Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 543–558 | Cite as

Effectiveness and efficiency of climate change mitigation in a technologically uncertain World

  • Amit Kanudia
  • Maryse Labriet
  • Richard Loulou


Following a multi-scenario framework based on the technology assumptions proposed by the 27th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27), our analysis focuses on analyzing the impacts of key technology assumptions on climate policies, including the interdependencies of different technological options. Each scenario may be considered as either a possible state of nature upon which one has no influence, each scenario thus dictating the availability (or non availability) of some subset of the technology groups, or as an opportunity for society, by its own actions and policies, to influence the availability of said technology group. The main insights obtained from the assessment show the prominent role of bioenergy as a means to abate greenhouse gas emissions, irrespective of other technological developments, while the role of the other technologies (wind and solar, carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear) are more dependent of one another. It appears that CCS may play a sort of “backstop” role: it compensates for a lower contribution of solar and wind, or of nuclear. This means that an increased social acceptability of one (or all) of these three sets of technology should be at the heart of future climate policies. The costs caused by the adaptation of electricity networks to accommodate a high fraction of intermittent sources would deserve more attention in future research.


Climate Policy Electricity Production Carbon Capture Baseline Scenario Technology Group 
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.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_854_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 28 kb)


  1. Bataille C (2005) Design & application of a technologically explicit hybrid energy-economy policy model with micro and macro economic dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 294 pGoogle Scholar
  2. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (Eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Labriet M, Loulou R, Kanudia A (2012) Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: A TIAM-World analysis. Energy Economics, Vol 34, Supplement 3, pp S366–S377Google Scholar
  4. Latin H (2012) Climate change policy failures. World Scientific Publishing, ISBN: 978-981-4355-64-3Google Scholar
  5. Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. Part I: model structure: Computational Management Science, Special issue “Managing Energy and the Environment”, Vol 5 (Issue 1):pp 7–40Google Scholar
  6. Loulou R, Labriet M, Kanudia A (2009) Deterministic and Stochastic Analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energy Economics: International, US and EU Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF22, Volume 31, Supplement 2, pp S131–S143Google Scholar
  7. Smeets E, Faaij A, Lewandowski I, Turkenburg W (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33:56–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KANORSNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.ENERISMadridSpain
  3. 3.KANLO-HALOAMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations