Costs and benefits of differences in the timing of greenhouse gas emission reductions
Most modelling studies that explore long-term greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios focus on cost-efficient emission pathways towards a certain climate target, like the internationally agreed target to keep global temperature increase below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels (the 2 °C climate target). However, different timing of reductions lead to different transient temperature increase over the course of the century and subsequently to differences in the time profiles of not only the mitigation costs but also adaptation costs and residual climate change damage. This study adds to the existing literature by focussing on the implication of these differences for the evaluation of a set of three mitigation scenarios (early action, gradual action and delayed action), all three limiting global temperature increase below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, using different discount rates. The study shows that the gradual mitigation pathway is, for these discount rates, preferred over early or delayed action in terms of total climate costs and net benefits. The relative costs and benefits of the early or delayed mitigation action scenarios, in contrast, do strongly depend on the discount rate applied. For specific discount rates, these pathways might therefore be preferred for other reasons, such as reducing long-term uncertainty in climate costs by early action.
KeywordsAdaptation costs Avoided damage Climate mitigation Discount rate Mitigation costs Net benefits Residual damage
The authors kindly acknowledge the input and comments made by colleagues and the ACT 2015 project partners.
Compliance with ethical standards
This paper is partly based on a suite of materials developed through the ACT 2015 project, which is funded by the European Commission and the International Policies and Politics Initiative via the Climate Works Foundation. This study has also received funding by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the REA grant agreement no. 603942 (PATHWAYS).
Conflict of interest
The authors of this paper declare that they have no conflict of interest and that this paper complies with the ethical rules applicable for this journal.
- Agrawala S, Fankhauser S (eds.) (2008) Economic aspects of adaptation to climate change: costs, benefits and policy instruments. OECD, Paris. Available via http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/economicaspectsofadaptationtoclimatechangecostsbenefitsandpolicyinstruments.htm. Cited 20 May 2014
- Burniaux JM, Chateau J (2010) An overview of the OECD ENV-linkages model. OECD, Paris. Available via http://www.oecd.org/env/45334643.pdf
- Haites E, Yamin F, Höhne N (2013) Possible elements of a 2015 legal agreement on climate change. IDDRI, Paris. Available via http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Idees-pour-le-debat/WP1613_EH%20FY%20NH_legal%20agreement%202015.pdf
- Hohne N, Van Breevoort P, Deng Y et al. (2013) Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century. Ecofys, Germany. Available via http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
- Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess J Bridg Sci Policy 6:19–56Google Scholar
- IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: mitigation of climate change. IPCC working group III contribution to AR5. Available via http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
- JRC/PBL (2014) Emission database for global atmospheric research (EDGAR)—release version 4.2 FT2012. Bilthoven, Netherlands: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Available via http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu
- Kriegler E, Riahi K, Petermann N et al. (2014) Assessing pathways toward ambitious climate targets at the global and European levels: a synthesis of results from the AMPERE project. FP7 AMPERE Project. Available via http://ampere-project.eu/web/images/Final_Conference/ampere_synthesis_5-2014-compact.pdf
- Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Available via http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course131/Warm-World00.pdf
- OECD (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050. OECD, Paris. Available via http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/oecdenvironmentaloutlookto2050theconsequencesofinaction.htm. Cited 10 May 2014
- Stehfest E, Van Vuuren DP, Kram T et al. (2014) Integrated assessment of global environmental change with IMAGE 3.0. Model description and policy applications. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. Available via http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/PBL-2014-Integrated_Assessment_of_Global_Environmental_Change_with_IMAGE_30-735.pdf
- Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change. The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2013) The emissions gap report 2013. A UNEP synthesis report. UNEPGoogle Scholar
- UNFCCC (2009) Copenhagen accord. Available via http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf
- UNFCCC (2010) Decision 1/CP.16, the Cancun agreements. UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2
- van Vuuren DP, Van Ruijven B, Hoogwijk M et al. (2006) TIMER 2.0: model description and application. In: Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (eds.) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven. Available via www.pbl.nl/en
- Weyant J, Davidson O, Dowlatabadi H et al (1996) Integrated assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF (eds) Climate Change 1995: economic and social dimensions. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar