The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs

Edenhofer, Ottmar; Knopf, Brigitte; Barker, Terry; Baumstark, Lavinia; Bellevrat, Elie; Chateau, Bertrand; Criqui, Patrick; Isaac, Morna; Kitous, Alban; Kypreos, Socrates; Leimbach, Marian; Lessmann, Kai; Magné, Bertrand; Scrieciu, S. Şerban; Turton, Hal; Vuuren, Detlef P. van

doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol31-nosi-2

Cited by 314 publications

(244 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The scenarios F λ chosen for use in PlaSim exponentially decay to different stabilization levels (varying between 400 and 550 ppmv; see Edenhofer et al, 2010). This stabilization level is taken as the parameter λ.…”

Section: Results: Point Of No Return Under Co 2 -Equivalent Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On determining the point of no return in climate change

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Earth's global mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.0 • C over the period 1880-2015. One of the main causes is thought to be the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. If greenhouse gas emissions are not substantially decreased, several studies indicate that there will be a dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate by the end of this century. However, there is no good quantitative measure to determine when it is "too late" to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid such dangerous interference. In this study, we develop a method for determining a so-called "point of no return" for several greenhouse gas emission scenarios. The method is based on a combination of aspects of stochastic viability theory and linear response theory; the latter is used to estimate the probability density function of the global mean surface temperature. The innovative element in this approach is the applicability to high-dimensional climate models as demonstrated by the results obtained with the PlaSim model.

show abstract

Section: Results: Point Of No Return Under Co 2 -Equivalent Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Sect. 4, the application to a high-dimensional climate model is presented using data from the Planet Simulator (PlaSim; Fraedrich et al, 2005). A summary and discussion in Sect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On determining the point of no return in climate change

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Combined with carbon capture and storage, it can actually extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Obersteiner et al 2001). As policy makers consider stringent targets for greenhouse gas emissions, integrated assessment models are increasingly relying on biomass energy as a critical energy source Krey and Riahi 2009;Edenhofer et al 2010;van Vuuren et al 2011;Rose et al 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Mendelsohn

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As policy makers consider stringent targets for greenhouse gas emissions, integrated assessment models are increasingly relying on biomass energy as a critical energy source. However, it is not clear how much woody biomass to expect across time and across the planet. The integrated assessment models simply do not have enough detail about global forests and arable land to make careful forecasts of biomass supply over time. Integrating the complex dynamic demand for bioenergy from the IAMs with the complex dynamic structure of forests and forest supply is a daunting intertemporal task. This study examines the market for woody biomass by combining the integrated assessment model WITCH with the global dynamic forestry model GTM. Three carbon tax schedules are used to simulate different mitigation policies that lead to radiative forcing levels of 3.7, 3.2 and 2.5 W/m 2 and a baseline scenario with no mitigation policies. WITCH determines the demand for woody biomass and GTM determines the supply of woody biomass over time. Moving from a mild to stringent mitigation policy would increase the demand of woody biomass from 8.2 to 15.2 billion m 3 /yr while the international price of wood would increase 4 to 9 times relative to the baseline scenario by 2100. This would shrink the demand for industrial wood products from 80% to 90% with the biomass program. Forest area will expand by 70-95% leading to increased storage of 685-1,279 GtCO 2 in forest by 2100. Overall, the biomass program with the CCS technology plays a key contribution to overall GHG emission reductions in all scenarios contributing 20-27% of all mitigation for 2020-2100.

show abstract

“…Mitigation-induced economic welfare losses or the costs of compliance as percentage of national income relative to a baseline are frequently highlighted (e.g. Nordhaus 2010, Edenhofer et al 2010), whilst important issues of risks and ethics (Dietz and Stern 2008) and the potential benefits (including avoided damages) that might endogenously emerge from such transformational shifts are often side-lined. In other words, the climate policy planning process is complicated by the sheer complexity of the linkages in terms of synergies and trade-offs between climate change-related policy goals and broader developmental policy objectives.…”

Section: Setting the Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Scrieciu

Belton

Chalabi

et al. 2014

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/45742/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. Authors accepted manuscript. Published as:Scriecu, S., Belton, V., Chalabi, Z., Mechler, R., Puig, D. (2014) There are growing calls for identifying climate mitigation and adaptation policypackages that would also support human development objectives at the national and regional levels. The literature on climate policy analysis and impact assessment continues to be driven by standard economics with its body of competitive general equilibrium optimization models and cost-benefit analysis techniques of aggregation and monetization. However, its recommendations for climate action are often based on highly restrictive underlying assumptions, which have been increasingly criticized for being too prescriptive, not adequately capturing salient observed socioeconomic realities, and not acknowledging pluralism in values.The main aim of this paper is to put forward a new methodological approach that seeks to address these deficiencies. A generic but comprehensive framework eliciting mitigationadaptation-development interactions, accounting for institutional barriers, and drawing on a combination of an emerging body of new climate economics and multi-criteria decision analysis is suggested. We purport that, by using this framework, multi-dimensional impacts and multistakeholder interests could be better represented when planning climate policy actions. We also argue that analytical tools drawing on economic thinking which embraces interdisciplinary analysis and deep uncertainty and avoids the fallacy of unique optimal solutions, may deliver more effective strategies for pushing economies onto the transformational pathways required.

show abstract

The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs

Cited by 314 publications

References 38 publications

On determining the point of no return in climate change

On determining the point of no return in climate change

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About