Assessing the Feasibility of Global Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios

Ajay Gambhir, Laurent Drouet, David McCollum, Tamaryn Napp, Dan Bernie, Adam Hawkes, Oliver Fricko, Peter Havlik, Keywan Riahi, Valentina Bosetti and Jason Lowe
Additional contact information
Ajay Gambhir: Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AA, UK
David McCollum: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Tamaryn Napp: Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AA, UK
Dan Bernie: Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, UK
Adam Hawkes: Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Oliver Fricko: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Keywan Riahi: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Jason Lowe: Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, UK

Energies, 2017, vol. 10, issue 1, 1-31

Abstract: This study explores the critical notion of how feasible it is to achieve long-term mitigation goals to limit global temperature change. It uses a model inter-comparison of three integrated assessment models (TIAM-Grantham, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM and WITCH) harmonized for socio-economic growth drivers using one of the new shared socio-economic pathways (SSP2), to analyse multiple mitigation scenarios aimed at different temperature changes in 2100, in order to assess the model outputs against a range of indicators developed so as to systematically compare the feasibility across scenarios. These indicators include mitigation costs and carbon prices, rates of emissions reductions and energy efficiency improvements, rates of deployment of key low-carbon technologies, reliance on negative emissions, and stranding of power generation assets. The results highlight how much more challenging the 2 °C goal is, when compared to the 2.5–4 °C goals, across virtually all measures of feasibility. Any delay in mitigation or limitation in technology options also renders the 2 °C goal much less feasible across the economic and technical dimensions explored. Finally, a sensitivity analysis indicates that aiming for less than 2 °C is even less plausible, with significantly higher mitigation costs and faster carbon price increases, significantly faster decarbonization and zero-carbon technology deployment rates, earlier occurrence of very significant carbon capture and earlier onset of global net negative emissions. Such a systematic analysis allows a more in-depth consideration of what realistic level of long-term temperature changes can be achieved and what adaptation strategies are therefore required.

Keywords: climate change mitigation; low-carbon scenarios; mitigation feasibility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/1/89/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/1/89/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:89-:d:87753

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().