Climatic Change

, Volume 117, Issue 4, pp 677–690

Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture

  • A. Reisinger
  • P. Havlik
  • K. Riahi
  • O. van Vliet
  • M. Obersteiner
  • M. Herrero
Article

Abstract

100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are used almost universally to compare emissions of greenhouse gases in national inventories and reduction targets. GWPs have been criticised on several grounds, but little work has been done to determine global mitigation costs under alternative physics-based metrics . We used the integrated assessment model MESSAGE to compare emission pathways and abatement costs for fixed and time-dependent variants of the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) with those based on GWPs, for a policy goal of limiting the radiative forcing to a specified level in the year 2100. We find that fixed 100-year GTPs would increase global abatement costs (discounted and aggregated over the 21st century) under this policy goal by 5–20 % relative to 100-year GWPs, whereas time-varying GTPs would reduce costs by about 5 %. These cost differences are smaller than differences arising from alternative assumptions regarding agricultural mitigation potential and much smaller than those arising from alternative radiative forcing targets. Using the land-use model GLOBIOM, we show that alternative metrics affect food production differently in different world regions depending on regional characteristics of future land-use change to meet growing food demand. We conclude that under scenarios of complete participation, the choice of metric has a limited impact on global abatement costs but could be important for the political economy of regional and sectoral participation in collective mitigation efforts, in particular changing costs and gains over time for agriculture and energy-intensive sectors.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_593_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (459 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 458 KB)

References

  1. Cox PM, Jeffery HA (2010) Methane radiative forcing controls the allowable CO2 emissions for climate stabilization. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(5–6):404–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 128(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. FAO (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector: A life cycle assessment. Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organisation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR et al (eds) Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al (eds) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Berntsen T et al (2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics. Atmos Environ 44(37):4648–4677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Havlík P, Schneider UA, Schmid E et al (2011) Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39:5690–5702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. IPCC (2009) In: Plattner G-K, Stocker TF, Midgley P et al (eds) Meeting report of the expert meeting on the science of alternative metrics. IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit, Bern, pp 75Google Scholar
  9. Johansson DJA (2011) Economics- and physical-based metrics for comparing greenhouse gases. Clim Change 110(1–2):123–141Google Scholar
  10. Johansson DJA, Persson U, Azar C (2006) The cost of using global warming potentials: analysing the trade off between CO2, CH4 and N2O. Clim Chang 77(3):291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lucas PL, van Vuuren DP, Olivier JGJ et al (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ Sci Policy 10(2):85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manne AS, Richels RG (2001) An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases. Nature 410(6829):675–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rao S, Riahi K (2006) The role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in climate change mitigation: long-term scenarios for the 21st century. Energy J 27(Special Issue November 2006):177–200Google Scholar
  14. Rao S, Riahi K, Cho C et al (2008) IMAGE and MESSAGE scenarios limiting GHG concentrations to low levels. IIASA Interim Report IR-08-020. Report for IIASA, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  15. Reilly J, Mayer M, Harnisch J (2002) The Kyoto protocol and non-CO2 greenhouse gases and carbon sinks. Environ Model Assess 7:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Manning M et al (2010) Uncertainties of global warming metrics: CO2 and CH4. Geophys Res Lett 37(14):L14707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74(7):887–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riahi K, Dentener F, Gielen D et al (2012) Energy pathways for sustainable development. In: Gomez-Echeverri L, Johansson TB, Nakicenovic N (eds) The global energy assessment: toward a more sustainable future. Cambridge University Press and IIASA, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Shine KP (2009) The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Chang 96(4):467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shine KP, Derwent RG, Wuebbles DJ et al (1990) Radiative forcing of climate. In: Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Shine KP, Fuglestvedt J, Hailemariam K et al (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Chang 68(3):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shine KP, Berntsen T, Fuglestvedt J et al (2007) Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents. Phil Trans Roy Soc A 365(1856):1903–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stehfest E, Bouwman L, van Vuuren D et al (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Chang 95(1):83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tanaka K, Peters GP, Fuglestvedt JS (2010) Policy update: multicomponent climate policy: why do emission metrics matter? Carbon Manag 1(2):191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. UNFCCC (2010) The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. UNFCCC, FCCC/1.CP16, pp31.Google Scholar
  26. Valin H, Havlik P, Mosnier A et al (2010) Climate change mitigation and future food consumption patterns. Paper presented at 1th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, 15–17 September 2010, Freising, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. van Vuuren D, Weyant J, de la Chesnaye F (2006a) Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energy Econ 28(1):102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Vuuren DP, Eickhout B, Lucas P et al (2006b) Long-term multi-gas scenarios to stabilise radiative forcing – exploring costs and benefits within an integrated assessment framework. Energ J 27(Special Issue November 2006):201–234Google Scholar
  29. van Vuuren D, den Elzen M, Lucas P et al (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81(2):119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Reisinger
    • 1
  • P. Havlik
    • 2
    • 3
  • K. Riahi
    • 2
  • O. van Vliet
    • 2
  • M. Obersteiner
    • 2
  • M. Herrero
    • 3
  1. 1.New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research CentreWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  3. 3.International Livestock Research InstituteNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations