A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C – trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal
Mitigation scenarios to limit global warming to 1.5 °C or less in 2100 often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which carry significant potential social, environmental, political and economic risks. A precautionary approach to scenario creation is therefore indicated. This letter presents the results of such a precautionary modelling exercise in which the models C-ROADS and En-ROADS were used to generate a series of 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios that apply increasingly stringent constraints on the scale and type of CDR available. This allows us to explore the trade-offs between near-term stringency of emission reductions and assumptions about future availability of CDR. In particular, we find that regardless of CDR assumptions, near-term ambition increase (‘ratcheting’) is required for any 1.5 °C pathway, making this letter timely for the facilitative, or Talanoa, dialogue to be conducted by the UNFCCC in 2018. By highlighting the difference between net and gross reduction rates, often obscured in scenarios, we find that mid-term gross CO _2 emission reduction rates in scenarios with CDR constraints increase to levels without historical precedence. This in turn highlights, in addition to the need to substantially increase CO _2 reduction rates, the need to improve emission reductions for non-CO _2 greenhouse gases. Further, scenarios in which all or part of the CDR is implemented as non-permanent storage exhibit storage loss emissions, which partly offset CDR, highlighting the importance of differentiating between net and gross CDR in scenarios. We find in some scenarios storage loss trending to similar values as gross CDR, indicating that gross CDR would have to be maintained simply to offset the storage losses of CO _2 sequestered earlier, without any additional net climate benefit.
Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C – trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal
Mitigation scenarios to limit global warming to 1.5 °C or less in 2100 often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which carry significant potential social, environmental, political and economic risks. A precautionary approach to scenario creation is therefore indicated. This letter presents the results of such a precautionary modelling exercise in which the models C-ROADS and En-ROADS were used to generate a series of 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios that apply increasingly stringent constraints on the scale and type of CDR available. This allows us to explore the trade-offs between near-term stringency of emission reductions and assumptions about future availability of CDR. In particular, we find that regardless of CDR assumptions, near-term ambition increase (‘ratcheting’) is required for any 1.5 °C pathway, making this letter timely for the facilitative, or Talanoa, dialogue to be conducted by the UNFCCC in 2018. By highlighting the difference between net and gross reduction rates, often obscured in scenarios, we find that mid-term gross CO _2 emission reduction rates in scenarios with CDR constraints increase to levels without historical precedence. This in turn highlights, in addition to the need to substantially increase CO _2 reduction rates, the need to improve emission reductions for non-CO _2 greenhouse gases. Further, scenarios in which all or part of the CDR is implemented as non-permanent storage exhibit storage loss emissions, which partly offset CDR, highlighting the importance of differentiating between net and gross CDR in scenarios. We find in some scenarios storage loss trending to similar values as gross CDR, indicating that gross CDR would have to be maintained simply to offset the storage losses of CO _2 sequestered earlier, without any additional net climate benefit.
Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C – trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal
Ceecee Holz (author) / Lori S Siegel (author) / Eleanor Johnston (author) / Andrew P Jones (author) / John Sterman (author)
2018
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Trade-Offs between Sugarcane Straw Removal and Soil Organic Matter in Brazil
| DOAJ | 2020
The 55 MPH speed limit: costs, benefits, and implied trade-offs
| Elsevier | 1982
Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation
| DOAJ | 2023
| TIBKAT | 2011