Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets

While the international community aims to limit global warming to below 2 ° C to prevent dangerous climate change, little progress has been made towards a global climate agreement to implement the emissions reductions required to reach this target. We use an integrated energy–economy–climate modeling system to examine how a further delay of cooperative action and technology availability affect climate mitigation challenges. With comprehensive emissions reductions starting after 2015 and full technology availability we estimate that maximum 21st century warming may still be limited below 2 ° C with a likely probability and at moderate economic impacts. Achievable temperature targets rise by up to ∼0.4 ° C if the implementation of comprehensive climate policies is delayed by another 15 years, chiefly because of transitional economic impacts. If carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unavailable, the lower limit of achievable targets rises by up to ∼0.3 ° C. Our results show that progress in international climate negotiations within this decade is imperative to keep the 2 ° C target within reach.

[1]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2 °C , 2013 .

[2]  T. Wigley,et al.  Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming , 2001, Science.

[3]  T. Stocker,et al.  The Closing Door of Climate Targets , 2013, Science.

[4]  L. Hannah.  International Climate Policy , 2015 .

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

[6]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Asia's role in mitigating climate change: A technology and sector specific analysis with ReMIND-R , 2012 .

[7]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C , 2013 .

[8]  K. Lindgren,et al.  The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) , 2010 .

[9]  Anilla Cherian,et al.  The role of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in the negotiation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , 1999 .

[10]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy , 2012, Climatic Change.

[11]  Malte Meinshausen,et al.  Copenhagen Accord Pledges imply higher costs for staying below 2°C warming , 2012, Climatic Change.

[12]  K. Calvin,et al.  Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways , 2015, Climatic Change.

[13]  A. Seth,et al.  Global climate change: An introduction and results from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) , 2007 .

[14]  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.

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

[16]  J. Kok,et al.  The physics of wind-blown sand and dust , 2012, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[17]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison , 2012, Climatic Change.

[18]  Mitsuru Kuroda,et al.  An Economic Assessment of Policy Instruments for Combatting Climate Change , 1996 .

[19]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry , 2010, Nature.

[20]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Climate Change 2007 : Synthesis Report : An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2008 .

[21]  Jonathan G. Koomey,et al.  FROM MY PERSPECTIVE Avoiding ''The Big Mistake'' in forecasting technology adoption $ , 2002 .

[22]  Aie.  World Energy Outlook 2009 , 2000 .

[23]  J. Rogelj,et al.  National GHG emissions reduction pledges and 2°C: comparison of studies , 2012 .

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

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

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

[27]  Robert J. Brecha,et al.  Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Gunnar Luderer,et al.  Exploring the feasibility of low stabilization targets , 2011 .

[29]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  GEA, 2012 : Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future , 2012 .

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

[31]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context , 2007 .

[32]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation Costs in a Globalized World: Climate Policy Analysis with REMIND-R , 2010 .