Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 142, Issue 3–4, pp 491–504 | Cite as

Low-emission pathways in 11 major economies: comparison of cost-optimal pathways and Paris climate proposals

  • Heleen L. van SoestEmail author
  • Lara Aleluia Reis
  • Laurent Drouet
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
  • Massimo Tavoni
  • Keigo Akimoto
  • Katherine V. Calvin
  • Panagiotis Fragkos
  • Alban Kitous
  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Keywan Riahi
Article

Abstract

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of climate policy, it is important to understand emission trends and policies at the national level. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions, so-called (I)NDCs, outlining the contribution of different Parties to the overall target of the agreement to limit global mean temperature increase to well below 2 °C. Here, we assess emission trajectories and the energy system transition of 11 major economies (in the remainder: countries) projected by integrated assessment models (IAMs) for baseline and cost-optimal 450 ppm CO2 eq mitigation scenarios and compare the results with the (I)NDCs. Limiting global temperature increase to below 2 °C implies a substantial reduction of the estimated available carbon budget for each country. The national carbon budgets between 2010 and 2100 showed reductions between the baseline and the 2 °C consistent mitigation scenario ranging from 52% in South Korea to 95% in Brazil. While in the baseline scenario, the share of low-carbon primary energy sources is projected to remain around 15% (with Brazil being a notable exception, reaching 30%); in the mitigation scenarios, the share of low-carbon energy is projected to increase to over 50% in 2050 in nearly all countries, with the EU, Japan and Canada reaching the largest shares. Comparison with the (I)NDCs shows that in Brazil, Canada, the EU, Mexico (conditional target), South Korea and the USA, the emission reduction targets of the NDCs are closer to the mitigation requirement of the 2 °C scenario; in other countries, however, there is still a large gap. The national detail of the indicators adds to the literature on low-carbon emission pathways, assists the assessment of the Paris Agreement and provides support to national policymakers to identify focus areas for climate policy in the coming years.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Climate Policy Baseline Scenario Marginal Abatement Cost Mitigation Scenario 
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

Acknowledgements

This study benefited from the financial support of the European Commission via the Modelling and Informing Low-Emission Strategies (MILES) project, financed by Directorate General Climate Action (DG CLIMA), under contract to DG CLIMA (No. 21.0104/2014/684427/SER/CLIMA.A.4), and the Linking Climate and Development Policies-Leveraging International Networks and Knowledge Sharing (CD-LINKS) project, financed by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 642147 (CD-LINKS). The work is largely based on published scenarios from integrated assessment modelling studies, collected for MILES. The results presented here are not automatically endorsed by MILES project partners. We thank Annemiek Admiraal (PBL) for providing (I)NDC data.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_1964_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (896 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 895 kb)

References

  1. Bataille C, Waisman H, Colombier M et al (2016) The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy. Clim Pol 16:S7–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. EC-JRC, PBL (2014) Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) version 4.2FT2012 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) / PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php
  4. den Elzen M, Admiraal A, Roelfsema M et al (2016) Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris Agreement climate proposals. Clim Chang 137:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emmerling J, Drouet L, Aleluia Reis L et al (2016) The WITCH 2016 model—documentation and implementation of the shared socioeconomic pathways, FEEM Nota di Lavoro 42.2016. FEEM, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  6. Fragkos P, Tasios N, Paroussos L et al (2017) Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050. Energy Policy 100:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujimori S, Kubota I, Dai H et al (2016) Will international emissions trading help achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement? Environ Res Lett 11:104001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Herreras Martínez S, Koberle A, Rochedo P et al (2015) Possible energy futures for Brazil and Latin America in conservative and stringent mitigation pathways up to 2050. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 98:186–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kriegler E, Riahi K, Bauer N et al (2014a) Making or breaking climate targets: the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kriegler E, Tavoni M, Aboumahboub T, et al. (2014b) What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020?. The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios. Climate Change Economics 4Google Scholar
  11. Kriegler E, Weyant JP, Blanford GJ et al (2014c) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang 123:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luderer G, Bertram C, Calvin K et al (2016) Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Clim Chang 136:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Peters JAHW (2016) Trends in global CO2 emissions; 2016 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency / European Commission, Joint Research Centre, The Hague / IspraGoogle Scholar
  14. Riahi K, Kriegler E, Johnson N et al (2015) Locked into Copenhagen pledges—implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N et al (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seneviratne SI, Donat MG, Pitman AJ et al (2016) Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spencer T, Pierfederici R (eds) (2015) Beyond the numbers: understanding the transformation induced by INDCs. IDDRI - MILES Project Consortium, Paris, p 80Google Scholar
  18. Tavoni M, Van Vuuren, DP (2015) Regional carbon budgets: do they matter for climate policy?, Nota di Lavoro 71.2015, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  19. Tavoni M, Kriegler E, Riahi K et al (2014) Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models. Nat Clim Chang 5:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. UNEP (2015) The emissions gap report 2015. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NairobiGoogle Scholar
  21. UNFCCC (2015) Paris Agreement. Decision 1/CP.17. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf, UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
  22. UNFCCC (2016) Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. Synthesis report by the secretariat. UNFCCC Secretariat, FCCC/CP/2016/2, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/02.pdf
  23. Van Sluisveld MAE, Gernaat DEHJ, Ashina S et al (2013) A multi-model analysis of post-2020 mitigation efforts of five major economies. Climate Chang Econ 04:1340012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Veysey J, Octaviano C, Calvin K et al (2016) Pathways to Mexico’s climate change mitigation targets: a multi-model analysis. Energy Econ 56:587–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heleen L. van Soest
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lara Aleluia Reis
    • 2
    • 3
  • Laurent Drouet
    • 2
    • 3
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 1
    • 4
  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
    • 1
  • Massimo Tavoni
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  • Keigo Akimoto
    • 6
  • Katherine V. Calvin
    • 7
  • Panagiotis Fragkos
    • 8
  • Alban Kitous
    • 9
  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 10
  • Keywan Riahi
    • 11
  1. 1.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)MilanItaly
  3. 3.Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti ClimaticiMilanItaly
  4. 4.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Politecnico di MilanoDepartment of Management and EconomicsMilanItaly
  6. 6.Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the EarthKizugawa-ShiJapan
  7. 7.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute5825 University Research CourtCollege ParkUSA
  8. 8.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  9. 9.European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre (JRC)Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Unit J1—Economics of Climate Change, Energy and Transport, Edificio ExpoSevillaSpain
  10. 10.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany
  11. 11.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations