Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why delaying emission reductions is a gamble

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfee-Morlot J, Höhne N (2003) Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments. Glob Environ Change 13:277–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha-Duong M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade JC (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390:270–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon T (2000) The ingenuity gap. Alfred A. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis RM, Kammen DM (1999) Underinvestment: the energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science 285:690–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2001) Warming the world. MIT, Boston, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer M, Alley RB (2005) Ice sheets, global warming, and article 2 of the UNFCCC: An Editorial Essay. Clim Change 68(3):257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30(4):317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yohe G, Toth FL (2000) Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change. Clim Change 45(7):103–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) To hedge or not against an uncertain climate future? Science 306:416–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo, P.O. Box 1129, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway

    Steffen Kallbekken & Nathan Rive

Authors
  1. Steffen Kallbekken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Rive
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Kallbekken.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9179-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation