Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

Nature Climate Change

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 119-126

  Tavoni, Massimo ^a,b   Kriegler, Elmar ^c   Riahi, Keywan ^d   Van Vuuren, Detlef P ^e,f   Aboumahboub, Tino ^c   Bowen, Alex ^g   Calvin, Katherine ^h   Campiglio, Emanuele ^g   Kober, Tom ⁱ   Jewell, Jessica ^d   Luderer, Gunnar ^c   Marangoni, Giacomo ^a,b   Mccollum, David ^d   Van Sluisveld, Mariësse ^e,f   Zimmer, Anne ^c   Van Der Zwaan, Bob ^i,j,k  

^a Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro Euro Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)   (Italy)

^b POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

^c POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^d International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASA   (Australia)

^e UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^f PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^g LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^h PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

ⁱ TNO   (Netherlands)

^j UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^k JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CARBON BUDGET; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INVESTMENT; MARKET SYSTEM; NUMERICAL MODEL;

EID: 84923017802     PISSN: 1758678X     EISSN: 17586798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2475     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Blanford, G., Kriegler, E. & Tavoni, M. Harmonization vs. fragmentation: overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27. Clim. Change 123, 383-396 (2014).
2. UNFCCC. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Draft decision -/CP.17 (UNFCCC, 2011).
3. Pachauri, S. et al. Pathways to achieve universal household access to modern energy by 2030. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024015 (2013).
4. McCollum, D. L., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nature Clim. Change 1, 428-429 (2011).
5. Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. & Riahi, K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79-83 (2013).
6. Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., O'Neill, B. C. & Riahi, K. 2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2 degrees. Nature Clim. Change 3, 405-412 (2013).
7. Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L. & Riahi, K. The UN's 'Sustainable Energy for All' initiative is compatible with a warming limit of 2 °C. Nature Clim. Change 3, 545-551 (2013).
8. Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013).
9. Den Elzen, M. G. J. & van Vuuren, D. Peaking profiles for achieving long-term temperature targets with more likelihood at lower costs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 17931-17936 (2007).
10. Rogelj, J. et al. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nature Clim. Change 1, 413-418 (2011).
11. Riahi, K. et al. Locked into Copenhagen pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Social Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016 (2014).
12. Kriegler, E. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim. Change 123, 353-367 (2014).
13. Kriegler, E. et al. What does the 2 °C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban platform scenarios. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340008 (2013).
14. Tavoni, M. et al. The distribution of the major economies' effort in the Durban platform scenarios. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340009 (2013).
15. Kriegler, E., Tavoni, M., Riahi, K. & van Vuuren, D. P. Introducing the LIMITS special issue. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1302002 (2013).
16. Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S64-S81 (2009).
17. Kriegler, E. et al. Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Social Change. (in the press); available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.021 (2014).
18. 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. Change 114, 79-99 (2012).
19. Luderer, G., Bertram, C., Calvin, K., Cian, E. & Kriegler, E. Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0899-9 (2013).
20. Luderer, G. et al. On the regional distribution of mitigation costs in a global cap-and-trade regime. Clim. Change 114, 59-78 (2012).
21. Aldy, J. E. & Stavins, R. N. Climate negotiators create an opportunity for scholars. Science 337, 1043-1044 (2012).
22. Edenhofer, O. et al. Identifying Options for a New International Climate Regime Arising from the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (Harvard Project on Climate Agreements/Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, 2013).
23. Ranson, M. & Stavins, R. N. Linkage as a foundation for post-Durban climate policy architecture. Ethics Policy Environ.15, 272-275 (2012).
24. Aldy, J. E. & Stavins, R. N. Designing the Post-Kyoto Climate Regime: Lessons from the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/18686/designing-the-postkyoto-climate-regime.html (2008).
25. 2-equivalent concentrations. Clim. Change 90, 243-268 (2008).
26. Den Elzen, M. & Höhne, N. Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2 °C. Clim. Policy 10, 247-260 (2010).
27. Ekholm, T. et al. Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios. Energy Policy 38, 1797-1810 (2010).
28. UNFCCC. The Cancun agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2 (2010).
29. Blanford, G. J., Rose, S. K. & Tavoni, M. Baseline projections of energy and emissions in Asia. Energy Econ. 34, S284-S292 (2012).
30. Allen, M. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163-1166 (2009).
31. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. Nature 458, 1158-1162 (2009).
32. Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16129-16134 (2009).
33. Chen, W., Yin, X. & Zhang, H. Towards low carbon development in China: a comparison of national and global models. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0937-7 (2013).
34. Hoogwijk, M. et al. Assessment of bottom-up sectoral and regional mitigation potentials. Energy Policy 38, 3044-3057 (2010).
35. van der Zwaan, B. C. C. et al. A cross-model comparison of global long-term technology diffusion under a 2 °C climate change control target. Clim. Change Econ., 4, 1340013: 1-24 (2013).
36. Krey, V., Luderer, G., Clarke, L. & Kriegler, E. Getting from here to there - energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim. Change 123, 369-382 (2014).
37. Fischedick, M. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 74 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
38. Clarke, L., Krey, V., Weyant, J. & Chaturvedi, V. Regional energy system variation in global models: Results from the Asian Modeling Exercise scenarios. Energy Econ. 34, S293-S305 (2012).
39. Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x (2013).
40. Rose, S. K. et al. Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim. Change 123, 477-493 (2014).
41. 2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85-103 (2007).
42. Calvin, K., Clarke, L., Krey, V. & Blanford, G. The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: Results from the Asia Modeling Exercise. Energy Econ. (2012).
43. Riahi, K. et al. in The Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future (IIASA/Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
44. Kunreuther, H. et al. Risk management and climate change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 447-450 (2013).
45. Millner, A., Dietz, S. & Heal, G. Ambiguity and climate policy. Natl Bur. Econ. Res. Working Pap. 16050 (2010).
46. Edenhofer, O. et al. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J. 31, 11-48 (2010).
47. Staub-Kaminski, I., Zimmer, A., Jakob, M. & Marschinski, R. Climate policy in practice: A Typology of obstacles and implications for integrated assessment modeling. Clim. Change Econ. 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010007814400041 (2014).
48. Höhne, N., Den Elzen, M. G. J. & Escalante, D. Regional greenhouse gas mitigation targets based on effort sharing: A comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 14, 122-147 (2014).
49. Den Elzen, M. & Höhne, N. Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets. Clim. Change 91, 249-274 (2008).
50. Johansson, D. J. et al. Multi-model Analyses of the Economic and Energy Implications for China and India in a Post-Kyoto Climate Regime. Kiel Working Paper 1808 (Kiel Institute, 2012).
51. Jiahua, P. Carbon budget for basic needs satisfaction: Implications for international equity and sustainability. World Econ. Polit. 1, 003 (2008).
52. 2 concentrations by 2050: A calculation on the emission rights of different countries. Sci. China Ser. D Earth Sci. 52, 1447-1469 (2009).
53. Jewell, J., Cherp, A. & Riahi, K. Energy security under de-carbonization scenarios: An assessment framework and evaluation under different technology and policy choices. Energy Policy 65, 743-760 (2014).
54. Hof, A. F., Den Elzen, M. G. J. & Van Vuuren, D. P. Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies? Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 9, 39-62 (2009).
55. Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ. 31 (Suppl. 2), S64-S81 (2009).
56. Edenhofer, O. et al. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J. 31, 11-48 (2010).
57. Lüken, M. et al. The role of technological availability for the distributive impacts of climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy 39, 6030-6039 (2011).
58. Aboumahboub, T. et al. On the regional distribution of climate mitigation costs: the impact of delayed cooperative action. Clim. Change Econ. 05, 1440002 (2014).
59. OECD. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 (OECD, 2008).
60. Massetti, E. & Tavoni, M. The cost of climate change mitigation policy in eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. Clim. Change Econ. 2, 341-370 (2011).
61. Van Vuuren, D. et al. Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 37, 5125-5139 (2009).
62. Stern, D. I., Pezzey, J. C. V. & Lambie, N. R. Where in the world is it cheapest to cut carbon emissions? Aust. J. Agric. Resource Econ. 56, 315-331 (2012).
63. Paltsev, S., Reilly, J., Jacoby, H. D. & Tay, K. H. in Human-Induced Climate Change (Schlesinger, M. E. et al.) 282-293 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
64. Kober, T., van der Zwaan, B. C. C. & Rosler, H. Emission certificate trade and costs under regional burden-sharing regimes for a 2°C climate change control target. Clim. Change Econ. 5, 1440001 (2014).
65. Tavoni, M., Chakravarty, S. & Socolow, R. Safe vs. fair: a formidable trade-off in tackling climate change. Sustainability 4, 210-226 (2012).
66. IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (OECD/IEA, 2012).
67. Carraro, C., Favero, A. & Massetti, E. Investments and public finance in a green, low carbon, economy. Energy Econ. 34 (Suppl. 1), S15-S28 (2012).
68. McCollum, D. et al. Energy investments under climate policy: A comparison of global models. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340010 (2013).
69. Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., Massetti, E., Sgobbi, A. & Tavoni, M. Optimal energy investment and R&D strategies to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Resource Energy Econ. 31, 123-137 (2009).
70. IEA. Global Gaps in Clean Energy RD&D: Updates and Recommendations for International Collaboration (IEA, 2010). Available at http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/global-gaps.pdf.
71. Marangoni, G. & M. Tavoni. The clean energy R&D strategy for 2°C. Clim. Change Econ. 5, 1440003 (2014).
72. Nemet, G. F. & Kammen, D. M. US energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 35, 746-755 (2007).
73. Popp, D. ENTICE-BR: The effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models. Energy Econ. 28, 188-222 (2006).
74. IMF. Energy Subsidy reform: Lessons and implications. Available at https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf (2013).
75. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2012 (OECD/IEA, 2012).
76. Bowen, A., Campiglio, E. & Tavoni, M. A macroeconomic perspective on climate change mitigation: Meeting the financing challenge. Clim. Change Econ. 5, 1440005 (2014).
77. Wara, M. Is the global carbon market working? Nature 445, 595-596 (2007).
78. Jewell, J. et al. Energy security of China, India, the E.U. and the U.S. under long-term scenarios: Results from six IAMs. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340011 (2013).
79. Cherp, A., Jewell, J., Vinichenko, V., Bauer, N. & De Cian, E. Global energy security under different climate policies, GDP growth rates and fossil resource availabilities. Clim. Change (in the press). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-013-0950-x (2013).
80. Rose, S. K. et al. Non-Kyoto radiative forcing in long-run greenhouse gas emissions and climate change scenarios. Clim. Change 123, 511-525 (2014).
81. Bollen, J., van der Zwaan, B. C. C., Brink, C. & Eerens, H. Local air pollution and global climate change: A combined cost-benefit analysis. Resource Energy Econ. 31, 161-181 (2009).
82. Rafaj, P., Schöpp, W., Russ, P., Heyes, C. & Amann, M. Co-benefits of post-2012 global climate mitigation policies. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 18, 801-824 (2013).
83. Rao, S. et al. Better air for better health: Forging synergies in policies for energy access, climate change and air pollution. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1122-1130 (2013).
84. Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T. & Meier, P. Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 014007 (2010).
85. Barrett, S. Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 46, 878-894 (1994).
86. Carraro, C. & Siniscalco, D. Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J. Public Econ. 52, 309-328 (1993).
87. Tulkens, H. & Chander, P. The core of an economy with multilateral environmental externalities. Int. J. Game Theory 26, 379-401 (1997).
88. Finus, M., Van Ierland, E. & Dellink, R. Stability of Climate Coalitions in a Cartel Formation Game. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=447461 (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 2003).
89. Fuentes-Albero, C. & Rubio, S. J. Can international environmental cooperation be bought? Eur. J. Operat. Res. 202, 255-264 (2010).
90. Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Sensitivity of collective action to uncertainty about climate tipping points. Nature Clim. Change 4, 36-39 (2013).
91. Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., De Cian, E., Massetti, E. & Tavoni, M. Incentives and stability of international climate coalitions: An integrated assessment. Energy Policy 55, 44-56 (2013).
92. Nagashima, M., Dellink, R., van Ierland, E. & Weikard, H-P. Stability of international climate coalitions: A comparison of transfer schemes. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1476-1487 (2009).
93. Bréchet, T., Gerard, F. & Tulkens, H. Efficiency vs. stability in climate coalitions: a conceptual and computational appraisal. Energy J. 32, 49 (2011).
94. Carbone, J. C., Helm, C. & Rutherford, T. F. The case for international emission trade in the absence of cooperative climate policy. J. Environ. Econ. Managem. 58, 266-280 (2009).
95. Tol, R. S. Climate coalitions in an integrated assessment model. Comput. Econ. 18, 159-172 (2001).
96. Lessmann, K. et al. The stability and effectiveness of climate coalitions: A comparative analysis of multiple integrated assessment models. FEEM Working Pap. 2014.005 Available at http://services.bepress.com/feem/paper868/ (2014).