Exploring the feasibility of low stabilization targets

Climate change mitigation scenarios provide an integrated perspective on the technologies and policies that are required to achieve various mitigation targets as well as the related costs. With the threat of severe adverse impacts from climate change becoming more and more apparent and in view of the pledge by policy-makers to meet stringent stabilization targets, further exploration of low emission scenarios has become increasingly relevant. Although much progress has been made in recent years to provide the basis for a solid assessment of different stabilization targets and the related economic, environmental, and social consequences, a more structured approach within a more realistic framework is required. First, uncertainties in baseline assumptions that are independent of climate policy need to be taken into account. These uncertainties reflect the incomplete knowledge concerning drivers of real-world developments, e.g. assumptions on technology improvements or resource availability. In addition, it is necessary to analyze so-called second-best worlds in which constraints on the deployment of low-carbon technologies or imperfect climate policy regimes render the mitigation effort more difficult. The current challenge for Integrated Assessment Modeling is thus to explore feasibility and limitations of mitigation strategies along three directions: (1) ambitious mitigation targets, (2) explicit treatment of uncertainties in baseline assumptions, and (3) second-best policy or technology scenarios. With this article, we propose future research foci and priorities in the run-up to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.  2011 John Wiley &

[1]  Jean-Pascal van Ypersele de Strihou,et al.  Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies , 2008 .

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

[3]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. , 2007 .

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

[5]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Thomas J. Wilbanks,et al.  Socio-economic Scenario Development for Climate Change Analysis , 2010 .

[7]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Scenarios of global bioenergy production: The trade-offs between agricultural expansion, intensification and trade , 2010 .

[8]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Mitigation implications of midcentury targets that preserve long-term climate policy options , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Jan Corfee-Morlot,et al.  Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern” , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  The economics of low stabilisation: implications for technological change and policy , 2010 .

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

[12]  D. Streets,et al.  Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study , 2006, physics/0610115.

[13]  Kristen Averyt,et al.  IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers , 2007 .

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

[15]  N. Stern The Economics of Climate Change: Implications of Climate Change for Development , 2007 .

[16]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  The Feasibility of Low Concentration Targets: An Application of FUND , 2009 .

[17]  J. Canadell,et al.  Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy , 2010 .

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

[20]  S. Kypreos,et al.  The economics of low stabilisation: exploring its implications for mitigation costs and strategies , 2010 .

[21]  F. Chapin,et al.  A safe operating space for humanity , 2009, Nature.

[22]  W. Nordhaus The "Stern Review" on the Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .

[23]  M. Weitzman,et al.  Stern Review : The Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .

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

[25]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  IMAGE and MESSAGE Scenarios Limiting GHG Concentration to Low Levels , 2008 .

[26]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The emissions gap report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2° C or 1.5° C? , 2010 .

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

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

[29]  Kristian Lindgren,et al.  Carbon Capture and Storage From Fossil Fuels and Biomass – Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere , 2006 .

[30]  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 .