Will economic growth and fossil fuel scarcity help or hinder climate stabilization?

We investigate the extent to which future energy transformation pathways meeting ambitious climate change mitigation targets depend on assumptions about economic growth and fossil fuel availability. The analysis synthesizes results from the RoSE multi-model study aiming to identify robust and sensitive features of mitigation pathways under these inherently uncertain drivers of energy and emissions developments. Based on an integrated assessment model comparison exercise, we show that economic growth and fossil resource assumptions substantially affect baseline developments, but in no case they lead to the significant greenhouse gas emission reduction that would be needed to achieve long-term climate targets without dedicated climate policy. The influence of economic growth and fossil resource assumptions on climate mitigation pathways is relatively small due to overriding requirements imposed by long-term climate targets. While baseline assumptions can have substantial effects on mitigation costs and carbon prices, we find that the effects of model differences and the stringency of the climate target are larger compared to that of baseline assumptions. We conclude that inherent uncertainties about socio-economic determinants like economic growth and fossil resource availability can be effectively dealt with in the assessment of mitigation pathways.

[1]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Global Energy: Assessing the Future , 1985 .

[2]  M. Wise,et al.  An Integrated Assessment of Climate Change and the Accelerated Introduction of Advanced Energy Technologies - An Application of MiniCAM 1.0 , 1997 .

[3]  Kejun Jiang,et al.  Long-Term GHG Emission Scenarios for Asia-Pacific and the World , 2000 .

[4]  Tsuneyuki Morita,et al.  Overview of mitigation scenarios for global climate stabilization based on new IPCC emission scenarios (SRES) , 2000 .

[5]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming , 2000 .

[6]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[7]  M. Tavoni,et al.  A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .

[8]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[9]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  The 2008 Witch Model: New Model Features and Baseline , 2009 .

[10]  Leon E. Clarke,et al.  CO 2 Emissions Mitigation and Technological Advance: An Updated Analysis of Advanced Technology Scenarios , 2009 .

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

[12]  N. Bauer,et al.  The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds , 2012, Climatic Change.

[13]  Sergey Paltsev,et al.  Analysis of climate policy targets under uncertainty , 2012, Climatic Change.

[14]  Marshall A. Wise,et al.  Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios? , 2011 .

[15]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Global Energy Assessment (GEA): Energy Primer , 2012 .

[16]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Chapter 1: Energy primer , 2012 .

[17]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development , 2012 .

[18]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development , 2012 .

[19]  Monique Hoogwijk,et al.  Chapter 7: Energy resources and potentials , 2012 .

[20]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios , 2014, Climatic Change.

[21]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets , 2013 .

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

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

[24]  G. Luderer,et al.  Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation – an analysis with REMIND , 2012, Climatic Change.

[25]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  The UN's 'Sustainable Energy for All' initiative is compatible with a warming limit of 2 °C , 2013 .

[26]  Enrica De Cian,et al.  The influence of economic growth, population, and fossil fuel scarcity on energy investments , 2013, Climatic Change.

[27]  Pantelis Capros,et al.  COST CONCEPTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION , 2013 .

[28]  L. Clarke,et al.  Assessing Transformation Pathways , 2014 .

[29]  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.

[30]  P. Northrop,et al.  Quantifying Sources of Uncertainty in Projections of Future Climate , 2014 .

[31]  Charlie Wilson,et al.  Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy , 2015 .

[32]  John M. Reilly,et al.  Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison , 2015 .

[33]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity to energy technology costs: a multi-model comparison analysis. , 2015 .

[34]  Jessica Strefler,et al.  Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) , 2015 .

[35]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[36]  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 .

[37]  M. Grubb.  Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview and Comparison of Approaches and Results , 2016 .

[38]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Future growth patterns of world regions – A GDP scenario approach , 2017 .

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