Search results

Estimates of economic implications of climate policy are important inputs into policy-making. Despite care to contextualize quantitative assessments of mitigation costs, one strong view outside academic climate economics is that achieving Paris Agreement goals implies sizable macroeconomic losses. Here, we argue that this notion results from unwarranted simplification or omission of the complexities of quantifying mitigation costs, which generates ambiguity in communication and interpretation. We synthesize key factors influencing mitigation cost estimates to guide interpretation of estimates, for example from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and suggest ways to improve the underlying models. We propose alternatives for the scenario design framework, the framing of mitigation costs and the methods used to derive them, to better inform public debate and policy. ; Aside from "PARIS REINFORCE" (Grant No. 820846), the authors also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from EU Horizon 2020 Projects ENGAGE (GA: 821471) and NAVIGATE (GA: 821124)

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in non-modelling science. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario space traces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment, energy system and sectoral models, we carry out a model inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and research questions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is a scenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating its current policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-2020 40% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carbon capture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, with most hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefits from deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewables-dominated investment needs.

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in non-modelling science. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario space traces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment, energy system and sectoral models, we carry out a model inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and research questions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is a scenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating its current policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-2020 40% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carbon capture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, with most hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefits from deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewables-dominated investment needs. ; publishedVersion

Recent calls to do climate policy research with, rather than for, stakeholders have been answered in nonmodellingscience. Notwithstanding progress in modelling literature, however, very little of the scenario spacetraces back to what stakeholders are ultimately concerned about. With a suite of eleven integrated assessment,energy system and sectoralmodels, we carry out amodel inter-comparison for the EU, the scenario logic and researchquestions of which have been formulated based on stakeholders' concerns. The output of this process is ascenario framework exploring where the region is headed rather than how to achieve its goals, extrapolating itscurrent policy efforts into the future. We find that Europe is currently on track to overperforming its pre-202040% target yet far from its newest ambition of 55% emissions cuts by 2030, as well as looking at a 1.0–2.35 GtCO2 emissions range in 2050. Aside from the importance of transport electrification, deployment levels of carboncapture and storage are found intertwined with deeper emissions cuts and with hydrogen diffusion, withmost hydrogen produced post-2040 being blue. Finally, the multi-model exercise has highlighted benefitsfrom deeper decarbonisation in terms of energy security and jobs, and moderate to high renewablesdominatedinvestment needs.

Governments worldwide have agreed that international climate policy should aim to limit the increase of global mean temperature to less than 2oC with respect to pre-industrial levels. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the emission reductions and related energy system changes in various countries in pathways consistent with the 2oC target. We synthesize and provide an overview of the national and regional information contained in different scenarios from various global models published over the last few years, as well as yet unpublished scenarios submitted by modelling teams participating in the MILES project (Modelling and Informing Low-Emission Strategies). We find that emissions in the mitigation scenarios are significantly reduced in all regions compared to the baseline without climate policies. The regional cumulative CO2 emissions show on average a 76% reduction between the baseline and 450 scenario. The 450 scenarios show a reduction of primary energy demand in all countries of roughly 30-40% compared to the baseline. In the baseline scenario, the contribution of low-carbon energy technology remains around 15%, i.e. similar as today. In the mitigation scenario, these numbers are scaled up rapidly towards 2050. Looking at air quality, sulphur dioxide and black carbon emissions are strongly reduced as a co-benefit of greenhouse gas emission reductions, in both developing and developed countries. However, black carbon emissions increase in countries that strongly rely on bioenergy to reach mitigation targets. Concerning energy security, energy importing countries generally experience a decrease in net-energy imports in mitigation scenarios compared to the baseline development, while energy exporters experience a loss of energy export revenues.