Pathways to Post-fossil Economy in a Well Below 2 ℃ World

  • Antti Lehtilä
  • Tiina Koljonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Energy book series (LNEN, volume 64)


We explore the pathways for mitigating climate change to at most 2 ℃ and below by imposing a representative target trajectory for radiative forcing and by range of different price trajectories for greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the inertia in both the energy and climate systems, it appears questionable whether the objective of limiting global warming to well-below 2 ℃ is achievable without considerably overshooting the target within the current century. Exceeding the constraints of the estimated carbon budget also means that the initial overshooting must be later compensated by removing the excess emissions with negative emissions, which may become very difficult without substantial technological changes leading the world into a sustainable post-fossil economy. We outline an idealised technology pathway aligning with these viewpoints. The analysis highlights the necessity for immediate mitigation action for avoiding excessive overshooting, the key role of negative emissions, and the prospects of producing synthetic fuels, chemicals and materials from renewables and carbon dioxide for enabling the transition into the post-fossil economy.


  1. APS (2011) Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals. A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs, American Physical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  2. Breyer, C et al (2017) On the role of solar photovoltaics in global energy transition scenarios. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl 25:727–745. Model data available at
  3. Brynolf S et al (2017) Electrofuels for the transport sector: a review of production costs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  4. de la Chesnaye FC, Weyant JP (2006) Multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J Spec Issue on Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitig Clim PolicyGoogle Scholar
  5. Friedlingstein P et al (2014) Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat Geosci 7:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gambhir et al (2017) Assessing the feasibility of global long-term mitigation scenarios. Energies 10(1):89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hannula I (2015) Co-production of synthetic fuels and district heat from biomass residues, carbon dioxide and electricity: Performance and cost analysis. Biomass Bioenerg 74:26–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hannula I (2016) Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in the European context: a techno-economic assessment. Energy 104:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Houghton RA et al (2012) Chapter G2 carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9:5125–5142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Houghton RA, Nassikas AA (2017) Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Global Biogeochem Cycles 31:456–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IEA (2011) Technology roadmap: carbon capture and storage in industrial applications. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. IEA (2013) Technology roadmap: carbon capture and storage. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. IEA (2015) Technology roadmap: hydrogen and fuel cells. International Energy Agency, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA (2016) Energy technology perspectives 2016. International Energy Agency, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IEAGHG (2011) Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage. IEAGHG. Report 2011/6.
  16. IPCC (2012) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ISBN 978-1-107-02340-6)Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (2013) Annex II: climate system scenario tables. In: Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group i to the fifth assessment report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kallio M, Lehtilä A, Koljonen T, Solberg B (2015) Best scenarios for the forest end energy sectors—implications for the biomass market. Cleen Oy. Research report no D 1.2.1.
  19. Koljonen T et al (2009) The role of CCS and renewables in tackling climate change. Energy Procedia 1:4323–4330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koljonen T, Lehtilä A (2015) Modelling pathways to a low carbon economy for Finland. In: Giannakidis G et al (eds) Informing energy and climate policies using energy systems models, vol 30. Lecture Notes in Energy. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  21. Köning DH et al (2015) Simulation and evaluation of a process concept for the generation of synthetic fuel from CO2 and H2. Energy 91:833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loulou R (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. Part II: mathematical formulation. CMS 5(1–2):41–66MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. Part I: model structure. CMS 5(1–2):7–40CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Loulou R, Remme U, Kanudia A, Lehtilä A, Goldstein G (2016) Documentation for the TIMES model, energy technology systems analysis programme (ETSAP).
  25. Millar RJ, Nicholls ZR, Friedlingstein P, Allen MR (2017) A modified impulse-response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos Chem Phys 17:7213–7228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myhre G et al (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing—supplementary material. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group i to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD (2014) Economic outlook No 95—May 2014—Long-term baseline projections.
  28. Schemme S et al (2017) Power-to-fuel a key to sustainable transport systems—an analysis of diesel fuels produced from CO2 and renewable electricity. Fuel 205:198–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt, PR et al (2016) Renewables in transport 2050. Empowering a sustainable mobility future with zero emission fuels from renewable electricity. FVV, Frankfurt am Main, Report 1086Google Scholar
  30. Smith P et al (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6(1):42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UNFCCC (2015) Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. Technical annex—synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions. In: United nations framework convention on climate change.
  32. Van Vuuren DP et al (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature change below 2 ℃. Clim Change 109:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weyant J et al (2009) Report of 2.6 versus 2.9 Watts/m2 RCPP evaluation panel. Inter-govern-mental panel on climate change.
  34. ZEP (2011) The costs of CO2 capture. Post-demonstration CCS in the EU. European technology platform for zero emission fossil fuel power plants.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTTEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations