How Low Can We Go? The Implications of Delayed Ratcheting and Negative Emissions Technologies on Achieving Well Below 2 °C

  • Matthew Winning
  • Steve Pye
  • James Glynn
  • Daniel Scamman
  • Daniel Welsby
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Energy book series (LNEN, volume 64)

Abstract

Pledges embodied in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) represent an interim step from a global “no policy” path towards an optimal long-term global mitigation path. However, the goals of the Paris Agreement highlight that current pledges are insufficient. It is, therefore, necessary to ratchet-up parties’ future mitigation pledges in the near-term. The ambitious goals of remaining well below 2 °C and pursuing reductions towards 1.5 °C mean that any delay in ratcheting-up commitments could be extremely costly or may even make the targets unachievable. In this chapter, we consider the impacts of delaying ratcheting until 2030 on global emissions trajectories towards 2 °C and 1.5 °C, and the role of offsets via negative emissions technologies (NETs). The analysis suggests that delaying action makes pursuing the 1.5 °C goal especially difficult without extremely high levels of negative emissions technologies (NETs), such as carbon capture and storage combined with bioenergy (BECCS). Depending on the availability of biomass, other NETs beyond BECCS will be required. Policymakers must also realise that the outlook for fossil fuels are closely linked to the prospects for NETs. If NETs cannot be scaled, the levels of fossil fuels suggested in this analysis are not compatible with the Paris Agreement goals i.e. there are risks of lock-in to a high fossil future. Decision makers must, therefore, comprehend fully the risks of different strategies.

References

  1. Anandarajah G, Pye S, Usher W, Kesicki F, Mcglade C (2011) TIAM-UCL global model documentation. UKERC working paper UKERC/WP/ESY/2011/001; 2011Google Scholar
  2. Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354(6309):182–183.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer N et al (2017) Shared socio-economic pathways of the energy sector—quantifying the narratives. Glob Environ Change 42:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cho A (2010) Energy’s tricky tradeoffs. Science 786–7.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5993.786
  5. Clarke L et al (2014) Mitigation of climate change. In: Edenhofer et al (eds) Climate change, Chap. 6. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Dornburg V, van Vuuren DP et al (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b922422jGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuss S et al (2016) Research priorities for negative emissions. Environ Res Lett 11(11).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/115007
  8. Global CCS Institute (2010) Global status of BECCS projects 2010. http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/13516/gccsi-biorecro-global-status-beccs-110302-report.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  9. Hof AF et al (2017) Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C. Environ Sci Policy 71(1):30–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes et al (2017) The role of CCS in meeting climate policy targets: understanding the potential contribution of CCS to a low carbon world, and the policies that may support that contribution. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/report-university-college-london-role-ccs-meeting-climate-policy-targets. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  11. OECD/IEA (2017) Key world energy statistics. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  12. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151Google Scholar
  13. Jackson RB et al (2017) Focus on negative emissions. Environ Res Lett 12.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa94ff
  14. Loulou R, Labriet M (2007) ETSAP-TIAM—the TIMES integrated assessment model Part 1: model structure. CMS 5:7–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-007-0046-zCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517:187–190.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meinshausen M, Raper SCB, Wigley TML (2011) Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6—Part 1: model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11(4):1417–1456.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morton C, Anable J, Brand C (2014) UKERC energy strategy uncertainties. perceived uncertianty in the demand for electric vehicles: a qualitative assessment. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/ukerc-energy-strategy-under-uncertainties-perceived-uncertainty-in-the-demand-for-electric-vehicles-a-qualitative-assessment.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  18. Price J, Keppo I (2017) Modelling to generate alternatives: a technique to explore uncertainty in energy-environment-economy models. Appl Energy 195:356–369Google Scholar
  19. Pye S et al (2016) Exploring national decarbonization pathways and global energy trade flows: a multi-scale analysis. Clim Policy 16(1):92–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Resch G, Held A, Faber T, Panzer C, Toro F, Haas R (2008) Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 36:4048–4056.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.029
  21. Riahi K et al (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environ Change 42:153–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rogelj MS (2016) Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat Climate Change 6:245–252.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scamman D (2017) The Transport Sector. In: Staffell I, Dodds PE (eds) The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in future energy systems. H2FC SUPERGEN, London, p 53–70Google Scholar
  24. Smith P et al. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer OR et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith P et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Climate Change 6:42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tavoni M, Socolow R (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Climatic Change 118:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0757-9
  27. Tomabechi K (2010) Energy resources in the future. Energies 3:686–695.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en3040686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Vuuren DP et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109(1):5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vandyck T, Keramidas K, Saveyn B, Kitous A, Vrontisi Z (2016) A global stocktake of the Paris pledges: implications for energy systems and economy. Glob Environ Change 41:46–63Google Scholar
  30. van Vuuren DP et al (2017) Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat Energy 2:902–904.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0055-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Winning
    • 1
  • Steve Pye
    • 2
  • James Glynn
    • 3
  • Daniel Scamman
    • 2
  • Daniel Welsby
    • 1
  1. 1.UCL Institute for Sustainable ResourcesLondonUK
  2. 2.UCL Energy InstituteLondonUK
  3. 3.MaREI Centre, Environmental Research InstituteUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations