Emission metrics under the 2 °C climate stabilization target
- 781 Downloads
In multi-gas climate policies such as the Kyoto Protocol one has to decide how to compare the emissions of different greenhouse gases. The choice of metric could have significant implications for mitigation priorities considered under the prospective negotiations for climate mitigation agreements. Several metrics have been proposed for this task with the Global Warming Potential (GWP) being the most common. However, these metrics have not been systematically compared to each other in the context of the 2 °C climate stabilization target. Based on a single unified modeling framework, we demonstrate that metric values span a wide range, depending on the metric structure and the treatment of the time dimension. Our finding confirms the basic salient point that metrics designed to represent different aspects of the climate and socio-economic system behave differently. Our result also reflects a complex interface between science and policy surrounding metrics. Thus, it is important to select or design a metric suitable for climate stabilization based on an interaction among practitioners, policymakers, and scientists.
KeywordsTime Horizon Climate Policy Global Warming Potential Radiative Efficiency Integrate Assessment Model
This study was presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (NCGG-6), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. November 2–4, 2011. This project is supported by Norwegian Research Council under the project “Climate feedback uncertainty and its policy implications (ClimUP)” (Project number: 203807). K. Tanaka is funded by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (Proposal N° 255568 under FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IEF). Contributions by J. S. Fuglestvedt are supported by Norwegian Research Council under the project “Climate and health impacts of Short-Lived Atmospheric Components (SLAC)” (Project number: 208277). Contributions by D. J. A. Johansson are supported by the Swedish Energy Agency.
- Aaheim A, Fuglestvedt JS, Godal O (2006) Costs savings of a flexible multi-gas climate policy. Energy J, 27(S13):485–502Google Scholar
- Fankhauser S (1994) The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: an expected value approach. Energy J 15:157–184Google Scholar
- IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p 881Google Scholar
- IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p 996Google Scholar
- IPCC (2009) IPCC Expert Meeting on the Science of Alternative Metrics: Meeting Report. In: Plattner G-K, Stocker T, Midgley P, Tignor M (eds) IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, p 75Google Scholar
- Joos F, Roth R, Fuglestvedt JS, Peters GP, Enting IG, von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Burke EJ, Eby M, Edwards NR, Friedrich T, Frölicher TL, Halloran PR, Holden PB, Jones C, Kleinen T, Mackenzie FT, Matsumoto K, Meinshausen M, Plattner G-K, Reisinger A, Segschneider J, Shaffer G, Steinacher M, Strassmann K, Tanaka K, Timmermann A, Weaver AJ (2012) Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 12:19799–19869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reisinger A, Havlik P, Riahi K, Vliet O, Obersteiner M, Herrero M (2012) Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Clim Chang, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0593-3
- Smith S, Karas J, Edmonds J, Eom J, Mizrahi A (2012) Sensitivity of multi-gas climate policy to emission metrics. Clim Chang, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0565-7
- Tanaka K, Kriegler E, Bruckner T, Hooss G, Knorr W, Raddatz T (2007) Aggregated Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric Chemistry, and Climate Model (ACC2) – description of the forward and inverse modes, Reports on Earth System Science. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, p. 188. http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:994422:1
- UNFCCC (2012) Report on the workshop on common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of greenhouse gases. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, p 14Google Scholar