You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators.
This form is used for the policy intervention part of a model component. The infobox from the introduction page will be displayed here, with exception of the references. The page starts with a description of the baseline plus figure, followed by a table with policy interventions. The page ends with examples of policy interventions, text plus figures. The 'policy interventions' themselves must be entered separately via the Form:PolicyInterventionForm.
Description. Baseline and Policy intervention examples:
<div class="page_standard"> ==Policy analyses== [[FAIR model|FAIR]] can be used to analyse baseline developments, such as expected climate change damage. However, more often baseline developments are explored using the larger IMAGE framework, and the FAIR model receives this information as input for policy analysis. As part of the IMAGE framework, FAIR can be used to evaluate a range of policies and strategies, including: * Long-term mitigation strategies such as emission reductions over time ([[Van Vliet et al., 2012]]); * Evaluation of current reduction proposals by countries and policy options until 2030 ([[Den Elzen et al., 2016]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2019]]); * Evaluation of domestic climate and energy policies up to 2030 ([[Kuramochi et al., 2016]]; [[Kuramochi et al., 2018]]; [[Roelfsema et al., 2018]]); * Evaluation of burden sharing or effort sharing regimes ([[Den Elzen et al., 2012a]]; [[Hof et al., 2012]]; [[Hof et al., 2016]]; [[Van den Berg, 2019]]); * Analysis of regional abatement costs and emission trading ([[Den Elzen et al., 2008]]; [[Den Elzen et al., 2011a]]; [[Mendoza Beltrán et al., 2011]]; [[Hof et al., 2017]]); * Evaluation of proposals for financing climate policies ([[Hof et al., 2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2011|2011]]); * Evaluation of trade-offs between mitigation costs, adaptation costs and the benefits of reduced climate damage ([[Hof et al., 2008]]; [[Hof et al., 2009|2009]]; [[Hof et al., 2010|2010]]; [[Admiraal et al., 2016]]); * Assessment of the policy costs, emission profiles and climate effects resulting from the use of different climate metrics such as the {{abbrTemplate|GWP}} ([[Van den Berg et al., 2015]]; [[Harmsen et al., 2016]]); ==Policy interventions== [!CHANGE]The Global Pathfinder module FAIR-SiMCaP was used to determine what the pledges for 2020 and the {{abbrTemplate|INDC}} targets (mainly for 2030) imply for global emission pathways consistent with meeting the 2 °C target ([[Hof et al., 2016]]; [[Van Vliet et al., 2012]]). The mitigation costs module has been applied to compare the mitigation costs for 2030 resulting from implementation of the NDCs with reductions required for achieving the climate targets of the Paris Agreement ([[Hof et al., 2017]]). The main findings of these studies were as follows (see also the figure below): * The global 2030 emission level resulting from implementation of the NDCs exceeds those of least-cost pathways that achieve a 2 °C target; * Slightly postponing mitigation action compared to the least-cost scenario seems technically feasible but at higher cumulative discounted mitigation costs; *A delay in emission reductions limits the flexibility in the portfolio of emission reduction options. Such delayed scenarios rely more on the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ({{abbrTemplate|BECCS}}), an option with uncertain prospects for large-scale implementation. *Abatement costs are very sensitive to socioeconomic developments: with slow economic growth rapid population growth, and high inequality, mitigation costs of achieving all unconditional NDCs are estimated at USD 135 billion in 2030 - which is more than twice the level as under more sustainable socioeconomic developments. *Allowing emission trading could decrease the global costs of achieving the NDC targets considerably by about 50%. *The required effort in terms of mitigation costs of achieving 2030 emission levels consistent with 2°C pathways is about three times higher than the costs of achieving the conditional NDCs. {{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|002g ind16_CP}}[!CHANGE] {{PIEffectOnComponentTemplate }} </div>
Save page Cancel