Climatic Change

, Volume 82, Issue 1–2, pp 27–45 | Cite as

Why delaying emission reductions is a gamble

Article

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andronova NG, Schlesinger ME (2001) Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J Geophys Res 106(D19):22605–22612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corfee-Morlot J, Höhne N (2003) Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments. Glob Environ Change 13:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dimaranan BV, McDougall RA (2002) Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, BonnGoogle Scholar
  5. European Environment Agency (1996) Climate change in the European Union. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T (1999) A simple model for scenario studies of changes in global climate: Version 1.0. Working Paper 1999:02, CICERO, OsloGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, Godal O, Skodvin T (2000) Climate implications of GWP-based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Geophys Res Lett 27(3):409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):267–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goulder LH (2004) Induced technological change and climate policy. Report prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Grubb M (1997) Technologies, energy systems and the timing of CO2 emissions abatement – an overview of economic issues. Energy Policy 25(2):159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ha-Duong M, Grubb MJ, Hourcade JC (1997) Influence of socioeconomic inertia and uncertainty on optimal CO2-emission abatement. Nature 390:270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V (1996) Interests, power, knowledge: the study of international regimes. Mershon Int Stud Rev 40:177–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Homer-Dixon T (2000) The ingenuity gap. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 94Google Scholar
  16. IPCC (1999) Aviation and the global atmosphere – a special report of IPCC working groups I and III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. 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:397–417Google Scholar
  21. Kallbekken S (2004) A description of the Dynamic analysis of Economics of Environmental Policy (DEEP) model, CICERO Report 2004:01, CICERO, OsloGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):41–60Google Scholar
  23. Margolis RM, Kammen DM (1999) Underinvestment: the energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science 285:690–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1998) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114(458):941–975Google Scholar
  27. 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 ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2001) Warming the world. MIT, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD/IEA (2000) Experience Curves for Technology Policy. OECD/EIA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD/IEA (2003) Technology Innovation, Development and Diffusion. OECD/IEA Information Paper COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)4, OECD/EIA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2004) Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(47):16411–16416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oppenheimer M, Alley RB (2005) Ice sheets, global warming, and article 2 of the UNFCCC: An Editorial Essay. Clim Change 68(3):257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petschel H, Schellnhuber HJ, Bruckner T, Tóth FL, Hasselmann K (1999) The tolerable windows approach: theoretical and methodological foundations. Clim Change 41(3–4):303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Philibert C, Pershing J, Corfee-Morlot J, Willems S (2003) Evolution of mitigation Commitments: some key issues, OECD and IEA Information Paper, OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. 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, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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 75–108Google Scholar
  38. Schmalensee R (1996) Greenhouse Policy Architecture and Institutions, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change, Report 13, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Siegentaler U, Joos F (1992) Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus 44B:186–207Google Scholar
  41. 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, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change, UNFCCC. http://www.unfccc.int/. Cited 2006
  43. Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30(4):317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (1995) Scenarios for the derivation of global CO2 reduction targets and implementation strategies, WBGU, Bremerhaven, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Wigley TML, Richels R, Edmonds JA (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379:242–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yohe G, Toth FL (2000) Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change. Clim Change 45(7):103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) To hedge or not against an uncertain climate future? Science 306:416–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations