Climatic Change

, Volume 82, Issue 3–4, pp 373–391 | Cite as

To what extent can a long-term temperature target guide near-term climate change commitments?

  • Nathan Rive
  • Asbjørn Torvanger
  • Terje Berntsen
  • Steffen Kallbekken
Article

Abstract

The question of appropriate timing and stringency of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions remains an issue in the discussion of mitigation responses to the climate change problem. It has been argued that our near-term action should be guided by a long-term vision for the climate, possibly a long-term temperature target. In this paper, we review proposals for long-term climate targets to avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change. Using probability estimates of climate sensitivity from the literature, we then generate probabilistic emissions scenarios that satisfy temperature targets of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0°C above pre-industrial levels with no overshoot. Our interest is in the implications of these targets on abatement requirements over the next 50 years. If we allow global industrial GHG emissions to peak in 2025 at 14 GtCeq, and wish to achieve a 2.0°C target with at least 50% certainty, we find that the low sensitivity estimate in the literature suggests our industrial emissions must fall to 9 GtCeq by 2050: equal to the level in 2000. However, the average literature sensitivity estimate suggests the level must be less than 2 GtCeq; and in the high sensitivity case, the target is simply unreachable unless we allow for overshoot. Our results suggest that in light of the uncertainty in our knowledge of the climate sensitivity, a long-term temperature target (such as the 2.0°C target proposed by the European Commission) can provide limited guidance to near-term mitigation requirements.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldy JE, Ashton J, Baron R, Bodansky D, Charnovitz S, Diringer E, Heller TC, Pershing J, Shukla PR, Tubiana L, Tudela F, Wang X (2003) Beyond Kyoto: advancing the international effort against climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA (December)Google Scholar
  2. Andronova NG, Schlesinger ME (2001) Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J Geophys Res 106(D19):22605–22611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) (2004) Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Boucher O, Haywood J (2004) On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim Dyn 22 (6–7):597–603Google Scholar
  5. Caldeira K, Jain AK, Hoffert MI (2003) Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO2 emission. Science 299:2052–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corfee-Morlot J, Höhne N (2003) Climate change: long-term targets and short-term commitments. Glob Environ Change 13:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimaranan BV, McDougall RA (2002) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 5 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  9. den Elzen, MGJ, Meinshausen M (2005) Meeting the EU 2°C climate target: global and regional emission implications. MNP-report 728001031 (http://www.mnp.nl/en), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP). Bilthoven, The Netherlands
  10. den Elzen MGJ, Meinshausen M (2006) Multi-gas emission pathways for meeting the EU 2°C climate target. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic, N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Enquette Kommission (EK) (1991) Protecting the Earth: a status report with recommendations for a new energy policy, in preventative measures to protect the Earth’s atmosphere. German Bundestag, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (EC) (1996) Communication on Community strategy on climate change, Council conclusions, 25–26 June 1996. Cited in European Environment Agency: 1996, Climate change in the European Union, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  13. Forest CE, Stone PH, Sokolov A, Allen MR, Webster MD (2002) Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frame DJ, Booth BBB, Kettleborough JA, Stainforth DA, Gregory JM, Collins M, Allen MR (2005). Constraining climate forecasts: the role of prior assumptions. Geophys Res Lett 32Google Scholar
  15. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T (1999) A simple model for scenario studies of changes in global climate: version 1.0. In: Working Paper 1999:02. CICERO, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, 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
  17. Gregory JM, Stouffer RJ, Raper SCB, Stott PA, Rayner NA (2002) An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J Climate 15:3117–3121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare W (2003) Assessment of knowledge on impacts of climate change – contribution to the specification of Art. 2 of the UNFCCC. Potsdam, Berlin, WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_ex01.pdf
  19. Hare WL, Meinshausen M (2004) How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided? Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. In: IPCC Technical Paper II, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyman RC, Reilly JM, Babiker MH, De Masin A, Jacoby HD (2003) Modeling non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. Environ Model Assess 8(3):175–186Google Scholar
  22. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC (2001a) Summary for Policymakers. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2001c) Technical Summary. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (eds) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 santhropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus 48B:397–417Google Scholar
  27. Kallbekken S (2004) A description of the Dynamic analysis of Economic impacts of Environmental Policy (DEEP) model. CICERO Report, OsloGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Klimatkommittén (2000) Proposed climate strategy. SOU 2000:23Google Scholar
  30. Knutti R, Stocker TF, Joos F, Plattner GK (2003) Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks. Clim Dyn 21:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knutti R, Joos F, Müller SA, Plattner G-K, Stocker TF (2006) Probabilistic climate change projections for stabilization profiles. Geophys Res Lett (in press)Google Scholar
  32. Lee HL (2002) An Emissions Data Base for Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Policy Using GTAP, GTAP Working Paper (draft). Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee HL (2003) The GTAP Non-CO2 Emissions Data Base. GTAP Resource no. 1186, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  34. Leemans R, Eickhout B (2004) Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Glob Environ Change 14:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manne AS, Richels RG (1997) The greenhouse debate: economic efficiency, burden sharing and hedging strategies. In: Flannery BP, Kohlhase KR, LeVine DG (eds) IPIECA symposium on critical issues in the economics of climate change. IPIECA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science 405:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meinshausen M (2006) What does a 2°C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? – a brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates. In Schellnhuber JS, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley TML, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp 265–279Google Scholar
  38. Meinshausen M, Hare WL, Wigley TML, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Swart R (2006) Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets. Clim Change, 75(1–2):151–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 430:768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996). RICE: a regional dynamic general equilibrium model of optimal climate-change policy. Am Econ Rev 86:741–765Google Scholar
  41. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2002) Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto protocol. Science 296:1971–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Neill C, Oppenheimer M (2004) Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(47):16411–16416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M, Petsonk A (2006) Interim tarets and the climate policy regime. Submitted to Climate Policy (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Oppenheimer M, Petsonk A (2006) Article 2 of the UNFCCC: historical origins, recent interpretations. Clim Change, 73(3):195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pershing J, Tudela F (2003) A long-term target: framing the climate effort. In: Aldy JE et al. Beyond Kyoto: advancing the effort against climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA, p 23Google Scholar
  46. Philibert C, Pershing J, Corfee-Morlot J, Willems S (2003) Evolution of mitigation commitments. OECD and IEA Information Paper, COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)3Google Scholar
  47. Piani C, Frame DJ, Stainforth DA, Allen MR (2005) Constraints on climate change from a multi-thousand member ensemble of simulations. Geophys Res Lett, 32, L23825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rijsberman FJ, Swart RJ (eds) (1990) Targets and indicators of climate change. Stockholm Environment InstituteGoogle Scholar
  49. Rutherford TF, Paltsev SV (2000) GTAP-Energy in GAMS: the dataset and static model, Working Paper no. 00-2. Department of Economics, University of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneider SH, Lane J (2005) An overview of ‘dangerous’ climate change. In: Schellnhuber JS, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley TML, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlesinger ME, Jiang K, Charlson RJ (1992) Implications of anthropogenic atmospheric sulphate for the sensitivity of the climate system, climate change and energy policy. American Institute of Physics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmalensee R (1996) Greenhouse Policy Architecture and Institutions, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change. Report 13. Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz SE (2004) Uncertainty requirements in radiative forcing of climate change. J. Air Waste Manage Assoc 54:1351–1359Google Scholar
  54. Siegenthaler U, Joos F (1992) Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus B44:186–207Google Scholar
  55. Smith JB, Schellnhuber H-J, Mirza MQM (2001) Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. The Council of the European Union (EU Council) (2005) Information note. March 11, 2005. Available online: http://www.ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/st07242.en05.pdf
  57. Tol RSJ (1997) On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: an application of FUND. Environ Model Assess 2:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tol R (2001) Equitable cost–benefit analysis of climate change policies. Ecol Econ 36:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tol RSJ, Yohe G (2005) Of dangerous climate change and dangerous emission reduction. In: Schellnhuber JS, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley TML, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  60. Torvanger A, Twena M, Vevatne J (2004) Climate policy beyond 2012: A survey of long-term targets and future frameworks. CICERO Report 2004:02, OsloGoogle Scholar
  61. UK Government (2003) The Scientific Case for Setting a Long-term Emission Reduction Target, a companion document of the White Book on Energy, February 2003Google Scholar
  62. UNFCCC (1992) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, A/AC.237/18, 9 MayGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Aardenne JA, Dentener FJ, Olivier JGJ, Klein Goldewijk CGM, Lelieveld J (2001) A 1 × 1 degree resolution dataset of historical anthropogenic trace gas emissions for the period 1890–1990. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 15(4):909–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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/FINALGoogle Scholar
  65. Wigley TML (2005) The climate change commitment. Science 397:1766–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (1995) Scenarios for the derivation of global CO2 reduction targets and implementation Strategies. Bremerhaven, Germany (March)Google Scholar
  68. Yohe G, Toth FL (2000) Adaptation and the guardrail approach to tolerable climate change. Clim Change 45(7):103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) To hedge or not against an uncertain climate? Science 306:416–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Rive
    • 1
  • Asbjørn Torvanger
    • 1
  • Terje Berntsen
    • 1
  • Steffen Kallbekken
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations