The contribution of Paris to limit global warming to 2 °C

The international community has set a goal to limit global warming to 2 °C. Limiting global warming to 2 °C is a challenging goal and will entail a dramatic transformation of the global energy system, largely complete by 2040. As part of the work toward this goal, countries have been submitting their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, indicating their emissions reduction commitments through 2025 or 2030, in advance of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in December 2015. In this paper, we use the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) to analyze the near versus long-term energy and economic-cost implications of these INDCs. The INDCs imply near-term actions that reduce the level of mitigation needed in the post-2030 period, particularly when compared with an alternative path in which nations are unable to undertake emissions mitigation until after 2030. We find that the latter case could require up to 2300 GW of premature retirements of fossil fuel power plants and up to 2900 GW of additional low-carbon power capacity installations within a five-year period of 2031–2035. INDCs have the effect of reducing premature retirements and new-capacity installations after 2030 by 50% and 34%, respectively. However, if presently announced INDCs were strengthened to achieve greater near-term emissions mitigation, the 2031–2035 transformation could be tempered to require 84% fewer premature retirements of power generation capacity and 56% fewer new-capacity additions. Our results suggest that the INDCs delivered for COP21 in Paris will have important contributions in reducing the challenges of achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 2 °C.

[1]  Steve Fetter,et al.  Implications of small modular reactors for climate change mitigation , 2014 .

[2]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Land use representation in a global CGE model for long-term simulation: CET vs. logit functions , 2014, Food Security.

[3]  Marian Leimbach,et al.  Modeling Agriculture and Land Use in an Integrated Assessment Framework , 2003 .

[4]  O. Edenhofer Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change : Working Group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2015 .

[5]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment , 2010, Nature.

[6]  E. Hertwich,et al.  CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Thomas Sterner,et al.  How Should Benefits and Costs Be Discounted in an Intergenerational Context? The Views of an Expert Panel , 2013 .

[8]  J. Edmonds,et al.  The ObjECTS Framework for Integrated Assessment: Hybrid Modeling of Transportation , 2006 .

[9]  Jiyong Eom,et al.  Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets , 2015 .

[10]  Gary W. Yohe,et al.  Discounting for Climate Change , 2009 .

[11]  S. Robinson,et al.  A standard computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in GAMS , 2002 .

[12]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Improved representation of investment decisions in assessments of CO 2 mitigation , 2015 .

[13]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[14]  Philippe Ciais,et al.  Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions , 2014 .

[15]  James R. McFarland,et al.  Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? , 2015, Science.

[16]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Discounting climate change , 2008 .

[17]  Stephen C. Peck,et al.  Analytic Solutions of Simple Optimal Greenhouse Gas Emission Models , 1996 .

[18]  D. McFadden Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products , 1980 .

[19]  S. Solomon,et al.  Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions , 2015 .

[20]  Shinichiro Fujimori,et al.  Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology , 2014 .

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

[22]  Paul Upham,et al.  Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS or Bio-CCS) , 2011 .

[23]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

[24]  Aie,et al.  World Energy Outlook 2011 , 2001 .

[25]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Betting on negative emissions , 2014 .

[26]  Michael Jakob,et al.  Interpreting trade-related CO 2 emission transfers , 2013 .

[27]  T. Wigley,et al.  Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios , 1992, Nature.

[28]  E. C. van Ierland,et al.  Economics of atmospheric pollution , 1996 .

[29]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation , 2008 .

[30]  Kenichi Wada,et al.  Technological Forecasting & Social Change Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals , 2014 .

[31]  K. Train Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand , 1985 .

[32]  Michael Greenstone,et al.  Using and improving the social cost of carbon , 2014, Science.

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

[34]  James J. Dooley,et al.  Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and disposal, hydrogen, and transportation technologies , 2004 .

[35]  T. Masui,et al.  Bridging greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy deployment target: Comparative assessment of China and India , 2016 .

[36]  Elizabeth L. Malone,et al.  Factors in low-carbon energy transformations: Comparing nuclear and bioenergy in Brazil, Sweden, and the United States , 2012 .

[37]  K. Calvin,et al.  Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models , 2015 .

[38]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action , 2012, Climatic Change.

[39]  Jean Chateau,et al.  Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[40]  Kenichi Wada,et al.  Making or breaking climate targets: : The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy , 2015 .

[41]  J. Edmonds,et al.  RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100 , 2011 .

[42]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy , 2009, Science.

[43]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Modelling energy technologies in a competitive market , 1993 .

[44]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  The impact of near-term climate policy choices on technology and emission transition pathways , 2015 .