• Energy Research

Abstract What will be the aggregated cost of climate change in achieving the Paris Agreement, including mitigation, adaptation, and residual impacts? Several studies estimated the aggregated cost but did not always consider the critical issues. Some do not address non-market values such as biodiversity and human health, and most do not address differentiating discount rates. In this study, we estimate the aggregated cost of climate change using an integrated assessment model linked with detailed-process-based climate impact models and different discount rates for market and non-market values. The analysis reveals that a climate policy with minimal aggregated cost is sensitive to socioeconomic scenarios and the way discount rates are applied. The results elucidate that a lower discount rate to non-market value—that is, a higher estimate of future value—makes the aggregated cost of achieving the Paris Agreement economically reasonable.

Energy demand associated with space heating and cooling is expected to be affected by climate change. There are several global projections of space heating and cooling use that take into consideration climate change, but a comprehensive uncertainty of socioeconomic and climate conditions, including a 1.5 °C global mean temperature change, has never been assessed. This paper shows the economic impact of changes in energy demand for space heating and cooling under multiple socioeconomic and climatic conditions. We use three shared socioeconomic pathways as socioeconomic conditions. For climate conditions, we use two representative concentration pathways that correspond to 4.0 °C and 2.0 °C scenarios, and a 1.5 °C scenario driven from the 2.0 °C scenario with assumption in conjunction with five general circulation models. We find that the economic impacts of climate change are largely affected by socioeconomic assumptions, and global GDP change rates range from +0.21% to −2.01% in 2100 under the 4.0 °C scenario, depending on the socioeconomic condition. Sensitivity analysis that differentiates the thresholds of heating and cooling degree days clarifies that the threshold is a strong factor that generates these differences. Meanwhile, the impact of the 1.5 °C is small regardless of socioeconomic assumptions (−0.02% to −0.06%). The economic loss caused by differences in socioeconomic assumption under the 1.5 °C scenario is much smaller than that under the 2 °C scenario, which implies that stringent climate mitigation can work as a risk hedge to socioeconomic development diversity.

National-level climate actions will be vital in achieving global temperature goals in the coming decades. Near-term (2025–2030) plans are laid out in Nationally Determined Contributions; the next step is the submission of long-term strategies for 2050. At present, national scenarios underpinning long-term strategies are poorly coordinated and incompatible across countries, preventing assessment of individual nations’ climate policies. Here we present a systematic and standardized, yet flexible, scenario framework varying 2050 emissions to build long-term national energy and climate mitigation scenarios. Applying the framework to six major Asian countries reveals individual challenges in energy system transformation and investment needs in comparable scenarios. This framework could be a starting point for comprehensive assessments as input to the Global Stocktake over the coming years.

Although our knowledge of climate change impacts on energy systems has increased substantially over the past few decades, there remains a lack of comprehensive overview of impacts across spatial scales. Here, we analyse results of 220 studies projecting climate impacts on energy systems globally and at the regional scale. Globally, a potential increase in cooling demand and decrease in heating demand can be anticipated, in contrast to slight decreases in hydropower and thermal energy capacity. Impacts at the regional scale are more mixed and relatively uncertain across regions, but strongest impacts are reported for South Asia and Latin America. Our assessment shows that climate impacts on energy systems at regional and global scales are uncertain due partly to the wide range of methods and non-harmonized datasets used. For a comprehensive assessment of climate impacts on energy, we propose a consistent multi-model assessment framework to support regional-to-global-scale energy planning.