Climate policy/Policy issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Text replace - "ComponentSubPolicyTemplate" to "ComponentPolicyIssueTemplate") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Status=On hold | |Status=On hold | ||
|Reference=Den Elzen et al., 2007; Den Elzen and van Vuuren, 2007; Van Vliet et al., 2009; Van Vuuren et al., 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2012; European Commission, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Den Elzen et al., 2011b; Den Elzen et al., 2012a; UNEP, 2012; Hof et al., 2013; Höhne et al., 2012; Roelfsema et al., 2013a; Roelfsema et al., 2013b; Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012c; Hof et al., 2012; Den Elzen et al., 2008; Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012b; Van Vliet et al., 2012; | |Reference=Den Elzen et al., 2007; Den Elzen and van Vuuren, 2007; Van Vliet et al., 2009; Van Vuuren et al., 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2012; European Commission, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Den Elzen et al., 2011b; Den Elzen et al., 2012a; UNEP, 2012; Hof et al., 2013; Höhne et al., 2012; Roelfsema et al., 2013a; Roelfsema et al., 2013b; Den Elzen and Höhne, 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012c; Hof et al., 2012; Den Elzen et al., 2008; Den Elzen et al., 2011a; Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2009; Hof et al., 2010; Den Elzen et al., 2012b; Van Vliet et al., 2012; | ||
|Description=The FAIR model can be used to look into certain baseline developments, such as the expected damage costs of climate change. However, more often baseline developments are explored using the larger IMAGE framework, whereas the FAIR model receives this information as input for policy analysis. | |Description=The [[FAIR model]] can be used to look into certain baseline developments, such as the expected damage costs of climate change. However, more often baseline developments are explored using the larger IMAGE framework, whereas the FAIR model receives this information as input for policy analysis. | ||
|Example= | |Example====Evaluation of emission reductions on country level=== | ||
===Evaluation of emission reductions on country level=== | The policy evaluation module was used for determining the emission reductions resulting from the pledges made for 2020 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012b]]). Here, as an example, the results for Brazil are presented (see Figure above). In 2011, Brazil provided a new, higher estimate for its business-as-usual emissions, against which its 36% to 39% reduction pledge is to be applied. The total pledge for all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from deforestation) lead to reductions of 20% to 24% according to the [[PBL]]/[[IIASA]] [[BAU]] emission projections. | ||
The policy evaluation module was used for determining the emission reductions resulting from the pledges made for 2020 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012b]]). Here, as an example, the results for Brazil are presented (see Figure above). In 2011, Brazil provided a new, higher estimate for its business-as-usual emissions, against which its 36% to 39% reduction pledge is to be applied. The total pledge for all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from deforestation) lead to reductions of 20% to 24% according to the PBL/IIASA BAU emission projections. | |||
These reductions are substantially lower than those pledged from national BAU projections by Brazil (see Figure above, left-hand graph). This figure also shows that all reductions result from reduced emissions from deforestation. The contributions from REDD projects (about 560 MtCO2) are expected to exceed or match the required total reduction in all greenhouse gases of 470 and 570 MtCO2 eq for the unconditional minimum (low: 36%) and maximum (high: 39%) pledge scenarios. | These reductions are substantially lower than those pledged from national BAU projections by Brazil (see Figure above, left-hand graph). This figure also shows that all reductions result from reduced emissions from deforestation. The contributions from REDD projects (about 560 MtCO2) are expected to exceed or match the required total reduction in all greenhouse gases of 470 and 570 MtCO2 eq for the unconditional minimum (low: 36%) and maximum (high: 39%) pledge scenarios. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
* The global 2020 emission level resulting from the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges exceeds those of least-cost pathways that achieve a 2 °C target; | * The global 2020 emission level resulting from the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord pledges exceeds those of least-cost pathways that achieve a 2 °C target; | ||
* 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 (BECCS), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation. | * 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 ([[BECCS]]), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:46, 10 December 2013
Parts of Climate policy/Policy issues
