Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 585–618 | Cite as

An integrated assessment of INDCs under Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: an implementation of C3IAM

  • Yi-Ming Wei
  • Rong Han
  • Qiao-Mei Liang
  • Bi-Ying Yu
  • Yun-Fei Yao
  • Mei-Mei Xue
  • Kun Zhang
  • Li-Jing Liu
  • Juan Peng
  • Pu Yang
  • Zhi-Fu Mi
  • Yun-Fei Du
  • Ce Wang
  • Jun-Jie Chang
  • Qian-Ru Yang
  • Zili Yang
  • Xueli Shi
  • Wei Xie
  • Changyi Liu
  • Zhongyu Ma
  • Jinxiao Tan
  • Weizheng Wang
  • Bao-Jun Tang
  • Yun-Fei Cao
  • Mingquan Wang
  • Jin-Wei Wang
  • Jia-Ning Kang
  • Ke Wang
  • Hua Liao
Invited Paper
  • 698 Downloads

Abstract

A series of global actions have been made to address climate change. As a recent developed climate policy, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) have renewed attention to the importance of exploring temperature rise levels lower than 2 °C, in particular a long-term limit of 1.5 °C, compared to the preindustrial level. Nonetheless, achieving the 2 °C target under the current INDCs depends on dynamic socioeconomic development pathways. Therefore, this study conducts an integrated assessment of INDCs by taking into account different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). To that end, the CEEP-BIT research community develops the China’s Climate Change Integrated Assessment Model (C3IAM) to assess the climate change under SSPs in the context of with and without INDCs. Three SSPs, including “a green growth strategy” (SSP1), “a more middle-of-the-road development pattern” (SSP2) and “further fragmentation between regions” (SSP3) form the focus of this study. Results show that after considering INDCs, mitigation costs become very low and they have no evident positive changes in three SSPs. In 2100, a temperature rise would occur in SSP1-3, which is 3.20, 3.48 and 3.59 °C, respectively. There are long-term difficulties to keep warming well below 2 °C and pursue efforts toward 1.5 °C target even under INDCs. A drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed in order to mitigate potentially catastrophic climate change impacts. This work contributes on realizing the hard link between the earth and socioeconomic systems, as well as extending the economic models by coupling the global CGE model with the economic optimum growth model. In C3IAM, China’s energy consumption and emissions pattern are investigated and refined. This study can provide policy makers and the public a better understanding about pathways through which different scenarios could unfold toward 2100, highlights the real mitigation and adaption challenges faced by climate change and can lead to formulating effective policies.

Keywords

Climate change Integrated Assessment Modeling C3IAM Shared Socioeconomic Pathways INDCs Mitigation and adaption 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from China’s National Key R&D Program (2016YFA0602603), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71521002, 71603020 and 71642004). The authors would like to extend special thanks to Prof. Tad Murty, the Editor-in-Chief, for his invitation and encouragement of completing and submitting this big work. We appreciate our colleagues’ support and help from BIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, National Climate Center of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tsinghua University, Peking University, and National Information Center.

Supplementary material

11069_2018_3297_MOESM1_ESM.doc (436 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 436 kb)

References

  1. Adoption of the Paris Agreement Conference of the Parties, Twenty-first session FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015); https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
  2. Alcamo J, Koch J, Lapola DM (2011) An integrated approach to modelling land-use change on continental and global scales. Environ Model Softw 26(8):1041–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldy J, Pizer W, Tavoni M (2016) Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim Change 6(11):1000–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avetisyan M, Baldos U, Hertel T (2011) Development of the GTAP version 7 land use data base. GTAP Research MemorandumGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvin K, Bond-Lamber B, Clarke L et al (2017) SSP4: a world of deepening inequality. Global Environ Change 42:284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damassa T (2015) Interpreting INDCs: assessing transparency of post-2020 greenhouse gas emissions targets of 8 top-emitting economics. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Dellink R, Chateau J, Lanzi E, Magne B (2017) Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environ Change 42:200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emmerling J, Drouet L, Reis L et al (2016) The WITCH 2016 model - documentation and implementation of the shared socioeconomic pathways. FEEM working paper no. 42.2016. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2800970
  9. Ewert F, Rounsevell MD, Reginster I, Metzger MJ, Leemans R (2005) Future scenarios of European agricultural land use. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107(2):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fawcett AA, Iyer GC, Clarke LE (2015) Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350(6265):1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) In: FAO (ed) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. Fricko O, Havlik P, Rogelj J et al (2017) The marker quantification of the shared socioeconomic pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Global Environ Change 42:251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Masui T et al (2017) SSP3: aim implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environ Change 42:268–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Havlík P, Valin H, Herrero M (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(10):3709–3714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houghton RA (1999) The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850–1990. Tellus 51B:298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IEA (International Energy Agency) (2015) World energy outlook. OECD/IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. IIASA (2011) GAINS-greenhouse gas and air pollution interactions and synergies-emissions datasetGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  19. Iyer GC, Edmonds JA, Fawcett AA (2015) The contribution of Paris to limit global warming to 2 °C. Environl Res Lett 10(12):125002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kc S, Lutz W (2017) The human core of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Global Environ Change 42:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S et al (2012) The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environ Change 22(4):807–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kriegler E, Bauer N, Popp A et al (2017) Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Global Environ Change 42:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyle GP, Luckow P, Calvin K (2011) GCAM 3.0 agriculture and land use: data sources and methods. Office of scientific and technical information technical reportsGoogle Scholar
  24. Magnan AK, Rodríguez T (2017) Global adaptation after Paris. Science 352(6291):1280–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463(7282):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Riahi K (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim Change 122(3):387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, Levy M (2017) The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environ Change 42:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Popp A, Humpenöder F, Weindl I, Bodirsky BL, Bonsch M, Lotzecampen H (2014) Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat Clim Change 4(12):1095–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E et al (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environ Change 42:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogelj J, Elzen MD, Höhne N (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534(7609):631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose SK, Richels R, Blanford G (2017) The Paris Agreement and next steps in limiting global warming. Clim Change 142(1–2):255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmitz C (2013) The future of food supply in a constraining environment. J R Stat Soc 175(5):799–811Google Scholar
  34. Schmitz C, Biewald A, Lotze-Campen H (2012) Trading more food: implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions and the food system. Global Environ Change 22(1):189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwanitz VJ (2013) Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change. Environ Model Softw 50:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sohngen B, Tennity C, Hnytka M (2008) Global forestry data for the economic modeling of land use. Gtap working papersGoogle Scholar
  37. Souty F, Brunelle T, Dumas P (2012) The nexus land-use model version 1.0, an approach articulating biophysical potentials and economic dynamics to model competition for land-use. Geosci Model Dev 5:1298–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tol RSJ (2013) Targets for global climate policy: an overview. J Econ Dyn Control 37:911–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. I: proposal by the president (Draft Decision), United Nations Office, Geneva (Switzerland) (s 32)Google Scholar
  40. van Vuuren DP, Carter TR (2014) Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change research and assessment: reconciling the new with the old. Clim Change 122(3):415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat DE et al (2017) Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Global Environ Change 42:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wei YM, Zou LL, Wang K, Yi WJ, Wang L (2013) Review of proposals for an agreement on future climate policy: perspectives from the responsibilities for GHG reduction. Energy Strategy Rev 2:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei YM, Wang L, Liao H, Wang K, Murty T, Yan JY (2014) Responsibility accounting in carbon allocation: a global perspective. Appl Energy 130:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wei YM, Mi ZF, Huang ZM (2015) Climate policy modeling: an online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review. Omega 57:70–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wirsenius S, Azar C, Berndes G (2010) How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agric Syst 103(9):621–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu TW, Li WP, Ji JJ et al (2013) Global carbon budgets simulated by the Beijing climate center climate system model for the last century. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:4326–4347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu TW, Song LC, Li WP et al (2014) An overview of BCC climate system model development and application for climate change studies. J Meteorol Res 28(1):34–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Ming Wei
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rong Han
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Qiao-Mei Liang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bi-Ying Yu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yun-Fei Yao
    • 1
  • Mei-Mei Xue
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kun Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Li-Jing Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Juan Peng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pu Yang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhi-Fu Mi
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yun-Fei Du
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ce Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jun-Jie Chang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Qian-Ru Yang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zili Yang
    • 1
    • 5
  • Xueli Shi
    • 6
  • Wei Xie
    • 7
  • Changyi Liu
    • 6
  • Zhongyu Ma
    • 8
  • Jinxiao Tan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Weizheng Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bao-Jun Tang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yun-Fei Cao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mingquan Wang
    • 9
  • Jin-Wei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jia-Ning Kang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ke Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hua Liao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Management and EconomicsBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental ManagementBeijingChina
  4. 4.The Bartlett School of Construction and Project ManagementUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Department of EconomicsState University of New York at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA
  6. 6.The National Climate Center of China Meteorological AdministrationBeijingChina
  7. 7.School of Advanced Agriculture SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  8. 8.The National Information Center of National Development and Reform CommissionBeijingChina
  9. 9.Shanghai Advanced Research InstituteChinese Academy of SciencesShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations