Climate policy/Policy issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* Slightly postponing mitigation action (the potential Copenhagen scenario) compared to the least-cost scenario seems technically feasible, although at higher cumulative discounted mitigation costs; | * Slightly postponing mitigation action (the potential Copenhagen scenario) compared to the least-cost scenario seems technically feasible, although at higher cumulative discounted mitigation costs; | ||
* For an even longer delay (the current Copenhagen scenario), the [[FAIR-SiMCaP model]] cannot fully compensate the higher emission level in the short term; | * For an even longer delay (the current Copenhagen scenario), the [[FAIR-SiMCaP model]] cannot fully compensate the higher emission level in the short term; | ||
* A delay in emission reductions limits the flexibility in the portfolio of emission reduction options. Such delayed scenarios rely more on the use of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage ([[ | * A delay in emission reductions limits the flexibility in the portfolio of emission reduction options. Such delayed scenarios rely more on the use of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage ([[HasAcronym::ECCS]]), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:49, 10 December 2013
Parts of Climate policy/Policy issues
