Abstract
In the debate on the timing of greenhouse gas emissions reductions the aspect of political feasibility has often been missing. We introduce this aspect and show that, if we decide to delay emissions reductions, and the environmental effectiveness of global mitigation efforts is to remain the same in terms of temperature change, we must be willing and able to undertake much more substantial emission reductions than with early action. Even under conservative assumptions on initial political feasibility (maximum 0.25% year-on-year reductions), a 20-year delay means that we must reduce emissions at an annual rate that is 5 to 11 times greater than with early climate action. Our capacity for technological progress, political change and the inertia of the socio-economic system gives us reason to be concerned about our ability to achieve such higher rates of emission reductions. If we are not able to achieve such higher rates, delaying action will inevitably result in higher temperatures in 2100. Unless we are willing to accept higher temperatures, choosing to delay climate action is a gamble that political feasibility will increase over time as a result of the delay itself.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andronova NG, Schlesinger ME (2001) Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J Geophys Res 106(D19):22605–22612
Corfee-Morlot J, Höhne N (2003) Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments. Glob Environ Change 13:277–293
Dimaranan BV, McDougall RA (2002) Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University
Enquette Kommission (1991) Preventative Measures to Protect the Earth’s Atmosphere. In: Protecting the Earth: a status report with recommendations for a new energy policy, German Bundestag, Bonn
European Environment Agency (1996) Climate change in the European Union. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T (1999) A simple model for scenario studies of changes in global climate: Version 1.0. Working Paper 1999:02, CICERO, Oslo
Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, Godal O, Skodvin T (2000) Climate implications of GWP-based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Geophys Res Lett 27(3):409–412
Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen TK, Godal O, Sausen R, Shine KP, Skodvin T (2003) Metrics of climate change: assessing radiative forcing and emission indices. Clim Change 58(3):267–331
Goulder LH (2004) Induced technological change and climate policy. Report prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington
Grubb M (1997) Technologies, energy systems and the timing of CO2 emissions abatement – an overview of economic issues. Energy Policy 25(2):159–172
Ha-Duong M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade JC (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390:270–273
Harvey D, Gregory J, Hoffert M, Jain A, Lal M, Leemans R, Raper S, Wigley T, Wolde J de (1997) An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report. IPCC Technical Paper II, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland
Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V (1996) Interests, power, knowledge: the study of international regimes. Mershon Int Stud Rev 40:177–228
Homer-Dixon T (2000) The ingenuity gap. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
Hyman RC, Reilly JM, Babiker MH, De Masin, Jacoby HD (2002). Modeling non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report no. 94
IPCC (1999) Aviation and the global atmosphere – a special report of IPCC working groups I and III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Joos F, Bruno M, Fink R, Stocker TF, Siegenthaler U, Le Quéré C, Sarmiento JL (1996) An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus 48B:397–417
Kallbekken S (2004) A description of the Dynamic analysis of Economics of Environmental Policy (DEEP) model, CICERO Report 2004:01, CICERO, Oslo
Kallbekken S, Westskog H (2005) Should developing countries take on binding commitments in a climate agreement? An assessment of gains and uncertainty. Energy J 26(3):41–60
Margolis RM, Kammen DM (1999) Underinvestment: the energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science 285:690–691
Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772
Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1998) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114(458):941–975
Nordhaus WD (2002) Modeling induced innovation in climate change policy. In: Grubler A, Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus WD (eds) Modeling induced innovation in climate change policy. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia
Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2001) Warming the world. MIT, Boston, Massachusetts
OECD/IEA (2000) Experience Curves for Technology Policy. OECD/EIA, Paris
OECD/IEA (2003) Technology Innovation, Development and Diffusion. OECD/IEA Information Paper COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)4, OECD/EIA, Paris
O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2004) Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(47):16411–16416
Oppenheimer M, Alley RB (2005) Ice sheets, global warming, and article 2 of the UNFCCC: An Editorial Essay. Clim Change 68(3):257–267
Petschel H, Schellnhuber HJ, Bruckner T, Tóth FL, Hasselmann K (1999) The tolerable windows approach: theoretical and methodological foundations. Clim Change 41(3–4):303–331
Philibert C, Pershing J, Corfee-Morlot J, Willems S (2003) Evolution of mitigation Commitments: some key issues, OECD and IEA Information Paper, OECD/IEA, Paris
Rijsberman FR, Swart RJ (eds) (1990) Targets and indicators of climatic change. Report of Working Group II of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG), Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm
Rive N, Torvanger A, Berntsen T, Kallbekken S (2007) To what extent can a long-term temperature target guide near-term climate change commitments? Clim Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9193-4
Schlesinger M, Jiang EX, Charlson RJ (1992) Implications of anthropogenic atmospheric sulphate for the sensitivity of the climate system. In: Rosen L, Glasser R (eds) Climate change and energy policy: proceedings of the international conference on global climate change. American Institute of Physics, New York, pp 75–108
Schmalensee R (1996) Greenhouse Policy Architecture and Institutions, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change, Report 13, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Schneider SH, Azar C (2001) Are uncertainties in climate and energy systems a justification for stronger near-term mitigation policies? Report prepared for Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington
Siegentaler U, Joos F (1992) Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus 44B:186–207
Sprinz DF, Weiß M (2001) Domestic politics and global climate policy. In: Luterbacher U, Sprinz DF (eds) International relations and global climate change. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change, UNFCCC. http://www.unfccc.int/. Cited 2006
Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830
Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30(4):317–325
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (1995) Scenarios for the derivation of global CO2 reduction targets and implementation strategies, WBGU, Bremerhaven, Germany
White House (2001) President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change, 11.06.2001. Internet: White house http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html. Cited on 2006
White House (2006) Fact Sheet: The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Press release 11.01.2006. Internet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111-8.html. Cited on 2006
Wigley T (2003) Modelling climate change under no-policy and policy emissions pathways. Paper prepared for the OECD Project on the Benefits of Climate Policy, 12–13 December 2002 (ENV/EPOC/GSP(2003)7/FINAL, OECD, Paris
Wigley TML, Richels R, Edmonds JA (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379:242–245
Yohe G, Toth FL (2000) Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change. Clim Change 45(7):103–128
Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) To hedge or not against an uncertain climate future? Science 306:416–417
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kallbekken, S., Rive, N. Why delaying emission reductions is a gamble. Climatic Change 82, 27–45 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9179-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9179-2