Lavinia Baumstark
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Lavinia Baumstark.
Archive | 2015
Gunnar Luderer; Marian Leimbach; Nico Bauer; Elmar Kriegler; Tino Aboumahboub; Tabaré Arroyo Currás; Lavinia Baumstark; Christoph Bertram; Anastasis Giannousakis; Jérôme Hilaire; David Klein; Ioanna Mouratiadou; Robert C. Pietzcker; Franziska Piontek; Niklas Roming; Anselm Schultes; Valeria Jana Schwanitz; Jessica Strefler
This document describes the REMIND model in its version 1.5. REMIND is an integrated assessment model of the energy-economy-climate system. REMIND stands for “Regional Model of Investments and Development.”
Ecological Economics | 2012
Michael Hübler; Lavinia Baumstark; Marian Leimbach; Ottmar Edenhofer; Nico Bauer
We introduce endogenous directed technical change into numerical integrated climate and development policy assessment. We distinguish expenditures on innovation (R&D) and imitation (international technology spillovers) and consider the role of capital investment in creating and implementing new technologies. Our main contribution is to calibrate and numerically solve the model and to examine the models sensitivity. As an application, we assess a carbon budget-based climate policy and vary the beginning of energy-saving technology transfer. Accordingly, China is a main beneficiary of early technology transfer. Herein, our results highlight the importance of timely international technology transfer for efficiently meeting global emission targets. Most of the consumption gains from endogenous growth are captured in the baseline. Moreover, mitigation costs turn out to be insensitive to changes in most of the parameters of endogenous growth. A higher effectivity of energy-specific relative to labor-specific expenditures on innovation and imitation reduces mitigation costs, though.
Climate and Development | 2015
Michael Jakob; Jan Christoph Steckel; Christian Flachsland; Lavinia Baumstark
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, industrialized countries have agreed to cover the incremental costs of climate change mitigation in developing countries and recent climate negotiations have reaffirmed the central role of climate finance for global mitigation efforts. We use an integrated energy–economy–climate model to assess the potential magnitude of financial transfers to developing countries that can be expected under non-market transfer mechanisms as well as international emission trading with several allocation schemes. Our results indicate that for the latter, depending on international permit allocation rules financial transfers to developing countries could reach almost USD bln 400 per year in 2020, with Sub-Saharan Africa receiving financial inflows of as much as 14.5% of its GDP. Reviewing the literature on natural resource revenues, official development assistance and foreign direct investment, we identify three major channels through which such sizable financial inflows may induce harmful effects for recipients: volatility, Dutch disease, and rent-seeking and corruption. We discuss the relevance of these mechanisms for climate finance and identify institutional arrangements which could help to avoid a ‘climate finance curse’. We conclude that there is no deterministic relationship between financial inflows and adverse consequences, as the most serious problems could be prevented or at least alleviated by appropriately designed policies and governance provisions.
Climate Change Economics | 2014
Tino Aboumahboub; Gunnar Luderer; Elmar Kriegler; Marian Leimbach; Nico Bauer; Michaja Pehl; Lavinia Baumstark
This paper analyzes the results of the climate-energy-economy model, Regionalized Model of Investment and Technological Development (REMIND), to assess the regional costs of climate-change mitigation for reaching the 2°C target with a medium to high likelihood. We assume that the global climate regime remains fragmented until 2020 after which a global mitigation target is adopted. We decompose the regional mitigation costs into (a) domestic and energy trade effects and (b) permit trade effects. Delaying cooperative action affects domestic costs by increasing the energy systems costs as a consequence of lock-in of carbon-intensive infrastructures. This is particularly true in developing countries with low near-term emissions reduction commitments. In a global cap-and-trade system, the effect of delayed action highly depends on whether or not the regions are over- or under-allocated with emissions allowances in the long term. Those with allowances exceeding their long-term emissions will likely benefit from the delay, while others suffer the consequences of higher long-term carbon prices.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A | 2018
Elmar Kriegler; Gunnar Luderer; Nico Bauer; Lavinia Baumstark; Shinichiro Fujimori; Alexander Popp; Joeri Rogelj; Jessica Strefler; Detlef P. van Vuuren
We explore the feasibility of limiting global warming to 1.5°C without overshoot and without the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. For this purpose, we perform a sensitivity analysis of four generic emissions reduction measures to identify a lower bound on future CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes. Final energy demand reductions and electrification of energy end uses as well as decarbonization of electricity and non-electric energy supply are all considered. We find the lower bound of cumulative fossil fuel and industry CO2 emissions to be 570 GtCO2 for the period 2016–2100, around 250 GtCO2 lower than the lower end of available 1.5°C mitigation pathways generated with integrated assessment models. Estimates of 1.5°C-consistent CO2 budgets are highly uncertain and range between 100 and 900 GtCO2 from 2016 onwards. Based on our sensitivity analysis, limiting warming to 1.5°C will require CDR or terrestrial net carbon uptake if 1.5°C-consistent budgets are smaller than 650 GtCO2. The earlier CDR is deployed, the more it neutralizes post-2020 emissions rather than producing net negative emissions. Nevertheless, if the 1.5°C budget is smaller than 550 GtCO2, temporary overshoot of the 1.5°C limit becomes unavoidable if CDR cannot be ramped up faster than to 4 GtCO2 in 2040 and 10 GtCO2 in 2050. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.
Annals of Operations Research | 2017
Marian Leimbach; Anselm Schultes; Lavinia Baumstark; Anastasis Giannousakis; Gunnar Luderer
We present two solution algorithms for a large-scale integrated assessment model of climate change mitigation: the well known Negishi algorithm and a newly developed Nash algorithm. The algorithms are used to calculate the Pareto-optimum and competitive equilibrium, respectively, for the global model that includes trade in a number of goods as an interaction between regions. We demonstrate that in the absence of externalities both algorithms deliver the same solution. The Nash algorithm is computationally much more effective, and scales more favorably with the number of regions. In the presence of externalities between regions the two solutions differ, which we demonstrate by the inclusion of global spillovers from learning-by-doing in the energy sector. The non-cooperative treatment of the spillover externality in the Nash algorithm leads to a delay in the expansion of renewable energy installations compared to the cooperative solution derived using the Negishi algorithm.
Climate Policy | 2018
Anselm Schultes; Marian Leimbach; Gunnar Luderer; Robert C. Pietzcker; Lavinia Baumstark; Nico Bauer; Elmar Kriegler; Ottmar Edenhofer
ABSTRACT Research on low-carbon transformation pathways has focused on carbon pricing as a means for climate stabilization. By contrast, technology policies remain the more prominent national climate policy instruments today: renewable energy subsidies amount to more than US
The Energy Journal | 2010
Ottmar Edenhofer; Brigitte Knopf; Terry Barker; Lavinia Baumstark; Elie Bellevrat; Bertrand Chateau; Patrick Criqui; Morna Isaac; Alban Kitous; Socrates Kypreos; Marian Leimbach; Kai Lessmann; Bertrand Magné; S. Serban Scrieciu; Hal Turton; Detlef P. van Vuuren
100 billion per year globally – more than twice the value of priced carbon in 2016. Given technology spillovers and global learning effects, it remains unclear how technology policies can be coordinated internationally as part of climate stabilization policy. Our study is the first to derive optimal technology and climate policy for the 2C target using an energy-economy-climate model. We show an economic rationale to include an international technology protocol alongside carbon pricing: Cumulative low-carbon subsidies of more than US
Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions | 2017
Keywan Riahi; Detlef P. van Vuuren; Elmar Kriegler; Jae Edmonds; Brian C. O’Neill; Shinichiro Fujimori; Nico Bauer; Katherine Calvin; Rob Dellink; Oliver Fricko; W. Lutz; Alexander Popp; Jesus Crespo Cuaresma; Samir Kc; Marian Leimbach; Leiwen Jiang; Tom Kram; Shilpa Rao; Johannes Emmerling; Kristie L. Ebi; Tomoko Hasegawa; Petr Havlik; Lara Aleluia Da Silva; Steve Smith; Elke Stehfest; Valentina Bosetti; Jiyong Eom; David E.H.J. Gernaat; Toshihiko Masui; Joeri Rogelj
1 trillion from 2020 until the end of the century mainly support solar power as well as electric- and hydrogen-powered passenger vehicles. Higher carbon pricing could replace subsidies at very low cost, but mitigation cost increases from delayed carbon pricing can be reduced only somewhat by stepping up subsidies. Our study suggests that existing low-carbon subsidies must be complemented by full carbon pricing to achieve 2C cost-efficiently: Alongside the optimal carbon price, low-carbon subsidies should amount to no more than ∼6% of the value of priced carbon. Key policy insights International spillovers in low-carbon technologies may slow their deployment. We derive optimal technology and climate policy for 2C in an energy-economy-climate model. Subsidies of more than US
Environmental Modeling & Assessment | 2010
Marian Leimbach; Nico Bauer; Lavinia Baumstark; Ottmar Edenhofer
1 trillion support mainly solar and advanced car technologies. Replacing all subsidies by carbon pricing barely increases mitigation costs.