Comparing transformation pathways across major economies

R. Schaeffer (), A. Köberle, H. L. Soest, Christine Bertram, G. Luderer, K. Riahi, V. Krey, D. P. Vuuren, E. Kriegler, S. Fujimori, W. Chen, C. He, Z. Vrontisi, S. Vishwanathan, A. Garg, R. Mathur, Shiva Shekhar, K. Oshiro, F. Ueckerdt, G. Safonov, G. Iyer, K. Gi and Vladimir Potashnikov ()
Additional contact information
R. Schaeffer: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE/UFRJ)
A. Köberle: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE/UFRJ)
H. L. Soest: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
G. Luderer: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
K. Riahi: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
V. Krey: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
D. P. Vuuren: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
E. Kriegler: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
S. Fujimori: Kyoto University (KyotoU)
W. Chen: Tsinghua University (TU)
C. He: Energy Research Institute (ERI)
Z. Vrontisi: E3MLab, National Technical University of Athens
S. Vishwanathan: Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA)
A. Garg: Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIMA)
R. Mathur: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
K. Oshiro: Mizuho Information & Research Institute (MHIR)
F. Ueckerdt: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
G. Safonov: Higher School of Economics (HSE)
G. Iyer: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
K. Gi: Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)

Climatic Change, 2020, vol. 162, issue 4, No 7, 1787-1803

Abstract: Abstract This paper explores the consequences of different policy assumptions and the derivation of globally consistent, national low-carbon development pathways for the seven largest greenhouse gas (GHG)–emitting countries (EU28 as a bloc) in the world, covering approximately 70% of global CO2 emissions, in line with their contributions to limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C as compared with pre-industrial levels. We introduce the methodology for developing these pathways by initially discussing the process by which global integrated assessment model (IAM) teams interacted and derived boundary conditions in the form of carbon budgets for the different countries. Carbon budgets so derived for the 2011–2050 period were then used in eleven different national energy-economy models and IAMs for producing low-carbon pathways for the seven countries in line with a well below 2 °C world up to 2050. We present a comparative assessment of the resulting pathways and of the challenges and opportunities associated with them. Our results indicate quite different mitigation pathways for the different countries, shown by the way emission reductions are split between different sectors of their economies and technological alternatives.

Keywords: Climate change mitigation; Paris agreement; Carbon budgets; National transformation pathways; National energy-economy models; Integrated assessment models (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-020-02837-9 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:spr:climat:v:162:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02837-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10584

DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02837-9

Access Statistics for this article

Climatic Change is currently edited by M. Oppenheimer and G. Yohe

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