A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation

While cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions dominate anthropogenic warming over centuries, temperatures over the coming decades are also strongly affected by short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), complicating the estimation of cumulative emission budgets for ambitious mitigation goals. Using conventional Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) to convert SLCPs to “CO2-equivalent” emissions misrepresents their impact on global temperature. Here we show that peak warming under a range of mitigation scenarios is determined by a linear combination of cumulative CO2 emissions to the time of peak warming and non-CO2 radiative forcing immediately prior to that time. This may be understood by expressing aggregate non-CO2 forcing as cumulative CO2 forcing-equivalent (CO2-fe) emissions. We show further that contributions to CO2-fe emissions are well approximated by a new usage of GWP, denoted GWP*, which relates cumulative CO2 emissions to date with the current rate of emission of SLCPs. GWP* accurately indicates the impact of emissions of both long-lived and short-lived pollutants on radiative forcing and temperatures over a wide range of timescales, including under ambitious mitigation when conventional GWPs fail. Measured by GWP*,implementing the Paris Agreement would reduce the expected rate of warming in 2030 by 28% relative to a No Policy scenario. Expressing mitigation efforts in terms of their impact on future cumulative emissions aggregated using GWP* would relate them directly to contributions to future warming, better informing both burden-sharing discussions and long-term policies and measures in pursuit of ambitious global temperature goals

A review of challenges with using the natural gas system for hydrogen

Publication status: PublishedAbstractHydrogen, as an energy carrier, is attractive to many stakeholders based on the assumption that the extensive global network of natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed to transport hydrogen as part of a zero‐carbon energy future. Therefore, utility companies and governments are rapidly advancing efforts to pilot blending low‐carbon hydrogen into existing natural gas systems, many with the goal of eventually shifting to pure hydrogen. However, hydrogen has fundamentally different physical and chemical properties to natural gas, with major consequences for safety, energy supply, climate, and cost. We evaluate the suitability of using existing natural gas infrastructure for distribution of hydrogen. We summarize differences between hydrogen and natural gas, assess the latest science and engineering of each component of the natural gas value chain for hydrogen distribution, and discuss proposed solutions for building an effective hydrogen value chain. We find that every value chain component is challenged by reuse. Hydrogen blending can circumvent many challenges but offers only a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to hydrogen's low volumetric energy density. Furthermore, a transition to pure hydrogen is not possible without significant retrofits and replacements. Even if technical and economic barriers are overcome, serious safety and environmental risks remain.</jats:p

Climate policy for short- and long-lived pollutants

ISSN:1758-679

Carbon Footprint: Concept, Methodology and Calculation

Carbon footprint (CF) is nowadays one of the most widely used environmental indicators and calculations of CF have been recently in very high demand. Many approaches, methodologies and tools, from simplified online calculators to other more scientific and complex life-cycle based methods, have been developed and are available for estimations. CF evaluations are, in general, focused on products and organizations, but calculation approach have been developed also for specific themes/sectors, such as for instance cities, individuals, households, farms, etc. This chapter is aimed at giving an updated and comprehensive overview on the concept of CF, and also on methodologies, technical standards, protocols and tools for its calculation. Attention is focused on the two main and usual scopes of CF assessment, i.e. products and organizations, but also on other relevant specific study subjects, also discussing methodological differences and issues.5n