Assessment of urgent impacts of greenhouse gas emissions—the climate tipping potential (CTP)

  • Susanne V. Jørgensen
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
  • Per H. Nielsen
NON-TOXIC IMPACT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS TO AIR, WATER, SOIL

Abstract

Purpose

The impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change receives much focus today. This impact is however often considered only in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which does not take into account the need for staying below climatic target levels, in order to avoid passing critical climate tipping points. Some suggestions to include a target level in climate change impact assessment have been made, but with the consequence of disregarding impacts beyond that target level. The aim of this paper is to introduce the climate tipping impact category, which represents the climate tipping potential (CTP) of GHG emissions relative to a climatic target level. The climate tipping impact category should be seen as complementary to the global warming impact category.

Methods

The CTP of a GHG emission is expressed as the emission’s impact divided by the ‘capacity’ of the atmosphere for absorbing the impact without exceeding the target level. The GHG emission impact is determined as its cumulative contribution to increase the total atmospheric GHG concentration (expressed in CO2 equivalents) from the emission time to the point in time where the target level is expected to be reached, the target time.

Results and discussion

The CTP of all the assessed GHGs increases as the emission time approaches the target time, reflecting the rapid decrease in remaining atmospheric capacity and thus the increasing potential impact of the GHG emission. The CTP of a GHG depends on the properties of the GHG as well as on the chosen climatic target level and background scenario for atmospheric GHG concentration development. In order to enable direct application in life cycle assessment (LCA), CTP characterisation factors are presented for the three main anthropogenic GHGs, CO2, CH4 and N2O.

Conclusions

The CTP metric distinguishes different GHG emission impacts in terms of their contribution to exceeding a short-term target and highlights their increasing importance when approaching a climatic target level, reflecting the increasing urgency of avoiding further GHG emissions in order to stay below the target level. Inclusion of the climate tipping impact category for assessing climate change impacts in LCA, complimentary to the global warming impact category which shall still represent the long-term climate change impacts, is considered to improve the value of LCA as a tool for decision support for climate change mitigation.

Keywords

Climate change Climate tipping points Climate tipping potential Global warming potential Impact category Life cycle impact assessment 

Supplementary material

11367_2013_693_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (292 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 292 kb)

References

  1. Albritton DL, Meira Filho LG, Cubasch U, Dai X, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Hewitson B, Houghton JT, Isaksen I, Karl T, McFarland M, Meleshko VP, Mitchell JFB, Noguer M, Nyenzi BS, Oppenheimer M, Penner JE, Pollonais S, Stocker T, Trenberth KE (2001) Technical summary. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001 - the scientific basis. contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–83Google Scholar
  2. Archer D, Kheshgi H, Maier-Reimer E (1997) Multiple timescales for neutralization of fossil fuel CO2. Geophys Res Lett 24:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandão M, Levasseur A (2011) Assessing temporary carbon storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting: outcomes of an expert workshop. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-79-20350-3. http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/publications
  4. Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ, Pennington DW, Chomkhamsri K (2012) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Strømman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy 3:413–426Google Scholar
  6. Cherubini F, Guest G, Strømman AH (2012) Application of probability distributions to the modeling of biogenic CO2 fluxes in life cycle assessment. GCB Bioenergy 4:784–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of synthesis and assessment product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union (2005) Climate change: medium and longer term emission reduction strategies, including targets: council conclusions. Information note. Council of the European Union, Brussels, Document number 7242/05Google Scholar
  9. Denman KL, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox PM, Dickinson RE, Hauglustaine D, Heinze C, Holland E, Jacob A, Lohmann U, Ramachandran S, da Silva Dias PL, Wofsy SC, Zhang X (2007) Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007 - the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 499–587Google Scholar
  10. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007 - the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234Google Scholar
  11. Fujino J, Nair R, Kainuma M, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2006) Multi-gas mitigation analysis on stabilization scenarios using AIM global model. Multigas mitigation and climate policy. The Energy Journal Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  12. Guest G, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2013) Global warming potential of carbon dioxide emissions from biomass stored in the anthroposphere and used for bioenergy at end of life. J Indust Ecol 17:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P, Beerling D, Berner R, Masson-Delmotte V, Pagani M, Raymo M, Royer DL, Zachos JC (2008) Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Open Atmos Sci J 2:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hare W (2003) Assessment of knowledge on impacts of climate change - contribution to the specification of article 2 of the UNFCCC: impacts on ecosystems, food production. Water and Socio-Economic Systems. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen, Potsdam. ISBN 3-936191-03-4Google Scholar
  15. Hare B (2006) Relationship between increases in global mean temperature and impacts on ecosystems, food production, water and socio-economic systems. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovich N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–185Google Scholar
  16. Hare B, Meinshausen M (2005) How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided? Clim Chang 75:111–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011 – executive summary. In: IEA, world energy outlook 2011. OECD/IEA, International Energy Agency, Paris CedexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ (2010) Need for relevant timescales in temporary carbon storage crediting. Presentation held at the Expert Workshop on Temporary Carbon Storage for use in Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprinting, at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra October 2010. Abstract available in Brandão and Levasseur (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ (2013) Need for relevant timescales when crediting temporary carbon storage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marchal V, Dellink R, van Vuren D, Clapp C, Château J, Magné B, Lanzi E, van Vliet J (2012) Climate change. In: OECD (ed) OECD environmental outlook to 2050: the consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing, pp 71-152Google Scholar
  23. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao ZC (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007 - the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 747–845Google Scholar
  24. Meinshausen M, Smith SJ, Calvin K, Daniel JS, Kainuma MLT, Lamarque J-F, Matsumoto K, Montzka SA, Raper SCB, Riahi K, Thomson A, Velders GJM, van Vuuren DPP (2011) The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2500. Clim Chang 109:213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Myhre G, Highwood EJ, Shine KP, Stordal F (1998) New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett 25:2715–2718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peters GP, Aamaas B, Lund MT, Solli C, Fuglestvedt JS (2011) Alternative “global warming” metrics in life cycle assessment: a case study with existing transportation data. Environ Sci Technol 45:8633–8641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riahi K, Gruebler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:887–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al. (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32Google Scholar
  29. Schneider SH, Semenov S, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Magadza CHD, Oppenheimer M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Smith JB, Suarez A, Yamin F, Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson SE (2007) Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson SE. (eds.), Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 779–810Google Scholar
  30. Shine KP, Berntsen TK, Fuglestvedt JS, Skeie RB, Stuber N (2007) Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents. Phil Trans R Soc A 365:1903–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Chang 68:281–302Google Scholar
  32. Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2006) Multi-gas forcing stabilization with the MiniCAM. Energ J 27:373–391Google Scholar
  33. US DOT CCCEF (2009) Climate tipping points: current perspectives and state of knowledge. U.S. Department of Transportation, Center for Climate Change and Environmental ForecastingGoogle Scholar
  34. van Vuuren D, den Elzen M, Lucas P, Eickhout B, Strengers B, van Ruijven B, Wonink S, van Houdt R (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81:119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F, Masui T, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne V. Jørgensen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
    • 1
  • Per H. Nielsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department for Management Engineering, Division for Quantitative Sustainability AssessmentTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Novozymes A/SBagsværdDenmark

Personalised recommendations