout the 21st century (compared to a marginal CO 2 mitigation cost which is already greater than this by 2030 in the most stringent mitigation scenario). As a result, the total cumulative discounted cost over the period 2010-2100 (at a 5% discount rate) of limiting global average temperature change to 2.5 • C by 2100 is $48 trillion (about 1.6% of cumulative discounted GDP over the period 2010-2100) if only CO 2 from the fossil fuel and industrial sectors is targeted, whereas the cost falls to $17 trillion (0.6% of GDP) by including non-CO 2 GHG mitigation in the portfolio of options-a cost reduction of about 65%. The criticality of non-CO 2 mitigation recommends further research, given its relatively less well-explored nature when compared to CO 2 mitigation.

CO2 Pipeline Design: A Review

“…A simulation in a general Purpose Programing Software (gPROMS) by varying the flow rate from 200 to 370 kg/s while holding every other parameter constant changed the resultant velocity by 0.61% with Equation (17) and 39.9% with Equation (2). Equation (17) is therefore seen to be more accurate and is recommended over Equation (2).…”

“…According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [1], global warming for the past 50 years is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. In 2010, CO 2 emissions amounted to about 37 Gt representing about 72% out of 51 Gt of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. About three-fourths of atmospheric CO 2 rise is because of burning fossil fuels [3], which releases CO 2 into the atmosphere.…”

“…CCS is a relatively advanced technology seeking to capture anthropogenic CO 2 and reduce emissions to attain less than 2 • C increase (as proposed in the Paris agreement) of pre-industrial Earth temperatures [6,7]. Mazzoccoli et al [8] and IPCC [9] reported that CO 2 releases into the atmosphere must be less than …”

The role of non-CO2 mitigation options within the dairy industry for pursuing climate change targets

“…While anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are the largest contributors, non-CO 2 emissions collectively contribute to a quarter of the total current greenhouse gas emissions based on equivalent emissions using the 100 year global warming potential (GWP) [5]. To meet climate stabilization goals, efforts to reduce CO 2 would benefit from complementary efforts in reducing non-CO 2 emissions [6,7]. Mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants such as methane (CH 4 ) can lead to a rapid decline in radiative forcing, and will significantly impact the magnitude of the peak temperature response and CO 2 budget set for a policy-relevant temperature limit [8].…”

The Impact of Shale Gas on the Cost and Feasibility of Meeting Climate Targets—A Global Energy System Model Analysis and an Exploration of Uncertainties

“…We then consider the temperature implications if methane leakage rates turn out to be higher (as a result of ineffective regulation and policy, or unexpected challenges in monitoring and emissions reduction). This temperature calculation is based on analysis by Met Office Hadley Centre as described in References [69,77]. Figure 8 shows that, for the high cost conventional, low cost shale (HC_LS) scenario, in which exploitation of shale gas is highest among scenarios with no forced extraction, there would be a relatively small additional global warming to 2100 if the additional leakage rate of fugitive methane from shale gas extraction is 1% or less.…”