Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies

Detlef P. van Vuuren (), Elke Stehfest, David E. H. J. Gernaat, Maarten Berg, David L. Bijl, Harmen Sytze Boer, Vassilis Daioglou, Jonathan C. Doelman, Oreane Y. Edelenbosch, Mathijs Harmsen, Andries F. Hof and Mariësse A. E. Sluisveld
Additional contact information
Detlef P. van Vuuren: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Elke Stehfest: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
David E. H. J. Gernaat: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Maarten Berg: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
David L. Bijl: Utrecht University
Harmen Sytze Boer: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Vassilis Daioglou: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Jonathan C. Doelman: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Oreane Y. Edelenbosch: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Mathijs Harmsen: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Andries F. Hof: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Mariësse A. E. Sluisveld: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Nature Climate Change, 2018, vol. 8, issue 5, 391-397

Abstract: Abstract Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through large-scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation. However, CDR strategies face several difficulties such as reliance on underground CO2 storage and competition for land with food production and biodiversity protection. The question arises whether alternative deep mitigation pathways exist. Here, using an integrated assessment model, we explore the impact of alternative pathways that include lifestyle change, additional reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and more rapid electrification of energy demand based on renewable energy. Although these alternatives also face specific difficulties, they are found to significantly reduce the need for CDR, but not fully eliminate it. The alternatives offer a means to diversify transition pathways to meet the Paris Agreement targets, while simultaneously benefiting other sustainability goals.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (35)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0119-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:nat:natcli:v:8:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1038_s41558-018-0119-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Climate Change is currently edited by Bronwyn Wake

More articles in Nature Climate Change from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().