Climatic Change

, Volume 104, Issue 3–4, pp 793–801 | Cite as

The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets

A letter
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
  • Keywan Riahi


The relationship between long-term climate goals and short/medium-term emission targets forms crucial information for the design of international climate policy. Since IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4), a large number of new scenario studies have been published. This paper reviews this new literature and finds that there is more flexibility in the timing of short-term emission reductions compared to the earlier scenarios assessed by the AR4. For instance, the current literature suggests that a peak of emissions in 2020 and even 2030 would be consistent with limiting temperature change to about 2°C in the long term. The timing when emissions peak depends on whether negative emissions in the long-term can be achieved. The recent scenarios further indicate that global emissions by 2050 should be 40–80% below 2000 levels. Above all, the paper argues that there is no clear, single “law” that would directly determine the required emissions levels in 2020, but that instead policy-makers need to consider trade-offs between the likelihood of achieving long-term targets, the short-term costs, and their expectation with respect to future technologies (and their possible failure). The higher flexibility might be important in finding acceptable agreements on international climate policy.


Emission Reduction Negative Emission Copenhagen Accord International Climate Policy Technology Assumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10584_2010_4_MOESM1_ESM.doc (423 kb)
(DOC 422 kb)


  1. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K (2006) Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass-costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim Change 74:47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar C, Lindgren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP et al (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy carbon-capture and storage. Clim Change submittedGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S et al (2010) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31(Suppl. 2):S64–S81Google Scholar
  4. Climate Interactive (2010) Copenhagen accord reaffirms 2 degree goal, but Gap with National Proposals Remain. The Sooner the Action, the Cheaper and Easier.
  5. Den Elzen M, Meinshausen M, van Vuuren D (2007) Multi-gas emission envelopes to meet greenhouse gas concentration targets: costs versus certainty of limiting temperature increase. Glob Environ Change 17:260–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Den Elzen MGJ, Van Vuuren DP, Van Vliet J (2010) Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9798-5 Google Scholar
  7. ECOFYS (2010) Ambition of only 2 developed countries sufficient for Copenhagen Accord meeting 2°C target.
  8. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31:11–48Google Scholar
  9. Fisher B, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K, Corfee Morlot J, de la Chesnaye F et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 169–250Google Scholar
  10. Izrael YA (2008) About modern climate state and suggestions on actions to counteract climate changes. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 33:611–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knopf B, Edenhofer O, Barker T, Baumstark L, Criqui P et al (2009) The economics of low stabilisation: implications for technological change and policy. In: Hulme M, Neufeld H (eds) Making climate work for usGoogle Scholar
  12. Larsen J (2009) Options for WI GHG Reduction Targets.
  13. Meinshausen M, Hare B, Wigley TML, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ et al (2006) Multi-gas emission pathways to meet arbitrary climate targets. Clim Change 75:151–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakicenovic N, Kolp P, Riahi K, Kainuma M, Hanaoka T (2006) Assessment of emissions scenarios revisited. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 7:137–173Google Scholar
  17. O’Neill B, Riahi K, Keppo I (2010) Mitigation implications of midcentury targets that preserve long-term climate policy options. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(3):1011–1016. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903797106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rao S, Riahi K, Stehfest E, van Vuuren D, Cheolhung C et al (2008) IMAGE and MESSAGE scenarios limiting GHG concentration to low levels. IIASA, LaxenbourgGoogle Scholar
  19. Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:887–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogelj J, Nabel J, Chen C, Hare B, Markmann K et al (2010) Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464:1126–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tavoni M, Tol R (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. Clim Change 100:769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change (2009) The Copenhagen Communique on Climate Change.
  23. UNEP (2010) How close are we to the two degree limit?
  24. Van Vuuren DP, Den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL, Eickhout B, Strengers BJ et al (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Change 81:119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Vuuren DP, Lowe J, Stehfest E, Gohar L, Hof AF et al (2009) How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change? Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9764-2 Google Scholar
  26. van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Isaac M (2010a) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31:193–222Google Scholar
  27. van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MGJ, van Vliet J, Isaac M (2010b) Exploring IMAGE model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3W/m2 in 2100. Energ Econ 32(5):1105–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.International Institute of Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations