Andy Reisinger

Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation.

For more than a decade, the target of keeping global warming below 2 °C has been a key focus of the international climate debate. In response, the scientific community has published a number of scenario studies that estimate the costs of achieving such a target. Producing these estimates remains a challenge, particularly because of relatively well known, but poorly quantified, uncertainties, and owing to limited integration of scientific knowledge across disciplines. The integrated assessment community, on the one hand, has extensively assessed the influence of technological and socio-economic uncertainties on low-carbon scenarios and associated costs. The climate modelling community, on the other hand, has spent years improving its understanding of the geophysical response of the Earth system to emissions of greenhouse gases. This geophysical response remains a key uncertainty in the cost of mitigation scenarios but has been integrated with assessments of other uncertainties in only a rudimentary manner, that is, for equilibrium conditions. Here we bridge this gap between the two research communities by generating distributions of the costs associated with limiting transient global temperature increase to below specific values, taking into account uncertainties in four factors: geophysical, technological, social and political. We find that political choices that delay mitigation have the largest effect on the cost–risk distribution, followed by geophysical uncertainties, social factors influencing future energy demand and, lastly, technological uncertainties surrounding the availability of greenhouse gas mitigation options. Our information on temperature risk and mitigation costs provides crucial information for policy-making, because it clarifies the relative importance of mitigation costs, energy demand and the timing of global action in reducing the risk of exceeding a global temperature increase of 2 °C, or other limits such as 3 °C or 1.5 °C, across a wide range of scenarios.

Future changes in global warming potentials under representative concentration pathways

Global warming potentials (GWPs) are the metrics currently used to compare emissions of different greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Future changes in greenhouse gas concentrations will alter GWPs because the radiative efficiencies of marginal changes in CO2, CH4 and N2O depend on their background concentrations, the removal of CO2 is influenced by climate–carbon cycle feedbacks, and atmospheric residence times of CH4 and N2O also depend on ambient temperature and other environmental changes. We calculated the currently foreseeable future changes in the absolute GWP of CO2, which acts as the denominator for the calculation of all GWPs, and specifically the GWPs of CH4 and N2O, along four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) up to the year 2100. We find that the absolute GWP of CO2 decreases under all RCPs, although for longer time horizons this decrease is smaller than for short time horizons due to increased climate–carbon cycle feedbacks. The 100-year GWP of CH4 would increase up to 20% under the lowest RCP by 2100 but would decrease by up to 10% by mid-century under the highest RCP. The 100-year GWP of N2O would increase by more than 30% by 2100 under the highest RCP but would vary by less than 10% under other scenarios. These changes are not negligible but are mostly smaller than the changes that would result from choosing a different time horizon for GWPs, or from choosing altogether different metrics for comparing greenhouse gas emissions, such as global temperature change potentials.

Broader perspectives for comparing different greenhouse gases

Over the last 20 years, different greenhouse gases have been compared, in the context of climate change, primarily through the concept of global warming potentials (GWPs). This considers the climate forcing caused by pulse emissions and integrated over a fixed time horizon. Recent studies have shown that uncertainties in GWP values are significantly larger than previously thought and, while past literature in this area has raised alternative means of comparison, there is not yet any clear alternative. We propose that a broader framework for comparing greenhouse gases has become necessary and that this cannot be addressed by using simple fixed exchange rates. From a policy perspective, the framework needs to be clearly aligned with the goal of climate stabilization, and we show that comparisons between gases can be better addressed in this context by the forcing equivalence index (FEI). From a science perspective, a framework for comparing greenhouse gases should also consider the full range of processes that affect atmospheric composition and how these may alter for climate stabilization at different levels. We cover a basis for a broader approach to comparing greenhouse gases by summarizing the uncertainties in GWPs, linking those to uncertainties in the FEIs consistent with stabilization, and then to a framework for addressing uncertainties in the corresponding biogeochemical processes.

Mitigation choices impact carbon budget size compatible with low temperature goals

Global-mean temperature increase is roughly proportional to cumulative emissions of carbon-dioxide (CO2). Limiting global warming to any level thus implies a finite CO2 budget. Due to geophysical uncertainties, the size of such budgets can only be expressed in probabilistic terms and is further influenced by non-CO2 emissions. We here explore how societal choices related to energy demand and specific mitigation options influence the size of carbon budgets for meeting a given temperature objective. We find that choices that exclude specific CO2 mitigation technologies (like Carbon Capture and Storage) result in greater costs, smaller compatible CO2 budgets until 2050, but larger CO2 budgets until 2100. Vice versa, choices that lead to a larger CO2 mitigation potential result in CO2 budgets until 2100 that are smaller but can be met at lower costs.In most cases, these budget variations can be explained by the amount of non-CO2 mitigation that is carried out in conjunction wih CO2, and associated global carbon prices that also drive mitigation of non-CO2 gases. Budget variations are of the order of 10% round their central value. In all cases, limiting warming to below 2 degrees C thus still implies that CO2 emissions need to be reduced raidly in the coming decades.

Dynamic adaptive pathways in downscaled climate change scenarios

The parallel scenario process enables characterization of climate-related risks and response options to climate change under different socio-economic futures and development prospects. The process is based on representative concentration pathways, shared socio-economic pathways, and shared policy assumptions. Although this scenario architecture is a powerful tool for evaluating the intersection of climate and society at the regional and global level, more specific context is needed to explore and understand risks, drivers, and enablers of change at the national and local level. We discuss the need for a stronger recognition of such national-scale characteristics to make climate change scenarios more relevant at the national and local scale, and propose ways to enrich the scenario architecture with locally relevant details that enhance salience, legitimacy, and credibility for stakeholders. Dynamic adaptive pathways are introduced as useful tools to draw out which elements of a potentially infinite scenario space connect with decision-relevant aspects of particular climate-related and non-climate-related risks and response options. Reviewing adaptation pathways for New Zealand case studies, we demonstrate how this approach could bring the global-scale scenario architecture within reach of local-scale decision-making. Such a process would enhance the utility of scenarios for mapping climate-related risks and adaptation options at the local scale, involving appropriate stakeholder involvement.