This article presents the synthesis of results from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum Study 27, an inter-comparison of 18 energy-economy and integrated assessment models. The study investigated the importance of individual mitigation options such as energy intensity improvements, carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, solar and wind power and bioenergy for climate mitigation. Limiting the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to 450 or 550 ppm CO2 equivalent by 2100 would require a decarbonization of the global energy system in the 21st century. Robust characteristics of the energy transformation are increased energy intensity improvements and the electrification of energy end use coupled with a fast decarbonization of the electricity sector. Non-electric energy end use is hardest to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. Technology is a key element of climate mitigation. Versatile technologies such as CCS and bioenergy are found to be most important, due in part to their combined ability to produce negative emissions. The importance of individual low-carbon electricity technologies is more limited due to the many alternatives in the sector. The scale of the energy transformation is larger for the 450 ppm than for the 550 ppm CO2e target. As a result, the achievability and the costs of the 450 ppm target are more sensitive to variations in technology availability.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Those models used endogenous climate modules that can differ significantly in their response to emissions trajectories, particularly for the climate policy cases. This adds an additional layer of uncertainty to climate outcomes and also affects the amount of residual emissions that models estimate to be consistent with the climate targets.
This is true in the context of this study, since no additional climate policy measures such as technology performance standards or subsidies are assumed.
Most of the EMF27 models assume an interest rate of around 5 % per year. The choice of discount rate affects the average price/net present value cost estimates. Lower discount rates lead to higher average prices/net present value costs, if prices/costs increase over time.
Azar C et al (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Chang 100:195–202
Bibas R, Méjean A (this issue) Potential and limitations of bioenergy options for low carbon transitions. Clim Chang, submitted
Blanford GJ, Kriegler E, Tavoni M (this issue) Harmonization vs. Fragmentation: Overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27. Clim Chang, submitted
Calvin K et al (2012) The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: results from the Asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ 34(3):S251–S260
Clarke L et al (2008) CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. PNNL Report Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richmond
Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81
Edenhofer O et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31:11–48
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011) Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.2. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europe.eu
Kim SH, Wada K, Kurosawa A, Roberts M (this issue) Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study. Clim Chang, submitted
Koelbl BS, van den Broek MA, Faaij APC, van Vuuren DP (this issue) Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Clim Chang, submitted
Krey V, Clarke L (2011) Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Clim Pol 11:1131–1158
Krey V, Luderer L, Clarke L, Kriegler E (this issue) Getting from here to there: energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang, submitted
Luderer G, Bosetti V, Jakob M, Leimbach M, Steckel JC, Waisman H, Edenhofer O (2012) The economics of decarbonizing the energy system-results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison. Clim Chang 114:9–37
Luderer G et al. (this issue) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang submitted
McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K (2011) An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat Clim Chang 1(9):428–429
McCollum D, Bauer N, Calvin K, Kitous A, Riahi K (this issue) Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds. Clim Chang, submitted
Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162
Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus W (2011) Editors' introduction: the economics of technologies to combat global warming. Energy Econ 33(4):565–571
Popp A et al. (this issue) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim Chang, submitted
Riahi K et al (2012) Chapter 17 - Energy pathways for sustainable development. Global energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. IIASA and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1203–1306
Riahi K et al (2013) Locked into Copenhagen pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016
Rose SK, Kriegler E, Bibas R, Calvin K, Popp A, van Vuuren DP, Weyant J (this issue, (a)), Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Chang, submitted
Rose SK, Richels R, Smith S, Riahi K, Strefler J, van Vuuren D (this issue, (b)) Non-Kyoto radiative forcing in long-run greenhouse gas emissions and climate change scenarios. Clim Chang, submitted
Sugiyama M, Akashi O, Wada K, Kanudia A, Li J, Weyant J (this issue) Role of energy efficiency in climate change mitigation policy for India: Assessment of co-benefits and opportunities within an integrated assessment modeling framework. Clim Chang, submitted
Tavoni M, Socolow R (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118(1):1–14
Tavoni M, Tol R (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. Clim Chang 100:769–778
Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy. Energy J, Special Issue
Weyant JP (2004) EMF 19: alternative technology strategies for climate change policy. Energy Econ 26(4):501–575
Jae Edmonds and Leon Clarke are grateful for research support provided by the Integrated Assessment Research Program in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830. Results reported for the GCAM model used Evergreen computing resources at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park, which is supported by the Integrated Assessment Research Program in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.
The contribution of Elmar Kriegler, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer, Keywan Riahi, Massimo Tavoni and Detlev van Vuuren to this research was supported by funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme under the LIMITS project (grant agreement no. 282846).
This article is part of the Special Issue on “The EMF27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies” edited by John Weyant, Elmar Kriegler, Geoffrey Blanford, Volker Krey, Jae Edmonds, Keywan Riahi, Richard Richels, and Massimo Tavoni.
About this article
Cite this article
Kriegler, E., Weyant, J.P., Blanford, G.J. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
- Emission Reduction
- Climate Policy
- Integrate Assessment Model
- Mitigation Cost
- Mitigation Scenario