• Energy Research
• 8. Economic growth close

The goal of limiting global temperature rise to “well below” 2 °C has been reaffirmed in the Paris Agreement on climate change at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21). Almost all countries submitted their decarbonization targets in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and India did as well. India’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of national GDP in 2030 by 33–35% compared to 2005. This paper analyzes how India’s NDC commitments compare with emission trajectories consistent with well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C global temperature stabilization goals. A top-down computable general equilibrium model is used for the analysis. Our analysis shows that there are significant emission gaps between NDC and global climate stabilization targets in 2030. The energy system requires significant changes, mostly relying on renewable energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The mitigation costs would increase if India delays its abatement efforts and is locked into NDC pathways till 2030. India’s GHG emissions would peak 10 years earlier under 1.5 °C global temperature stabilization compared to the 2 °C goal. The results imply that India would need financial and technological support from developed countries to achieve emissions reductions aligned with the global long-term goal.

Abstract Japan’s mid-century strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in 2050 would require large-scale energy system transformation and associated increases in mitigation costs. Nevertheless, the role of energy demand reduction, especially reductions related to energy services such as behavioral changes and material use efficiency improvements, have not been sufficiently evaluated. This study aims to identify key challenges and opportunities of the decarbonization goal when considering the role of energy service demand reduction. To this end, we used a detailed bottom-up energy system model in conjunction with an energy service demand model to explore energy system changes and their cost implications. The results indicate that final energy demand in 2050 can be cut by 37% relative to the no-policy case through energy service demand reduction measures. Although the lack of carbon capture and storage would cause mitigation costs to double or more, these economic impacts can be offset by energy service demand reduction. Among energy demand sectors, the impact of industrial service demand reduction is largest, as it contributes to reducing residual emissions from the industry sector. These findings highlight the importance of energy service demand reduction measures for meeting national climate goals in addition to technological options.

Abstract This paper explores how China’s household consumption patterns over the period 2005–2050 influence the total energy demand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in two baseline scenarios, and how it influences carbon prices as well as the economic cost in the corresponding carbon mitigation scenarios. To this end we first put forward two possible household consumption expenditure patterns up to 2050 using the Working–Leser model, taking into account total expenditure increase and urbanization. For comparison, both expenditure patterns are then incorporated in a hybrid recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium model. The results reveal that as income level increases in the coming decades, the direct and indirect household energy requirements and CO2 emissions would rise drastically. When household expenditure shifts from material products and transport to service-oriented goods, around 21,000 mtce 1 of primary energy and 45 billion tons of CO2 emissions would be saved over the 45-year period from 2005 to 2050. Moreover, carbon prices in the dematerialized mitigation scenario would fall by 13% in 2050, thus reducing the economic cost.

AbstractThe building sector is highly sensitive to climate change, where energy is used for numerous purposes such as heating, cooling, cooking and lighting. Space heating and cooling account for a large proportion of overall energy use, and the associated energy demand is also affected by climate change. Here, we project the economic impact of changes in energy demand for space heating and cooling under multiple climatic conditions. We use an economic model coupled with an end-use technology model to explicitly represent the investment costs for air-conditioning technologies, which influence the macroeconomy. We conclude that the negative effects on the economy from increases in the use of space cooling are sufficiently large to neutralize the positive impacts from reductions in space heating usage under climate change, which results in significant economic loss. The economic loss under the highest emissions scenario (RCP8.5) would correspond to a −0.34% (−0.39% to −0.18%) change in global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2100 compared with GDP without any climate change, while the impact under the lowest emissions scenario (RCP2.6) would result in a −0.03% (−0.07% to −0.01%) change in global GDP in 2100. The economic losses are mainly generated by incremental technological costs and not by changes in energy demand itself. The amount of economic loss can vary substantially based on assumptions of technological costs, population and income. To reduce the negative impacts of climate change measures for reducing the costs of air conditioning will be an important consideration for the building sector in the future.

AbstractClimate change increases workers' exposure to heat stress. To prevent heat‐related illnesses, according to occupational‐health recommendations, labor capacity must be reduced. However, this preventive measure is expected to be costly, and the costs are likely to rise as the scale and scope of climate change impacts increase over time. Shifting the start of the working day to earlier in the morning could be an effective adaptation measure for avoiding the impacts of labor capacity reduction. However, the plausibility and efficacy of such an intervention have never been quantitatively assessed. Here we investigate whether working time shifts can offset the economic impacts of labor capacity reduction due to climate change. Incorporating a temporally (1 hr) and spatially (0.5° × 0.5°) high‐resolution heat exposure index into an integrated assessment model, we calculated the working time shift necessary to offset labor capacity reduction and economic loss under hypothetical with‐ and without‐realistic‐adaptation scenarios. The results of a normative scenario analysis indicated that a global average shift of 5.7 (4.0–6.1) hours is required, assuming extreme climate conditions in the 2090s. Although a realistic (<3 hr) shift nearly halves the economic cost, a substantial cost corresponding to 1.6% (1.0–2.4%) of global total gross domestic product is expected to remain. In contrast, if stringent climate‐change mitigation is achieved, a realistic shift limits the remaining cost to 0.14% (0.12–0.47%) of global total gross domestic product. Although shifting working time is shown to be effective as an adaptation measure, climate‐change mitigation remains indispensable to minimize the impact.

This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).