Early retirement of power plants in climate mitigation scenarios

International efforts to avoid dangerous climate change aim for large and rapid reductions of fossil fuel CO2 emissions worldwide, including nearly complete decarbonization of the electric power sector. However, achieving such rapid reductions may depend on early retirement of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. Here, we analyze future fossil fuel electricity demand in 171 energy-emissions scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), evaluating the implicit retirements and/or reduced operation of generating infrastructure. Although IAMs calculate retirements endogenously, the structure and methods of each model differ; we use a standard approach to infer retirements in outputs from all six major IAMs and—unlike the IAMs themselves—we begin with the age distribution and region-specific operating capacities of the existing power fleet. We find that coal-fired power plants in scenarios consistent with international climate targets (i.e. keeping global warming well-below 2 °C or 1.5 °C) retire one to three decades earlier than historically has been the case. If plants are built to meet projected fossil electricity demand and instead allowed to operate at the level and over the lifetimes they have historically, the roughly 200 Gt CO2 of additional emissions this century would be incompatible with keeping global warming well-below 2 °C. Thus, ambitious climate mitigation scenarios entail drastic, and perhaps un-appreciated, changes in the operating and/or retirement schedules of power infrastructure

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?

To keep global warming possibly below 1.5◦C and mitigate adverse effects of climate change, agriculture, like all other sectors, will have to contribute to efforts in achieving net negative emissions by the end of the century. Cost-efficient distribution of mitigation across regions and economic sectors is typically calculated using a global uniform carbon price in climate stabilization scenarios. However, in reality such a carbon price would substantially affect food availability. Here, we assess the implications of climate change mitigation in the land use sector for agricultural production and food security using an integrated partial equilibrium modelling framework and explore ways of relaxing the competition between mitigation in agriculture and food availability. Using a scenario that limits global warming cost-efficiently across sectors to 1.5◦C, results indicate global food calorie losses ranging from 110–285 kcal per capita per day in 2050 depending on the applied demand elasticities. This could translate into a rise in undernourishment of 80–300 million people in 2050. Less ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in the land use sector reduces the associated food security impact significantly, however the 1.5◦C target would not be achieved without additional reductions outside the land use sector. Efficiency of GHG mitigation will also depend on the level of participation globally. Our results show that if non-Annex-I countries decide not to contribute to mitigation action while other parties pursue their mitigation efforts to reach the global climate target, food security impacts in these non-Annex-I countries will be higher than if they participate in a global agreement, as inefficient mitigation increases agricultural production costs and therefore food prices. Land-rich countries with a high proportion of emissions from land use change, such as Brazil, could reduce emissions with only a marginal effect on food availability. In contrast, agricultural mitigation in high population (density) countries, such as China and India, would lead to substantial food calorie loss without a major contribution to global GHG mitigation. Increasing soil carbon sequestration on agricultural land would allow reducing the implied calorie loss by 65% when sticking to the initially estimated land use mitigation requirements, thereby limiting the impact on undernourishment to 20–75 million people, and storing significant amounts of carbon in soils

Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world

Acknowledgements The analysis in this study was guided by the valuable feedback and recommendations of expert consultations and interviews, and we extend our gratitude to all those individuals who contributed to our research and analysis: Jeff Atkins (Virginia Commonwealth University), Jonah Busch (Earth Innovation Institute), Peter Ellis (The Nature Conservancy), Jason Funk (Center for Carbon Removal), Trisha Gopalakrishna (The Nature Conservancy), Alan Kroeger (Climate Focus), Bernice Lee (Chatham House), Donna Lee (Climate and Land Use Alliance), Simon Lewis (University College London), Guy Lomax (The Nature Conservancy), Dann Mitchell (University of Bristol), Raoni Rajão (University of Minas Gerais), Joeri Rogelj (IIASA), Carl-Friedrich Schleussner (Climate Analytics), Paul West (University of Minnesota), Graham Wynne (Prince of Wales International Sustainability Unit), Ana Yang (Children’s Investment Fund Foundation) and Dan Zarin (Climate and Land Use Alliance). A special thank you to Esther Chak and Mary-Jo Valentino (Imaginary Office) for designing the figures in this study. This work was generously supported by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and the authors’ institutions and funding sources.Peer reviewedPostprin

Assessing the Feasibility of Global Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios

This study explores the critical notion of how feasible it is to achieve long-term mitigation goals to limit global temperature change. It uses a model inter-comparison of three integrated assessment models (TIAM-Grantham, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM and WITCH) harmonized for socio-economic growth drivers using one of the new shared socio-economic pathways (SSP2), to analyse multiple mitigation scenarios aimed at different temperature changes in 2100, in order to assess the model outputs against a range of indicators developed so as to systematically compare the feasibility across scenarios. These indicators include mitigation costs and carbon prices, rates of emissions reductions and energy efficiency improvements, rates of deployment of key low-carbon technologies, reliance on negative emissions, and stranding of power generation assets. The results highlight how much more challenging the 2 °C goal is, when compared to the 2.5–4 °C goals, across virtually all measures of feasibility. Any delay in mitigation or limitation in technology options also renders the 2 °C goal much less feasible across the economic and technical dimensions explored. Finally, a sensitivity analysis indicates that aiming for less than 2 °C is even less plausible, with significantly higher mitigation costs and faster carbon price increases, significantly faster decarbonization and zero-carbon technology deployment rates, earlier occurrence of very significant carbon capture and earlier onset of global net negative emissions. Such a systematic analysis allows a more in-depth consideration of what realistic level of long-term temperature changes can be achieved and what adaptation strategies are therefore required

Energy system developments and investments in the decisive decade for the Paris Agreement goals

The Paris Agreement does not only stipulate to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C, it also calls for 'making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions'. Consequently, there is an urgent need to understand the implications of climate targets for energy systems and quantify the associated investment requirements in the coming decade. A meaningful analysis must however consider the near-term mitigation requirements to avoid the overshoot of a temperature goal. It must also include the recently observed fast technological progress in key mitigation options. Here, we use a new and unique scenario ensemble that limit peak warming by construction and that stems from seven up-to-date integrated assessment models. This allows us to study the near-term implications of different limits to peak temperature increase under a consistent and up-to-date set of assumptions. We find that ambitious immediate action allows for limiting median warming outcomes to well below 2 °C in all models. By contrast, current nationally determined contributions for 2030 would add around 0.2 °C of peak warming, leading to an unavoidable transgression of 1.5 °C in all models, and 2 °C in some. In contrast to the incremental changes as foreseen by current plans, ambitious peak warming targets require decisive emission cuts until 2030, with the most substantial contribution to decarbonization coming from the power sector. Therefore, investments into low-carbon power generation need to increase beyond current levels to meet the Paris goals, especially for solar and wind technologies and related system enhancements for electricity transmission, distribution and storage. Estimates on absolute investment levels, up-scaling of other low-carbon power generation technologies and investment shares in less ambitious scenarios vary considerably across models. In scenarios limiting peak warming to below 2 °C, while coal is phased out quickly, oil and gas are still being used significantly until 2030, albeit at lower than current levels. This requires continued investments into existing oil and gas infrastructure, but investments into new fields in such scenarios might not be needed. The results show that credible and effective policy action is essential for ensuring efficient allocation of investments aligned with medium-term climate targets

Taking some heat off the NDCs? The limited potential of additional short-lived climate forcers’ mitigation

Several studies have shown that the greenhouse gas reduction resulting from the current nationally determined contributions (NDCs) will not be enough to meet the overall targets of the Paris Climate Agreement. It has been suggested that more ambition mitigations of short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) emissions could potentially be a way to reduce the risk of overshooting the 1.5 or 2 °C target in a cost-effective way. In this study, we employ eight state-of-the-art integrated assessment models (IAMs) to examine the global temperature effects of ambitious reductions of methane, black and organic carbon, and hydrofluorocarbon emissions. The SLCFs measures considered are found to add significantly to the effect of the NDCs on short-term global mean temperature (GMT) (in the year 2040: − 0.03 to − 0.15 °C) and on reducing the short-term rate-of-change (by − 2 to 15%), but only a small effect on reducing the maximum temperature change before 2100. This, because later in the century under assumed ambitious climate policy, SLCF mitigation is maximized, either directly or indirectly due to changes in the energy system. All three SLCF groups can contribute to achieving GMT changes

Land-based measures to mitigate climate change : potential and feasibility by country

Acknowledgements The design of this study and the data generated was guided by expert consultations and relied on the help of many. We thank all those who contributed: Sierra Gladfelter, Jo House, Mercedes Bustamante, Susan Cook-Patton, Sara Leavitt, Nick Wolff, and Thomas Worthington. We thank M.-J. Valentino at Imaginary Office for helping to design the first three figures. This work was supported by the authors’ institutions and funding sources, including the Climate and Land-use Alliance, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality, and the EU H2020 projects VERIFY and ENGAGE (grant agreement no. 821471).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Air quality and health implications of 1.5–2°C climate pathways under considerations of ageing population: A multi-model scenario analysis

Low-carbon pathways consistent with the 2°C and 1.5°C long-term climate goals defined in the Paris Agreement are likely to induce substantial co-benefits for air pollution and associated health impacts. In this analysis, using five global integrated assessment models, we quantify the emission reductions in key air pollutants resulting from the decarbonization of energy systems and the resulting changes in premature mortality attributed to the exposure to ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter. The emission reductions differ by sectors. Sulfur emissions are mainly reduced from power plants and industry, cuts in nitrogen oxides are dominated by the transport sector, and the largest abatement of primary fine particles is achieved in the residential sector. The analysis also shows that health benefits are the largest when policies addressing climate change mitigation and stringent air pollution controls are coordinated. We decompose the key factors that determine the extent of health co-benefits, focusing on Asia: changes in emissions, urbanization rates, population growth and ageing. Demographic processes, particularly due to ageing population, counteract in many regions the mortality reductions realized through lower emissions

The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century

AbstractStudies of global environmental change make extensive use of scenarios to explore how the future can evolve under a consistent set of assumptions. The recently developed Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) create a framework for the study of climate-related scenario outcomes. Their five narratives span a wide range of worlds that vary in their challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Here we provide background on the quantification that has been selected to serve as the reference, or ‘marker’, implementation for SSP2. The SSP2 narrative describes a middle-of-the-road development in the mitigation and adaptation challenges space. We explain how the narrative has been translated into quantitative assumptions in the IIASA Integrated Assessment Modelling Framework. We show that our SSP2 marker implementation occupies a central position for key metrics along the mitigation and adaptation challenge dimensions. For many dimensions the SSP2 marker implementation also reflects an extension of the historical experience, particularly in terms of carbon and energy intensity improvements in its baseline. This leads to a steady emissions increase over the 21st century, with projected end-of-century warming nearing 4°C relative to preindustrial levels. On the other hand, SSP2 also shows that global-mean temperature increase can be limited to below 2°C, pending stringent climate policies throughout the world. The added value of the SSP2 marker implementation for the wider scientific community is that it can serve as a starting point to further explore integrated solutions for achieving multiple societal objectives in light of the climate adaptation and mitigation challenges that society could face over the 21st century