The impact of near-term climate policy choices on technology and emission transition pathways

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 90, Issue PA, 2015, Pages 73-88

  Eom, Jiyong ^a   Edmonds, Jae ^b   Krey, Volker ^c   Johnson, Nils ^c   Longden, Thomas ^d   Luderer, Gunnar ^e   Riahi, Keywan ^c   Van Vuuren, Detlef P ^f,g  

^a Sogang University   (South Korea)

^b PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS   (Austria)

^d CENTRO EURO MEDITERRANEO SUI CAMBIAMENTI CLIMATICI   (Italy)

^e POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^f PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^g UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Emission pathway; Near term climate policy; Technology deployment; Technology upscaling

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; CARBON CAPTURE; CARBON DIOXIDE; EMISSION CONTROL; GREENHOUSE GASES;

CLIMATE POLICY; EMISSION MITIGATION; EMISSION TRANSITION; MITIGATION STRATEGY; TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT; TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIOS; TRANSITION PATHWAY; UPSCALING;

CLIMATE MODELS;

BIOENERGY; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CLIMATE FORCING; EMISSION CONTROL; EMISSION INVENTORY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GREENHOUSE GAS; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84916895286     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.017     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Jacoby H., Pitcher H., Reilly J., Richels R. Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2007.
2. Richels R.G., Blanford G.J. The value of technological advance in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. Energy Econ. 2008, 30:2930-2946.
3. Krey V., Riahi K. Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets-greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S94-S106.
4. Kyle P., Clarke L., Pugh G., Wise M., Calvin K., Edmonds J., et al. The value of advanced technology in meeting 2050 greenhouse gas emissions targets in the United States. Energy Econ. 2012, 31:S254-S267.
5. Bosetti V., Carraro C., Tavoni M. Climate policy after 2012. CESifo Econ. Stud. 2009, 55:235-254.
6. Edenhofer O., Knopf B., Barker T., Baumstark L., Bellevrat E., Chateau B., et al. The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J. 2010, 31:11-48. ADAM Project.
7. Luderer G., Bosetti V., Jakob M., Leimbach M., Steckel J.C., Waisman H., et al. The economics of decarbonizing the energy system-results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison. Clim. Chang. 2011, 114:9-37. RECIPE Project.
8. Krey V., Luderer G., Clarke L., Kriegler E. Getting from here to there - energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF-27 scenarios. Clim. Chang. 2013, (in press). 10.1007/s10584-013-0947-5.
9. Tavoni M., Cian E., Luderer G., Steckel J.C., Waisman H. The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy. Clim. Chang. 2011, 114:39-57. RECIPE Project.
10. UNEP The Emissions Gap Report 2010.
11. 2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation. Clim. Pol. 2008, 8:355-376.
12. Keppo I., Rao S. International climate regimes: effects of delayed participation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74:962-979. MESSAGE.
13. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Krey V., Richels R., Rose S., Tavoni M. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S64-S81. EMF22 Project.
14. Bosetti V., Carraro C., Sgobbi A., Tavoni M. Delayed action and uncertain stabilisation targets. How much will the delay cost?. Clim. Chang. 2009, 96:299-312.
15. van Vliet J., den Elzen M.G.J., van Vuuren D.P. Meeting radiative forcing targets under delayed participation. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:S152-S162. IMAGE.
16. Jakob M., Luderer G., Steckel J., Tavoni M., Monjon S. Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action. Clim. Chang. 2011, 114:79-99. RECIPE Project.
17. Riahi K., Kriegler E., Johnson N., Bertram C., den Elzen M., Eom J., et al. Locked into Copenhagen Pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90:8-23. (this issue).
18. Akimoto K., Tomoda T. Assessment of global warming mitigation options with integrated assessment model DNE21. Energy Econ. 2004, 26:635-653.
19. Edmonds J., Reilly J. Global Energy: Assessing the Future 1985, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
20. Clarke L., Edmonds J., Jacoby H., Pitcher H., Reilly J., Richels R. CCSP synthesis and assessment product 2.1. Part A: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations 2006.
21. Eom J., Moss R., Calvin K., Bond-Lamberty B., Clarke L., Dooley J., et al. Scenarios of future socio-economics, energy, land use and radiative forcing. Engineering Response to Global Climate Change 2013, Lewis.
22. Kim S., Edmonds J., Lurz J., Smith S., Wise M. The ObjECTS framework for integrated assessment: hybrid modeling of transportation. Energy J. 2006, 27:63-91.
23. Waisman H., Guivarch C., Grazi F., Hourcade J.C. The IMACLIM-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight. Clim. Chang. 2012, 114:101-120.
24. Sassi O., Crassous R., Waisman H., Guivarch C., Belle D., Cedex M. IMACLIM-R : a modelling framework to simulate sustainable development pathways. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues. 2010, 10:5-24.
25. A.F. Bouwman, T. Kram, K.K. Goldewijk, Integrated modelling of global environmental change: An Overview of IMAGE 2.4, n.d.
26. Kypreos S. Modeling experience curves in MERGE (model for evaluating regional and global effects). Energy 2005, 30:2721-2737.
27. Kypreos S., Bahn O. A MERGE model with endogenous technological progress. Environ. Model. Assess. 2003, 8:249-259.
28. Messner S., Strubegger M. User's Guide for MESSAGE III 2001.
29. European Commission POLES 2.2 1996, European Commission.
30. Leimbach M., Bauer N., Baumstark L. Technological change and international trade-insights from REMIND-R. Energy J. 2010, 31:109-136.
31. Leimbach M., Bauer N., Baumstark L., Edenhofer O. Mitigation costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with REMIND-R. Environ. Model. Assess. 2009, 15:155-173.
32. De Cian E., Bosetti V., Tavoni M. Technology innovation and diffusion in "less than ideal" climate policies: an assessment with the WITCH model. Clim. Chang. 2011, 114:121-143.
33. Bosetti V., Massetti E., Tavoni M. The WITCH Model: Structure, Baseline, Solutions 2007.
34. Kriegler E., Petermann N., Schwanitz J. Diagnosing integrated assessment model behavior. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 1-25.
35. 2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 2009, 324:1183-1186.
36. Kriegler E., Riahi K., Bauer N., Schwanitz J., Bosetti V., Marcucci A., et al. The difficult road to global cooperation on climate change: the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013.
37. Kriegler E., Tavoni M., Aboumahboub T., Luderer G., Calvin K., DeMaere G., et al. Can we still meet 2°C with global climate action? The LIMITS study on implications of Durban Action Platform scenarios. Clim. Change Econ. 2013, LIMITS Project, (Submitted for publication).
38. Luderer G., Bertram C., Calvin K., De Cian E., Kriegler E. Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term climate mitigation pathways. Clim. Chang. 2013, (in press). 10.1007/s10584-013-0899-9.
39. Bertram C., Johnson N., Luderer G., Riahi K., Isaac M., Eom J. Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Clim. Chang. 2015, 90:62-72. (this issue).
40. Kriegler E., Petermann N., Krey V., Schwanitz V., Luderer G., Ashina S., et al. Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90:45-61. (this issue).
41. Johnson N., Krey V., Mccollum D., Rao S., Riahi K. Stranded on a low-carbon planet: implications of climate policy for the phase-out of coal-based power plants. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013.
42. Wilson C., Grubler a., Bauer N., Krey V., Riahi K. Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?. Clim. Chang. 2013, 118:381-395.
43. 2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st century: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Procedia 2013, 37:5141-5150.
44. Meinshausen M., Smith S.J., Calvin K., Daniel J.S., Kainuma M.L.T., Lamarque J. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109:213-241.
45. UNFCCC Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventeenth Session, Held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011 2011.
46. Schellnhuber H.J., Cramer W., Nakicenovic N., Wigley T., Yohe G. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change 2006, Cambridge University Press.
47. den Elzen M., Roelfsema M., Hof A., Bottcher H., Grassi G. Analysing the Emissions GAP Between Pledged Emissions Reductions Under the Cancun Agreements and the 2C Climate Target 2012.
48. Hare B., Schaeffer M., Rocha M., Rogelj J., Hohne N., Blok K., et al. Closing the 2020 emissions gap. Issues, Options and Strategies 2012.
49. IPCC: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (Eds.).