The costs of achieving climate targets and the sources of uncertainty

Effective climate policy requires information from various scientific disciplines. Here, we construct a metamodel from climate and integrated assessment models that assesses the emissions budget, costs and uncertainty sources of achieving temperature targets. By calibrating to the model-based literature range, the metamodel goes beyond the parametric uncertainty of individual models. The resulting median estimates for the cumulative abatement costs (at 5% discount rate) for 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets are around US$15 trillion and US$30 trillion, but estimates vary over a wide range (US$10–100 trillion for the 1.5 °C target). The sources determining this uncertainty depend on the climate target stringency. Climate system uncertainty dominates at high warming levels, but uncertainty in emissions reductions costs dominates for the Paris Agreement targets. In fact, costs differences between different socio-economic development paths can be larger than the difference in median estimates for the 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets. This simple metamodel helps to explore implications of scenario uncertainty and identify research priorities. Costs of achieving climate targets are uncertain. A metamodel estimates the median costs of limiting warming to 2 °C and 1.5 °C to be US$15 trillion and US$30 trillion. Uncertainty in emissions reductions costs dominates at these levels; climate system uncertainty dominates at higher warming levels.

[1]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[2]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[3]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  Scenario techniques for energy and environmental research: An overview of recent developments to broaden the capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[5]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[6]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  Building SSPs for climate policy analysis: a scenario elicitation methodology to map the space of possible future challenges to mitigation and adaptation , 2012, Climatic Change.

[7]  R. Betts,et al.  High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes , 2012 .

[8]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[9]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[10]  Vanessa Schweizer,et al.  A few scenarios still do not fit all , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[11]  D. Vose Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide , 2000 .

[12]  R. Sutton ESD Ideas: a simple proposal to improve the contribution of IPCC WGI to the assessment and communication of climate change risks , 2018, Earth System Dynamics.

[13]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices , 2002 .

[14]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2009, Nature.

[15]  Bas Eickhout,et al.  Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs , 2007 .

[16]  Myles R. Allen,et al.  Constraining the Ratio of Global Warming to Cumulative CO2 Emissions Using CMIP5 Simulations , 2013 .

[17]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Identifying parametric controls and dependencies in integrated assessment models using global sensitivity analysis , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[18]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C , 2017 .

[19]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled , 2016 .

[20]  John M. Reilly,et al.  Modeling Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: A Multimodel Comparison , 2018, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[21]  James W. Jones,et al.  Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis , 2019, Working with Dynamic Crop Models.

[22]  T. Wigley,et al.  Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 - Part 1: Model description and calibration , 2011 .

[23]  P. Mahadevan,et al.  An overview , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[24]  T. Kram,et al.  Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials , 2009 .

[25]  G. Marangoni,et al.  Robust abatement pathways to tolerable climate futures require immediate global action , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[26]  Haewon C. McJeon,et al.  Trapped between two tails: trading off scientific uncertainties via climate targets , 2013 .

[27]  John P. Weyant,et al.  The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies , 2014, Climatic Change.

[28]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[29]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Signal detection in global mean temperatures after "Paris": an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis , 2017 .

[30]  H. Pollitt,et al.  The role of money and the financial sector in energy-economy models used for assessing climate and energy policy , 2015, 1512.02912.

[31]  K. van der Wijst Optimal policy for carbon pricing: Challenging the Hotelling rule and dissecting mitigation cost uncertainties , 2018 .

[32]  D. McCollum,et al.  Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation , 2013, Nature.