Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 473–486 | Cite as

If climate action becomes urgent: the importance of response times for various climate strategies

  • Detlef P. van VuurenEmail author
  • Elke Stehfest
Article

Abstract

Most deliberations on climate policy are based on a mitigation response that assumes a gradually increasing reduction over time. However, situations may occur where a more urgent response is needed. A key question for climate policy in general, but even more in the case a rapid response is needed, is: what are the characteristic response times of the response options, such as rapid mitigation or solar radiation management (SRM)? This paper explores this issue, which has not received a lot of attention yet, by looking into the role of both societal and physical response times. For mitigation, technological and economic inertia clearly limit reduction rates with considerable uncertainty corresponding to political inertia and societies’ ability to organize rapid mitigation action at what costs. The paper looks into a rapid emission reductions of 4–6 % annually. Reduction rates at the top end of this range (up to 6 %) could effectively reduce climate change, but only with a noticeable delay. Temperatures could be above those in the year of policy introduction for more than 70 years, with unknown consequences of overshoot. A strategy based on SRM is shown to have much shorter response times (up to decades), but introduces an important element of risk, such as ocean acidification and the risk of extreme temperature shifts in case action is halted. Above all, the paper highlights the role of response times in designing effective policy strategies implying that a better understanding of these crucial factors is required.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Climate Policy Climate Sensitivity Ocean Acidification Carbon Price 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The contribution of D.P. van Vuuren to this paper benefitted from the financial support provided by the EU FP7 project LIMITS.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_769_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Adams EE, Caldeira K (2008) Ocean storage of CO2. Elements 4:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson K, Bows A (2008) Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366:3863–3882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2009) A 350 ppm emergency pathway. Stockholm Environmental Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bles M (2009) Climate change response plan B - An assessment of geo-engineering techniques. CE, DelftGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (eds) (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4, Publication 500110002/2006. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, p 228Google Scholar
  7. Brovkin V, Petoukhov V, Claussen M et al (2009) Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Clim Chang 92:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldeira K, Wickett ME (2003) Oceanography: anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425:365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldeira K, Wood L (2008) Global and Arctic climate engineering: numerical model studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366:4039–4056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charlesworth M, Okereke C (2009) Policy responses to rapid climate change: an epistemological critique of dominant approaches. Global Environmental ChangeGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V et al (2010) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Economics 31(Suppl 2):S64–S81Google Scholar
  12. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 31:11–48Google Scholar
  14. Fisher B, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) Climate change 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 169–250Google Scholar
  15. Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Chang 109:719–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grubler A (2012) Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales. Energy Policy 50:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keith DW, Parson E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463:426–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer GJ, Haigh M (2009) No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature 462:568–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E et al (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas PL, Van Vuuren DP, Olivier JGJ et al (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environmental Science & Policy 10:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts RA et al (2008) Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:9949–9954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meinshausen M, Raper SCB, Wigley TML (2011) Emulating coupled atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 - Part 1: model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1417–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakicenovic N, Kolp P, Riahi K et al (2006) Assessment of emissions scenarios revisited. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 7:137–173Google Scholar
  25. Oppenheimer M, Alley RB (2004) The west antarctic ice sheet and long term climate policy. Clim Chang 64:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oppenheimer M, Alley RB (2005) Ice sheets, global warming and article 2 o the UNFCCC. Clim Chang 68:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Orr JC, Fabry VJ, Aumont O et al (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Philibert C (2007) Technology penetration and capital stock turnover: Lessons from IEA scenario analysis. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao S, Riahi K, Stehfest E et al (2008) IMAGE and MESSAGE scenarios limiting GHG concentration to low levels. IIASA, LaxenbourgGoogle Scholar
  30. Raupach MR, Marland G, Ciais P et al (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. PNAS 104:10288–10293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull Atomic Scientists 64:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov G (2008) Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J Geophys Res 113Google Scholar
  33. Rotmans J, Loorbach D (2009) Complexity and transition management. J Ind Ecol 13:184–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider SH (2008) Geoengineering: could we or should we make it work? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366:3843–3862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, S. J., Rasch, P. (2012). The long-term policy context for solar radiation management. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0577-3
  36. Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R et al (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:1704–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stehfest E, Bouwman L, Van Vuuren DP et al (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Chang 95:83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The Royal Society (2009) Geo-engineering the climate. Science, governance and security. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. UNEP, WMO (2011) Integrated assessment of black carbon and tropospheric ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Vuuren DP, Den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL et al (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81:119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Victor DG (2008) On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 24:322–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wigley TML (1991) Could reducing fossil-fuel emissions cause global warming. Nature 349:503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wigley TML (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314:452–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson C, Grubler A (2011) Lessons from the history of technological change for clean energy scenarios and policies. Natural Resources Forum 35:165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A et al (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Netherlands Environmental Assesment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations