James McFarland

Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change

Reducing risks of severe outcomes and improving chances of limiting warming to 2°C Current international climate negotiations seek to catalyze global emissions reductions through a system of nationally determined country-level emissions reduction targets that would be regularly updated. These “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) would constitute the core of mitigation commitments under any agreement struck at the upcoming Paris Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1). With INDCs now reported from more than 150 countries and covering around 90% of global emissions, we can begin to assess the role of this round of INDCs in facilitating or frustrating achievement of longer-term climate goals. In this context, it is important to understand what these INDCs collectively deliver in terms of two objectives. First, how much do they reduce the probability of the highest levels of global mean surface temperature change? Second, how much do they improve the odds of achieving the international goal of limiting temperature change to under 2°C relative to preindustrial levels (2)? Although much discussion has focused on the latter objective (3–5), the former is equally important when viewing climate mitigation from a risk-management perspective.

The contribution of Paris to limit global warming to 2 °C

The international community has set a goal to limit global warming to 2 °C. Limiting global warming to 2 °C is a challenging goal and will entail a dramatic transformation of the global energy system, largely complete by 2040. As part of the work toward this goal, countries have been submitting their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, indicating their emissions reduction commitments through 2025 or 2030, in advance of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in December 2015. In this paper, we use the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) to analyze the near versus long-term energy and economic-cost implications of these INDCs. The INDCs imply near-term actions that reduce the level of mitigation needed in the post-2030 period, particularly when compared with an alternative path in which nations are unable to undertake emissions mitigation until after 2030. We find that the latter case could require up to 2300 GW of premature retirements of fossil fuel power plants and up to 2900 GW of additional low-carbon power capacity installations within a five-year period of 2031–2035. INDCs have the effect of reducing premature retirements and new-capacity installations after 2030 by 50% and 34%, respectively. However, if presently announced INDCs were strengthened to achieve greater near-term emissions mitigation, the 2031–2035 transformation could be tempered to require 84% fewer premature retirements of power generation capacity and 56% fewer new-capacity additions. Our results suggest that the INDCs delivered for COP21 in Paris will have important contributions in reducing the challenges of achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 2 °C.

Technology and U.S. Emissions Reductions Goals: Results of the EMF 24 Modeling Exercise

This paper discusses Technology and U.S. Emissions Reductions Goals: Results of the EMF 24 Modeling Exercise

Climate change impacts on US agriculture and forestry: benefits of global climate stabilization

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change Division (Contract EP-BPA-12-H-0023, Call Order EP-B13H-00143)

POLICY INSIGHTS FROM THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS

The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum exercise 32 (EMF 32) used 11 different models to assess emissions, energy, and economic outcomes from a plausible range of economy-wide carbon price policies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States. Here we discuss the most policy-relevant results of the study, mindful of the strengths and weaknesses of current models. Across all models, carbon prices lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and conventional pollutants, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity sector. Importantly, emissions reductions do not significantly depend on the rebate or tax cut used to return revenues to the economy. Expected economic costs, as modeled by either GDP or welfare, are modest, but vary across models. These costs are offset by benefits from avoided climate damages and health benefits from reductions in conventional air pollution. Using revenues to reduce preexisting capital or labor taxes reduces costs in most models relative to lump-sum rebates, but the size of the cost reductions varies significantly. Devoting at least some revenue to household rebates can significantly reduce adverse impacts on low income households. Carbon prices at

Evaluating the effects of climate change on US agricultural systems: sensitivity to regional impact and trade expansion scenarios

25/ton or even lower levels cause significant shifts away from coal as an energy source with responses of other energy sources highly dependent upon technology cost assumptions. Beyond 2030, we conclude that model uncertainties are too large to make quantitative results useful for near-term policy design. We close by describing recommendations for policymakers on interacting with model results in the future.

Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model

Agriculture is one of the sectors that is expected to be most significantly impacted by climate change. There has been considerable interest in assessing these impacts and many recent studies investigating agricultural impacts for individual countries and regions using an array of models. However, the great majority of existing studies explore impacts on a country or region of interest without explicitly accounting for impacts on the rest of the world. This approach can bias the results of impact assessments for agriculture given the importance of global trade in this sector. Due to potential impacts on relative competitiveness, international trade, global supply, and prices, the net impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector in each region depend not only on productivity impacts within that region, but on how climate change impacts agricultural productivity throughout the world. In this study, we apply a global model of agriculture and forestry to evaluate climate change impacts on US agriculture with and without accounting for climate change impacts in the rest of the world. In addition, we examine scenarios where trade is expanded to explore the implications for regional allocation of production, trade volumes, and prices. To our knowledge, this is one of the only attempts to explicitly quantify the relative importance of accounting for global climate change when conducting regional assessments of climate change impacts. The results of our analyses reveal substantial differences in estimated impacts on the US agricultural sector when accounting for global impacts vs. US-only impacts, particularly for commodities where the United States has a smaller share of global production. In addition, we find that freer trade can play an important role in helping to buffer regional productivity shocks.