@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{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{StreflerKrieglerBaueretal.2021,
  author    = {Strefler, Jessica and Kriegler, Elmar and Bauer, Nico and Luderer, Gunnar and Pietzcker, Robert C. and Giannousakis, Anastasis and Edenhofer, Ottmar},
  title     = {Alternative carbon price trajectories can avoid excessive carbon removal},
  series = {Nature communications},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Nature communications},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2041-1723},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41467-021-22211-2},
  pages     = {8},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The large majority of climate change mitigation scenarios that hold warming below 2 °C show high deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), resulting in a peak-and-decline behavior in global temperature. This is driven by the assumption of an exponentially increasing carbon price trajectory which is perceived to be economically optimal for meeting a carbon budget. However, this optimality relies on the assumption that a finite carbon budget associated with a temperature target is filled up steadily over time. The availability of net carbon removals invalidates this assumption and therefore a different carbon price trajectory should be chosen. We show how the optimal carbon price path for remaining well below 2 °C limits CDR demand and analyze requirements for constructing alternatives, which may be easier to implement in reality. We show that warming can be held at well below 2 °C at much lower long-term economic effort and lower CDR deployment and therefore lower risks if carbon prices are high enough in the beginning to ensure target compliance, but increase at a lower rate after carbon neutrality has been reached.},
  language  = {en}
}