Potential and limitations of bioenergy options for low carbon transitions

Sustaining low CO2 emission pathways to 2100 may rely on electricity production from biomass. We analyze the effect of the availability of biomass resources and technologies with and without carbon capture and storage within a general equilibrium framework. Biomass technologies are introduced into the electricity module of the hybrid general equilibrium model Imaclim-R. We assess the robustness of this technology, with and without carbon capture and storage, as a way of reaching the RCP 3.7 stabilization target. The impact of a uniform CO2 tax on energy prices, investments and the structure of the electricity mix is examined. World GDP growth is affected by the absence of the CCS or biomass options, and biomass is shown to be a possible technological answer to the absence of CCS. As the use of biomass on a large scale might prove unsustainable, we illustrate early action as a strategy to reduce the need for biomass and enhance economic growth in the long term.La poursuite des trajectoires de faible émission de CO2 à l'horizon 2100 peut dépendre de la production d'électricité à partir de la biomasse. Nous analysons l'effet de la disponibilité des ressources et des technologies de la biomasse avec et sans capture et stockage de carbone dans un cadre d'équilibre général. Les technologies de la biomasse sont introduites dans le module électricité du modèle d'équilibre général Imaclim-R. Nous évaluons la robustesse de cette technologie avec et sans capture et stockage de carbone, comme moyen d'atteindre l'objectif de stabilisation RCP 3.7. L'impact d'une taxe carbone uniforme sur les prix de l'énergie, les investissements et la structure du mix électricité est examiné. La croissance du PIB mondial est affectée par l'absence des options du CSC ou de la biomasse, et la biomasse apparait comme une réponse technologique à l'absence du CSC. Dans la mesure où l'utilisation de la biomasse à grande échelle peut s'avérer comme non soutenable, nous illustrons l'action précoce comme une stratégie de réduction des besoins de biomasse et d'amélioration de la croissance économique à long terme

Integrated perspective on translating biophysical to economic impacts of climate change

Estimates of climate change’s economic impacts vary widely, depending on the applied methodology. This uncertainty is a barrier for policymakers seeking to quantify the benefits of mitigation. In this Perspective, we provide a comprehensive overview and categorization of the pathways and methods translating biophysical impacts into economic damages. We highlight the open question of the persistence of impacts as well as key methodological gaps, in particular the effect of including inequality and adaptation in the assessments. We discuss the need for intensifying interdisciplinary research, focusing on the uncertainty of econometric estimates of damages as well as identification of the most socioeconomically relevant types of impact. A structured model intercomparison related to economic impacts is noted as a crucial next step

CO2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: Dynamic and international aspects of climate policies

This paper explores a multi-model scenario ensemble to assess the impacts of idealized and non-idealized climate change stabilization policies on fossil fuel markets. Under idealized conditions climate policies significantly reduce coal use in the short- and long-term. Reductions in oil and gas use are much smaller, particularly until 2030, but revenues decrease much more because oil and gas prices are higher than coal prices. A first deviation from optimal transition pathways is delayed action that relaxes global emission targets until 2030 in accordance with the Copenhagen pledges. Fossil fuel markets revert back to the no-policy case: though coal use increases strongest, revenue gains are higher for oil and gas. To balance the carbon budget over the 21st century, the long-term reallocation of fossil fuels is significantly larger—twice and more—than the short-term distortion. This amplifying effect results from coal lock-in and inter-fuel substitution effects to balance the full-century carbon budget. The second deviation from the optimal transition pathway relaxes the global participation assumption. The result here is less clear-cut across models, as we find carbon leakage effects ranging from positive to negative because trade and substitution patterns of coal, oil, and gas differ across models. In summary, distortions of fossil fuel markets resulting from relaxed short-term global emission targets are more important and less uncertain than the issue of carbon leakage from early mover action

Locked into Copenhagen pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals

This paper provides an overview of the AMPERE modeling comparison project with focus on the implications of near-term policies for the costs and attainability of long-term climate objectives. Nine modeling teams participated in the project to explore the consequences of global emissions following the proposed policy stringency of the national pledges from the Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements to 2030. Specific features compared to earlier assessments are the explicit consideration of near-term 2030 emission targets as well as the systematic sensitivity analysis for the availability and potential of mitigation technologies. Our estimates show that a 2030 mitigation effort comparable to the pledges would result in a further “lock-in” of the energy system into fossil fuels and thus impede the required energy transformation to reach low greenhouse-gas stabilization levels (450 ppm CO2e). Major implications include significant increases in mitigation costs, increased risk that low stabilization targets become unattainable, and reduced chances of staying below the proposed temperature change target of 2 °C in case of overshoot. With respect to technologies, we find that following the pledge pathways to 2030 would narrow policy choices, and increases the risks that some currently optional technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or the large-scale deployment of bioenergy, will become “a must” by 2030

Social disparities in food preparation behaviours: a DEDIPAC study

BACKGROUND: The specific role of major socio-economic indicators in influencing food preparation behaviours could reveal distinct socio-economic patterns, thus enabling mechanisms to be understood that contribute to social inequalities in health. This study investigated whether there was an independent association of each socio-economic indicator (education, occupation, income) with food preparation behaviours. METHODS: A total of 62,373 adults participating in the web-based NutriNet-Santé cohort study were included in our cross-sectional analyses. Cooking skills, preparation from scratch and kitchen equipment were assessed using a 0-10-point score; frequency of meal preparation, enjoyment of cooking and willingness to cook better/more frequently were categorical variables. Independent associations between socio-economic factors (education, income and occupation) and food preparation behaviours were assessed using analysis of covariance and logistic regression models stratified by sex. The models simultaneously included the three socio-economic indicators, adjusting for age, household composition and whether or not they were the main cook in the household. RESULTS: Participants with the lowest education, the lowest income group and female manual and office workers spent more time preparing food daily than participants with the highest education, those with the highest income and managerial staff (P < 0.0001). The lowest educated individuals were more likely to be non-cooks than those with the highest education level (Women: OR = 3.36 (1.69;6.69); Men: OR = 1.83 (1.07;3.16)) while female manual and office workers and the never-employed were less likely to be non-cooks (OR = 0.52 (0.28;0.97); OR = 0.30 (0.11;0.77)). Female manual and office workers had lower scores of preparation from scratch and were less likely to want to cook more frequently than managerial staff (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Women belonging to the lowest income group had a lower score of kitchen equipment (P < 0.0001) and were less likely to enjoy cooking meal daily (OR = 0.68 (0.45;0.86)) than those with the highest income. CONCLUSION: Lowest socio-economic groups, particularly women, spend more time preparing food than high socioeconomic groups. However, female manual and office workers used less raw or fresh ingredients to prepare meals than managerial staff. In the unfavourable context in France with reduced time spent preparing meals over last decades, our findings showed socioeconomic disparities in food preparation behaviours in women, whereas few differences were observed in men