From 2 °C to 1.5 °C: How Ambitious Can Ireland Be?

  • Xiufeng Yue
  • Fionn Rogan
  • James Glynn
  • Brian Ó Gallachóir
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Energy book series (LNEN, volume 64)

Abstract

The current climate policy of Ireland was set according to a 2 °C temperature rise target. Pursuing a 1.5 °C temperature increase limit requires ratcheting of decarbonisation ambition. A large ensemble of scenarios are generated with decreasing carbon budgets, and the challenges of not exceeding these carbon budgets are compared with the current 2 °C climate policy scenario. The results indicate that a national carbon budget compatible with a 1.5 °C target would need to be almost three times smaller than the carbon budget resulting from the current national climate policy. This budget is technically feasible, but extremely challenging with the current technology assumptions. A carbon budget which would be midway between 1.5 and 2 °C appears much more plausible. Cost effective decarbonisation rates are non-linear in the near-medium term, contrary to the current policy, and more ambitious carbon budget targets can only be achieved through much stronger near-term mitigation efforts than suggested by the current nationally determined contribution. Marginal Abatement Costs (MAC) increase exponentially with increasing ambition. Delayed action causes a step change increase in MAC as well as reduces the level of feasible decarbonisation ambition.

References

  1. Allen MR, Frame DJ, Huntingford C et al (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458:1163–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergin A, Conefrey T, Fitzgerald J, Kearney I (2013) Working Paper No. 460 July 2013 The HERMES-13 macroeconomic model of the Irish economyGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiodi A, Deane P, Gargiulo M, Ó Gallachóir B (2015) The role of bioenergy in ireland’s low carbon future—is it sustainable? J Sustain Dev Energy, Water Environ Syst 3:196–216.  https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.2015.03.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Deane JP et al (2013a) Modelling the impacts of challenging 2020 non-ETS GHG emissions reduction targets on Ireland’s energy system. Energy Policy 62:1438–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Rogan F et al (2013b) Modelling the impacts of challenging 2050 European climate mitigation targets on Ireland’s energy system. Energy Policy 53:169–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke LE, Jiang K, Akimoto K, et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. Clim Chang 2014 Mitig Clim Chang Contrib Work Gr III to Fifth Assess Rep Intergov Panel Clim Chang 413–510Google Scholar
  7. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B (2014) IPCC, 2014: summary for policymakers. Clim ChangGoogle Scholar
  8. European Union (2015) Intended nationally determined contribution of the EU and its member states 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.301
  9. Gambhir A, Drouet L, McCollum D et al (2017) Assessing the feasibility of global Long-Term mitigation scenarios. Energies 10:89.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glynn J, Chiodi A, Ó Gallachóir B (2017a) Energy security assessment methods: quantifying the security co-benefits of decarbonising the irish energy system. Energy Strateg Rev 15:72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glynn J, Gargiulo M, Chiodi A, et al (2017b) Ratcheting national mitigation ambition using equitable carbon budgets to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Clim PolicyGoogle Scholar
  12. Loulou R, Remme U, Kanudia A, et al (2016) Documentation for the TIMES Model Part II. IEA Energy Technol Syst Anal Program 1–78Google Scholar
  13. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matthews HD, Gillett NP, Stott PA, Zickfeld K (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459:829–832.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Millar RJ, Fuglestvedt JS, Friedlingstein P et al (2017) Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nat Geosci 10:741–747.  https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO3031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pye S, Li FGN, Price J, Fais B (2017) Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris agreement era. Nat Energy 2:17024.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Friedlingstein P et al (2016) Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat Clim Chang 6:245–252.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1Google Scholar
  19. Yue X (2016) Techniques for running large numbers of scenarios in TIMES. IEA-ETSAP Work Cork, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  20. European Council (2009a) Brussels European Council 29/30 OCTOBER 2009-Presidency Conclusions. Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  21. European Council (2009b) 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. Official Journal of the European Union, 5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiufeng Yue
    • 1
  • Fionn Rogan
    • 1
  • James Glynn
    • 1
  • Brian Ó Gallachóir
    • 1
  1. 1.MaREI Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations