@article{SoergelKrieglerWeindletal.2021, author = {Soergel, Bjoern and Kriegler, Elmar and Weindl, Isabelle and Rauner, Sebastian and Dirnaichner, Alois and Ruhe, Constantin and Hofmann, Matthias and Bauer, Nico and Bertram, Christoph and Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon and Leimbach, Marian and Leininger, Julia and Levesque, Antoine and Luderer, Gunnar and Pehl, Michaja and Wingens, Christopher and Baumstark, Lavinia and Beier, Felicitas and Dietrich, Jan Philipp and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and von Jeetze, Patrick and Klein, David and Koch, Johannes and Pietzcker, Robert C. and Strefler, Jessica and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Popp, Alexander}, title = {A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {11}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {8}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3}, pages = {656 -- 664}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Ambitious climate policies, as well as economic development, education, technological progress and less resource-intensive lifestyles, are crucial elements for progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, using an integrated modelling framework covering 56 indicators or proxies across all 17 SDGs, we show that they are insufficient to reach the targets. An additional sustainable development package, including international climate finance, progressive redistribution of carbon pricing revenues, sufficient and healthy nutrition and improved access to modern energy, enables a more comprehensive sustainable development pathway. We quantify climate and SDG outcomes, showing that these interventions substantially boost progress towards many aspects of the UN Agenda 2030 and simultaneously facilitate reaching ambitious climate targets. Nonetheless, several important gaps remain; for example, with respect to the eradication of extreme poverty (180 million people remaining in 2030). These gaps can be closed by 2050 for many SDGs while also respecting the 1.5 °C target and several other planetary boundaries.}, language = {en} } @article{MerfortBauerHumpenoederetal.2023, author = {Merfort, Leon and Bauer, Nico and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Klein, David and Strefler, Jessica and Popp, Alexander and Luderer, Gunnar and Kriegler, Elmar}, title = {Bioenergy-induced land-use-change emissions with sectorally fragmented policies}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {13}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {7}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-023-01697-2}, pages = {685 -- 692}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Controlling bioenergy-induced land-use-change emissions is key to exploiting bioenergy for climate change mitigation. However, the effect of different land-use and energy sector policies on specific bioenergy emissions has not been studied so far. Using the global integrated assessment model REMIND-MAgPIE, we derive a biofuel emission factor (EF) for different policy frameworks. We find that a uniform price on emissions from both sectors keeps biofuel emissions at 12 kg CO2 GJ-1. However, without land-use regulation, the EF increases substantially (64 kg CO2 GJ-1 over 80 years, 92 kg CO2 GJ-1 over 30 years). We also find that comprehensive coverage (>90\%) of carbon-rich land areas worldwide is key to containing land-use emissions. Pricing emissions indirectly on the level of bioenergy consumption reduces total emissions by cutting bioenergy demand but fails to reduce the average EF. In the absence of comprehensive and timely land-use regulation, bioenergy thus may contribute less to climate change mitigation than assumed previously.}, language = {en} } @article{RiahiBertramHuppmannetal.2021, author = {Riahi, Keywan and Bertram, Christoph and Huppmann, Daniel and Rogelj, Joeri and Bosetti, Valentina and Cabardos, Anique-Marie and Deppermann, Andre and Drouet, Laurent and Frank, Stefan and Fricko, Oliver and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Harmsen, Mathijs and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Krey, Volker and Luderer, Gunnar and Paroussos, Leonidas and Schaeffer, Roberto and Weitzel, Matthias and van der Zwaan, Bob and Vrontisi, Zoi and Longa, Francesco Dalla and Despr{\´e}s, Jacques and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Kostas and Gusti, Mykola and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Keramidas, Kimon and Kishimoto, Paul and Kriegler, Elmar and Meinshausen, Malte and Nogueira, Larissa Pupo and Oshiro, Ken and Popp, Alexander and Rochedo, Pedro R. R. and {\"U}nl{\"u}, Gamze and van Ruijven, Bas and Takakura, Junya and Tavoni, Massimo and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and Zakeri, Behnam}, title = {Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {11}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {12}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2}, pages = {1063 -- 1069}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Global emissions scenarios play a critical role in the assessment of strategies to mitigate climate change. The current scenarios, however, are criticized because they feature strategies with pronounced overshoot of the global temperature goal, requiring a long-term repair phase to draw temperatures down again through net-negative emissions. Some impacts might not be reversible. Hence, we explore a new set of net-zero CO2 emissions scenarios with limited overshoot. We show that upfront investments are needed in the near term for limiting temperature overshoot but that these would bring long-term economic gains. Our study further identifies alternative configurations of net-zero CO2 emissions systems and the roles of different sectors and regions for balancing sources and sinks. Even without net-negative emissions, CO2 removal is important for accelerating near-term reductions and for providing an anthropogenic sink that can offset the residual emissions in sectors that are hard to abate.}, language = {en} } @article{LudererMadedduMerfortetal.2021, author = {Luderer, Gunnar and Madeddu, Silvia and Merfort, Leon and Ueckerdt, Falko and Pehl, Michaja and Pietzcker, Robert C. and Rottoli, Marianna and Schreyer, Felix and Bauer, Nico and Baumstark, Lavinia and Bertram, Christoph and Dirnaichner, Alois and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Levesque, Antoine and Popp, Alexander and Rodrigues, Renato and Strefler, Jessica and Kriegler, Elmar}, title = {Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios}, series = {Nature energy}, volume = {7}, journal = {Nature energy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, address = {London}, issn = {2058-7546}, doi = {10.1038/s41560-021-00937-z}, pages = {32 -- 42}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Cost degression in photovoltaics, wind-power and battery storage has been faster than previously anticipated. In the future, climate policy to limit global warming to 1.5-2 °C will make carbon-based fuels increasingly scarce and expensive. Here we show that further progress in solar- and wind-power technology along with carbon pricing to reach the Paris Climate targets could make electricity cheaper than carbon-based fuels. In combination with demand-side innovation, for instance in e-mobility and heat pumps, this is likely to induce a fundamental transformation of energy systems towards a dominance of electricity-based end uses. In a 1.5 °C scenario with limited availability of bioenergy and carbon dioxide removal, electricity could account for 66\% of final energy by mid-century, three times the current levels and substantially higher than in previous climate policy scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The lower production of bioenergy in our high-electrification scenarios markedly reduces energy-related land and water requirements.}, language = {en} } @article{RoeStreckBeachetal.2021, author = {Roe, Stephanie and Streck, Charlotte and Beach, Robert and Busch, Jonah and Chapman, Melissa and Daioglou, Vassilis and Deppermann, Andre and Doelman, Jonathan and Emmet-Booth, Jeremy and Engelmann, Jens and Fricko, Oliver and Frischmann, Chad and Funk, Jason and Grassi, Giacomo and Griscom, Bronson and Havlik, Petr and Hanssen, Steef and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Landholm, David and Lomax, Guy and Lehmann, Johannes and Mesnildrey, Leah and Nabuurs, Gert-Jan and Popp, Alexander and Rivard, Charlotte and Sanderman, Jonathan and Sohngen, Brent and Smith, Pete and Stehfest, Elke and Woolf, Dominic and Lawrence, Deborah}, title = {Land-based measures to mitigate climate change}, series = {Global change biology}, volume = {27}, journal = {Global change biology}, number = {23}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1365-2486}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.15873}, pages = {6025 -- 6058}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Land-based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land-based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing "bottom-up" sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost-effective (available up to \$100/tCO2eq) land-based mitigation is 8-13.8 GtCO2eq yr-1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost-effective sectoral estimate is about 40\% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost-effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost-effective potential is approximately 50\% from forests and other ecosystems, 35\% from agriculture, and 15\% from demand-side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75-4.8 GtCO2eq yr-1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60\% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand-side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co-benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio-cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land-based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80\%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near-term, low-cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land-based measures available, their potential co-benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country-specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.}, language = {en} } @article{MerfortBauerHumpenoederetal.2023, author = {Merfort, Leon and Bauer, Nico and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Klein, David and Strefler, Jessica and Popp, Alexander and Luderer, Gunnar and Kriegler, Elmar}, title = {State of global land regulation inadequate to control biofuel land-use-change emissions}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {13}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {7}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-023-01711-7}, pages = {610 -- 612}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Under current land-use regulation, carbon dioxide emissions from biofuel production exceed those from fossil diesel combustion. Therefore, international agreements need to ensure the effective and globally comprehensive protection of natural land before modern bioenergy can effectively contribute to achieving carbon neutrality.}, language = {en} }