Climatic Change

, Volume 96, Issue 1–2, pp 29–43 | Cite as

Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required

  • Naomi E. VaughanEmail author
  • Timothy M. Lenton
  • John G. Shepherd


Climate change mitigation via a reduction in the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principle requirement for reducing global warming, its impacts, and the degree of adaptation required. We present a simple conceptual model of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to highlight the trade off between delay in commencing mitigation, and the strength of mitigation then required to meet specific atmospheric CO2 stabilization targets. We calculate the effects of alternative emission profiles on atmospheric CO2 and global temperature change over a millennial timescale using a simple coupled carbon cycle-climate model. For example, if it takes 50 years to transform the energy sector and the maximum rate at which emissions can be reduced is −2.5% \(\text{year}^{-1}\), delaying action until 2020 would lead to stabilization at 540 ppm. A further 20 year delay would result in a stabilization level of 730 ppm, and a delay until 2060 would mean stabilising at over 1,000 ppm. If stabilization targets are met through delayed action, combined with strong rates of mitigation, the emissions profiles result in transient peaks of atmospheric CO2 (and potentially temperature) that exceed the stabilization targets. Stabilization at 450 ppm requires maximum mitigation rates of −3% to −5% \(\text{year}^{-1}\), and when delay exceeds 2020, transient peaks in excess of 550 ppm occur. Consequently tipping points for certain Earth system components may be transgressed. Avoiding dangerous climate change is more easily achievable if global mitigation action commences as soon as possible. Starting mitigation earlier is also more effective than acting more aggressively once mitigation has begun.


Emission Reduction Mitigation Action Stabilization Target Transient Peak Dangerous Climate Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Achard F, Eva HD, Stibig H-J, Mayaux P, Gallego J, Richards T, Malingreau J-P (2002) Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297:999–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BP (2007) Statistical review of world energy. BP plc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Broecker WS (2007) CO2 arithmetic. Science 315:1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeFries RS, Houghton RA, Hansen MC, Field CB, Skole D, Townshend J (2002) Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:14256–14261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP (2007) Peaking profiles for achieving long-term temperature targets with more likelihood at lower costs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:17931–17936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. den Elzen M, Meinshausen M, van Vuuren D (2007) Multi-gas emission envelopes to meet greenhouse gas concentration targets: costs versus certainty of limiting temperature increase. Glob Environ Change 17:260–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EIA (2006) International energy outlook 2006. Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2005) Global forest resources assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S, Eby M, Fung I, Bala G, John J, Jones C, Joos F, Kato T, Kawamiya M, Knorr W, Lindsay K, Matthews HD, Raddatz T, Rayner P, Reick C, Roeckner E, Schitzler K-G, Schnur R, Strassman K, Weaver AJ, Yoshikawa C, Zeng N (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from C4MIP model intercomparison. J Climate 19:3337–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P, Russell G, Lea DW, Siddall M (2007) Climate change and trace gases. Phil Trans R Soc A 365:1925–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasselmann K, Latif M, Hooss G, Azar C, Edenhofer O, Jaeger CC, Johannessen OM, Kemfert C, Welp M, Wokaun A (2003) The challenge of long-term climate change. Science 302:1923–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton RA (2003) Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus 55B:378–390Google Scholar
  13. Houghton RA, Hackler JL (2002) Carbon flux to the atmosphere from land-use changes. Trends: a compendium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA (2006) World energy outlook. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical basis of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kallbekken S, Rive N (2006) Why delaying emissions cuts is a gamble. In: Schellnhuber HJ (ed) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 311–315Google Scholar
  17. Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK (2006) Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Clim Change 74:17–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knutti R, Joos F, Muller SA, Plattner G-K, Stocker TF (2005) Probabilistic climate change projections for CO2 stabilization profiles. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenton TM (2000) Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model. Tellus 52B:1159–1188Google Scholar
  20. Lenton TM (2006) Climate change to the end of the millennium. Clim Change 76:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lenton TM, Cannell MGR (2002) Mitigating the rate and extent of global warming. Clim Change 52:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2007) Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. Trends: a compendium of data on global change. In: Carbon dioxide information analysis centre. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthews HD (2006) Emissions targets for CO2 stabilization as modified by carbon cycle feedbacks. Tellus 58B:591–602Google Scholar
  25. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35:L04705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metz B, van Vurren D (2006) How, and at what costs, can low-level stabilization be achieved?—an overview. In: Schellnhuber HJ (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 337–345Google Scholar
  27. Mignone BK, Socolow RH, Sarmiento JL, Oppenheimer M (2008) Atmospheric stabilization and the timing of carbon mitigation. Clim Change 88:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Yong Jung T, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dad Z (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2002) Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto protocol. Science 296:1971–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2004) Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:16411–16416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Overpeck JT, Otto-Bliesner BL, Miller GH, Muhs DR, Alley RB, Kiehl JT (2006) Palaeoclimatic evidence for future ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. Science 311:1747–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raupach M, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:10288–10293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Read P, Lermit J (2005) Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): a sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change. Energy 30:2654–2671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley TML, Yohe G (eds) (2006) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Socolow RH, Lam SH (2007) Good enough tools for global warming policy making. Phil Trans R Soc A 365:897–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wigley TML (2007) CO2 emissions: a piece of the pie. Science 316:829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigley TML, Richels R, Edmonds JA (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) CLIMATE: to hedge or not against an uncertain climate future? Science 306:416–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeman F (2007) Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air. Environ Sci Technol 41:7558–7563CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi E. Vaughan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Timothy M. Lenton
    • 1
    • 2
  • John G. Shepherd
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchNorwichUK
  3. 3.School of Ocean & Earth Science, National Oceanography CentreUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations