DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Variation in the Effectiveness of Methane-Based and Land-Based Climate Mitigation Options

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Variation in the Effectiveness of Methane-Based and Land-Based Climate Mitigation Options Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based climate mitigation options Garry D. Hayman1, Edward Comyn-Platt1, Chris Huntingford1, Anna B. Harper2, Tom Powell3, Peter M. Cox2, William Collins4, Christopher Webber4, Jason Lowe5,6, Stephen Sitch3, Joanna I. House7, Jonathan C. Doelman8, Detlef P. van Vuuren8,9, Sarah E. Chadburn2, Eleanor Burke6, and Nicola Gedney10 1UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK 2College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK 3College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK 4Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK 5School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK 6Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK 7Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK 8Department of Climate, Air and Energy, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), P.O. Box 30314, 2500 GH The Hague, the Netherlands 9Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, the Netherlands 10Met Office Hadley Centre, Joint Centre for Hydrometeorological Research, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK Correspondence: Garry D. Hayman ([email protected]) Received: 28 April 2020 – Discussion started: 17 June 2020 Revised: 23 February 2021 – Accepted: 5 March 2021 – Published: 5 May 2021 Abstract. Scenarios avoiding global warming greater than 1.5 or 2 ◦C, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement, may require the combined mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions alongside enhancing negative emis- sions through approaches such as afforestation–reforestation (AR) and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We use the JULES land surface model coupled to an inverted form of the IMOGEN climate emulator to investigate mitigation scenarios that achieve the 1.5 or 2 ◦C warming targets of the Paris Agreement. Specifically, within this IMOGEN-JULES framework, we focus on and characterise the global and regional effectiveness of land-based (BECCS and/or AR) and anthropogenic methane (CH4) emission mitigation, sepa- rately and in combination, on the anthropogenic fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emission budgets (AFFEBs) to 2100. We use consistent data and socio-economic assumptions from the IMAGE integrated assessment model for the second Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2). The analysis includes the effects of the methane and carbon–climate feedbacks from wetlands and permafrost thaw, which we have shown previously to be signifi- cant constraints on the AFFEBs. Globally, mitigation of anthropogenic CH4 emissions has large impacts on the anthropogenic fossil fuel emis- sion budgets, potentially offsetting (i.e. allowing extra) carbon dioxide emissions of 188–212 Gt C. This is be- cause of (a) the reduction in the direct and indirect radiative forcing of methane in response to the lower emissions and hence atmospheric concentration of methane and (b) carbon-cycle changes leading to increased uptake by the land and ocean by CO2-based fertilisation. Methane mitigation is beneficial everywhere, particularly for the major CH4-emitting regions of India, the USA, and China. Land-based mitigation has the potential to offset 51– 100 Gt C globally, the large range reflecting assumptions and uncertainties associated with BECCS. The ranges ◦ for CH4 reduction and BECCS implementation are valid for both the 1.5 and 2 C warming targets. That is the mitigation potential of the CH4 and of the land-based scenarios is similar for regardless of which of the final Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 514 G. D. Hayman et al.: Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based climate mitigation options stabilised warming levels society aims for. Further, both the effectiveness and the preferred land management strategy (i.e. AR or BECCS) have strong regional dependencies. Additional analysis shows extensive BECCS could adversely affect water security for several regions. Although the primary requirement remains mitigation of fossil fuel emissions, our results highlight the potential for the mitigation of CH4 emissions to make the Paris climate targets more achievable. 1 Introduction lished estimates are similar for the two warming targets, with between 380–700 Mha required for the 2 ◦C target (Smith ◦ The stated aims of the Paris Agreement of the United Na- et al., 2016) and greater than 600 Mha for the 1.5 C target tions Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, (van Vuuren et al., 2018). This is because the land require- 2015) are “to hold the increase in global average temper- ments for bioenergy production differ strongly across the ature to well below 2 ◦C and to pursue efforts to limit the different SSPs, depending on assumptions about the contri- increase to 1.5 ◦C”. The global average surface temperature bution of residues, assumed yields and yield improvements, for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87 ◦C above pre-industrial start dates of implementation, and the rates of deployment. levels and is likely to reach 1.5 ◦C between the years 2030 While the CDR figures assume optimism about the mitiga- and 2052 if global warming continues at current rates (IPCC, tion potential of BECCS, concerns have been raised about 2018). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of the potentially detrimental impacts of BECCS on food pro- 1.5 ◦C (IPCC, 2018) gives the median remaining carbon bud- duction, water availability and biodiversity (e.g. Heck et al., 2018; Krause et al., 2017). Others note the risks and query the gets between 2018 and 2100 as 770 Gt CO2 (210 Gt C) and ◦ feasibility of large-scale deployment of BECCS (e.g. Ander- 1690 Gt CO2 (∼ 461 Gt C) to limit global warming to 1.5 C and 2 ◦C, respectively. These budgets represent ∼ 20 and son and Peters, 2016; Vaughan and Gough, 2016; Vaughan et ∼ 41 years at present-day emission rates. The actual bud- al., 2018). gets could, however, be smaller, as they exclude Earth sys- Harper et al. (2018) find the overall effectiveness of tem feedbacks such as CO released by permafrost thaw BECCS to be strongly dependent on the assumptions con- 2 cerning yields, the use of initial above-ground biomass that or CH4 released by wetlands. Meeting the Paris Agree- ment goals will, therefore, require sustained reductions in is replaced, and the calculated fossil fuel emissions that are sources of fossil carbon emissions, other long-lived anthro- offset in the energy system. Notably, if BECCS involves re- pogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), and some short-lived cli- placing ecosystems that have higher carbon contents than en- ergy crops, then AR and avoided deforestation can be more mate forcers (SLCFs) such as methane (CH4), alongside in- creasingly extensive implementations of carbon dioxide re- efficient than BECCS for atmospheric CO2 removal over this moval (CDR) technologies (IPCC, 2018). Accurate informa- century (Harper et al., 2018). tion is needed about the range and efficacy of options avail- Mitigation of the anthropogenic emissions of non-CO2 able to achieve this. GHGs such as CH4 and of SLCFs such as black carbon have been shown to be attractive strategies with the potential to re- Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) ◦ and afforestation–reforestation (AR) are among the most duce projected global mean warming by 0.22–0.5 C by 2050 widely considered CDR technologies in the climate and en- (Shindell et al., 2012; Stohl et al., 2015). It should be noted ergy literature (Minx et al., 2018). For scenarios consis- that these were based on scenarios with continued use of fos- tent with a 2 ◦C warming target, the review by Smith et sil fuels. Through the link to tropospheric ozone (O3), there al. (2016) finds this may require (i) a median removal of are additional co-benefits of CH4 mitigation for air qual- 3.3 Gt C yr−1 from the atmosphere through BECCS by 2100 ity, plant productivity and food production (Shindell et al., and (ii) a mean CDR through AR of 1.1 Gt C yr−1 by 2100, 2012), and carbon sequestration (Oliver et al., 2018). Con- giving a total CDR equivalent to 47 % of present-day emis- trol of anthropogenic CH4 emissions leads to rapid decreases sions from fossil fuel and other industrial sources (Le Quéré in its atmospheric concentration, with an approximately 9- et al., 2018). Although there are fewer scenarios that look year removal lifetime (and as such is an SLCF). Further- specifically at the 1.5 ◦C pathway, BECCS is still the major more, many CH4 mitigation options are inexpensive or even CDR approach (Rogelj et al., 2018). For the default assump- cost-negative through the co-benefits achieved (Stohl et al., tions in Fuss et al. (2018), BECCS would remove a median 2015), although expenditure becomes substantial at high lev- of 4 Gt C by 2100 and a total of 41–327 Gt C from the at- els of mitigation (Gernaat et al., 2015). The extra “allowable” mosphere during the 21st century, equivalent to about 4–30 carbon emissions from CH4 mitigation can make a substan- years of current annual emissions. The land requirements for tial difference to the feasibility or otherwise of achieving the BECCS will be greater for the 1.5 ◦C target within a given Paris climate targets (Collins et al., 2018). shared socio-economic pathway (e.g. SSP2), although pub- Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021 G. D. Hayman et al.: Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based climate mitigation options 515 Some increases in atmospheric CH4 are not related to di- climatic aNomalies” (Sect.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020
    Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020 Table of contents Table of contents 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Context 3 About this report 4 Key issues in setting SBTs 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Understand the business case for science-based targets 12 3. Science-based target setting methods 18 3.1 Available methods and their applicability to different sectors 18 3.2 Recommendations on choosing an SBT method 25 3.3 Pros and cons of different types of targets 25 4. Set a science-based target: key considerations for all emissions scopes 29 4.1 Cross-cutting considerations 29 5. Set a science-based target: scope 1 and 2 sources 33 5.1 General considerations 33 6. Set a science-based target: scope 3 sources 36 6.1 Conduct a scope 3 Inventory 37 6.2 Identify which scope 3 categories should be included in the target boundary 40 6.3 Determine whether to set a single target or multiple targets 42 6.4 Identify an appropriate type of target 44 7. Building internal support for science-based targets 47 7.1 Get all levels of the company on board 47 7.2 Address challenges and push-back 49 8. Communicating and tracking progress 51 8.1 Publicly communicating SBTs and performance progress 51 8.2 Recalculating targets 56 Key terms 57 List of abbreviations 59 References 60 Acknowledgments 63 About the partner organizations in the Science Based Targets initiative 64 Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 -2- Executive summary Key findings ● Companies can play their part in combating climate change by setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with reduction pathways for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Manchester's Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-Only
    A Review of Manchester’s Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-only CO2 Emissions Client: Manchester Climate Change Agency Document Reference: MCCA DIRECT Version: V.5.3 FINAL Date: February 2019 Prepared by: Dr Christopher Jones NB: All views contained with this report are attributable solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the wider Tyndall Centre. 1 Introduction In June 2018 the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester was commissioned by Manchester Climate Change Agency to advise on science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester. This led to the development of the Agency’s ‘Playing our Full Part’ proposal (http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2018) and the formal adoption of science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester’s direct1 /energy-only CO2 emissions by Manchester City Council, in November 2018. In November 2019 the Tyndall Centre was commissioned by the Agency to review the city’s climate change targets and recommend revised targets, as required. The review covers four areas of activity: Direct / energy-only CO2 emissions Indirect / consumption-based CO2 emissions CO2 emissions from flights from Manchester Airport Target-setting and reporting methodology for organisations and sectors The full brief is available from http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2020. This report covers the review of direct /energy-only aspect of the brief in Part 1. Part 2 of this report considers a proposal for a 2030 zero carbon target. 1 This definition of ‘direct’ refers to fuel use (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2) within the local authority geographic area.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Land Use – Measuring Economic Potential
    Dominic Moran and Kimberly Pratt CHAPTER XI Greenhouse gas mitigation in land use – measuring economic potential INTRODUCTION As noted in other sections the global technical mitigation potential of agriculture, excluding fossil fuel, offsets from biomass is around 5.5–6 Gt CO2eq/year. This can be delivered through a range of technically effective measures that can be deployed in a variety of farm and land-use systems. These measures can be deployed at varying cost, including a range of ancillary environmental and social costs and benefits that need to be taken into account when moving to some consideration of the socio-economic potential of mitigation pathways. This chapter will explore the distinction between the technical and economic potential as applied more generally to land-use mitigation measures. Specifically, the chapter considers how issues of efficiency and equity are important corollaries to the effectiveness of grassland mitigation. The consideration of efficiency is made with reference to a carbon (C) price, which provides a benchmark cost for comparing mitigation options on a cost per tonne basis. The equity dimension then addresses the distributional impacts arising if efficient measures are adopted across different income groups. We demonstrate these points with the example of biochar, a soils additive that is widely considered to offer a low-cost mitigation potential applicable in a wide variety of high- and low-income farm and land use systems. This example is used to illustrate the data requirements for developing a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve, which is essential for judging the relative effectiveness and efficient of mitigation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Emissions Pathways to the Europe We Want
    O NET ZERO BY 2050: FROM WHETHER TO HOW ZERO EMISSIONS PATHWAYS TO THE EUROPE WE WANT SEPTEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the following organisations for their expertise and insight. CONTENTS Model testers - the following organisations supported the analytical team in testing the model, which is itself derived from the ClimateWorks Foundation’s Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI): 4 FOREWORD 6 METHODOLOGY & SCENARIOS OVERVIEW 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18 INTRODUCTION 20 1. REACHING NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 IS FEASIBLE but requires robust action across all sectors, widening the range of low-carbon options used for the transition Agora-Energiewende, Climate Strategy, The Coalition for Energy Savings, Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, Grantham Research Institute - 30 2. NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 London School of Economics, Iberdrola, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy REQUIRES RAISING THE 2030 AMBITION LEVEL (BEIS), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office. to leverage the no regrets options and Members of these organisations tested the model during the summer of 2018 and explored a variety of decarbonisation pathways. These set Europe on the right trajectory scenarios have informed our conclusions but were not used directly. Other organisations were consulted on sector specific discussions:
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Science-Based Target Setting
    Foundations of Science-based Target Setting Version 1.0 April 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4 1.1 Outline ........................................................................................................................4 2. Background ................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Target-setting methods ................................................................................................6 GHG budgets ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Emissions scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 7 Allocation approach .............................................................................................................................. 8 Constructing SBTi methods ................................................................................................................... 8 Box 1. Understanding scenarios ..............................................................................................9 Box 2. Determining useful GHG budgets ............................................................................... 11 3. Methods and scenarios the SBTi currently endorses .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific and International Context for the Fifth Carbon Budget
    The scientific and international context for the fifth carbon budget October 2015 Acknowledgements The Committee would like to thank: The team that prepared the analysis for this report: This was led by Matthew Bell, Adrian Gault and Mike Thompson and included Owen Bellamy, Ewa Kmietowicz, Amy McQueen, Dean Pearson and Stephen Smith. Other members of the Secretariat who contributed to this report: Jo Barrett and David Joffe. A number of organisations and individuals for their significant support: Climate Action Tracker, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the AVOID 2 consortium, the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, Matthew England and Jules Kajtar (University of New South Wales), Louise Jeffery (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), Carman Mak (Imperial College London), Alex Luta and Damien Morris (Sandbag), Martin Parry (Adaptation Sub-Committee, Joeri Rogelj (IIASA) and David Vaughan (British Antarctic Survey). __________________________________________________________________ 1 Contents The Committee 3-5 ________________________________________________________________________________ Executive summary 6-10 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 1: The science of climate change 11-26 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 2: International action to limit climate change 27-49 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 3: The EU and UK share of international action 50-68
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon City Budget” Or “Climate-Proofed Municipal Budgets”?
    Briefing / April 2020 “Carbon City budget” or “Climate-proofed municipal budgets”? What’s the difference, and how to implement them in my city. “We cannot set the right priorities with the wrong compass” Carbon budget”, “Climate-proofed municipal budgets”, “science-based targets”” are some of many different approaches offered to cities when they want to align their short, medium and long-term policies with the Paris Agreement. These instruments, measuring and monitoring tools, can be complementary. They, in any case, need to be adapted to the local context and to the local available data. Science-based targets can support cities in defining their strategy by identifying and leveraging on their own strengths; on the most impactful actions. 1. CARBON BUDGETS Carbon budgets emerged as a scientific concept from the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report on Climate Change1 and relate to the “cumulative amount of CO2 emissions permitted over a period of time to keep within a 2 certain temperature threshold” . Much like a financial budget, a carbon sets out how much CO2 can be ‘spent’ over a fixed time period; and once it’s gone, it cannot be replenished (unless new technologies are rolled out at scale to extract CO2 from the atmosphere). This framing is used to inform local and national climate strategies using the 1.5°C or 2°C temperature targets as enshrined in international goals. Figure 1 tracks different interpretations given by different institutions. 1 Anderson et al. (2017). ‘Carbon budget and pathways to a fossil-free future in Järfälla Municipality’ 2 https://www.carbontracker.org/carbon-budgets-explained/ Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Plastic Wave
    Breaking the Plastic Wave A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATHWAYS TOWARDS STOPPING OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION Thought Partners SUMMARY REPORT X About The Pew Charitable Trusts Table of contents The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life. As the United States and the world have evolved, we PREFACE 4 have remained dedicated to our founders’ emphasis on EXPERT PANEL 5 innovation. Today, Pew is a global research and public policy organization, still operated as an independent, nonpartisan, ENDORSEMENTS 6 nonprofit organization dedicated to serving the public. TIME FOR A PLASTIC PARADIGM SHIFT 8 Informed by the founders’ interest in research, practical knowledge, and public service, our portfolio includes public FAST FACTS: ‘BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE’ IN NUMBERS 12 opinion research; arts and culture; civic initiatives; and environmental, health, state, and consumer policy initiatives. ABOUT THIS PROJECT 14 Our goal is to make a difference for the public. That means TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS 16 working on a few key issues, with an emphasis on projects 1. Business-as-Usual will result in nearly three times more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040 17 that can produce consequential outcomes, foster new ideas, attract partners, avoid partisanship or wishful thinking, and 2. Current commitments are inadequate for the scale of the challenge 19 achieve measurable results that serve the public interest. 3. Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution 20 Learn more at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the CO2 Budget to Meet the Paris Climate Targets
    Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 2020 CHAPTER 2 Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris 2 climate targets Contents 2 Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets ................................ 5 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 The CO2 budget as the key metric for climate protection ............................................ 6 2.2.1 Basis for and uses of the CO2 budget ......................................................... 7 2.2.2 Factors in the calculation of the CO2 budget ............................................. 11 2.2.3 Size of the global CO2 budget ................................................................. 13 2.2.4 The CO2 budget for Europe, Germany and national sectors ........................ 15 2.3 Core principles and steps for ensuring compliance with a national CO2 budget ..............23 2.3.1 Switch rather than exit: renewable energies instead of fossil fuels ................ 24 2.3.2 No return to nuclear energy ................................................................... 27 2.3.3 The role of negative emis sions – limiting the use of CCS in Germany ............ 28 2.3.4 The need for regulation of the use of stemwood for energy ........................ 33 2.4 Governance: the key to remaining within the CO2 budget .......................................... 37 2.4.1 EU climate governance .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Are We Ready? November 2018
    Governing large-scale carbon dioxide removal: are we ready? November 2018 Carnegie an initiative of Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative This report was funded by the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. The report was prepared in partnership between Climate Analytics and C2G2. Any views expressed in this report are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect any official positions nor those of other contributors or reviewers. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for education or non-profit purposes without special permission from C2G2, provided acknowledgement or proper referencing of the source is made. Suggested citation: Mace, M.J., Fyson, C.L., Schaeffer, M., Hare, W.L. (2018). Governing large-scale carbon dioxide removal: are we ready? Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2), November 2018, New York, US. Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the C2G2 team for coordinating, contributing to, and supporting this paper. The authors would also like to thank the following for very helpful conversations and insights that improved this paper: Katia Simeonova, Sabine Fuss, Anke Herold, Feja Lesniewska, Florian Claeys, Christine Dragisic, Ian Fry, Ursula Fuentes Hutfilter, Eduardo Reyes, Kuki Soejachmoen and Maria Cristina Urrutia Villanueva. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to a number of anonymous reviewers for their much-appreciated comments
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Emissions”: a Challenge for Climate Policy WP S Oliver Geden and Stefan Schäfer
    Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Comments “Negative Emissions”: A Challenge for Climate Policy WP S Oliver Geden and Stefan Schäfer The objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that these targets cannot be reached through conventional mitigation measures alone. The IPCC assumes that in addition to reducing emissions, technologies for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will become indispensable. The preferred technology option combines increased use of bio-energy with the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. To date, climate policy has largely ignored the necessity for “negative emissions” to achieve the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement. Discussions on the underlying model assumptions, potentials and risks of imaginable technological options, as well as their political implications, are only just beginning. It would be wise for the EU and Germany to proactively shape this debate and increase funding for research and devel- opment. If the Paris climate objectives are upheld, climate policy pioneers will soon be facing calls to set emission-reduction targets of much more than 100 percent – a notion that today seems paradoxical, but may soon become reality. Global climate stabilisation targets, such be consumed by the mid-2030s, the budget as restricting global warming to 1.5 or 2 for 1.5 °C as soon as the early 2020s. Since degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial, completely decarbonising the world econo- are usually translated into carbon budgets my within a time frame of only 5 to 20 years that show the total amount of emissions is unrealistic, climate models build on the that would still be allowed for meeting the concept of negative emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consolidated European Synthesis of CH4 and N2O Emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2017
    Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2307–2362, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2307-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2017 Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu1, Chunjing Qiu2, Philippe Ciais2, Rona L. Thompson3, Philippe Peylin2, Matthew J. McGrath2, Efisio Solazzo4, Greet Janssens-Maenhout4, Francesco N. Tubiello5, Peter Bergamaschi4, Dominik Brunner6, Glen P. Peters7, Lena Höglund-Isaksson8, Pierre Regnier9, Ronny Lauerwald9,23, David Bastviken10, Aki Tsuruta11, Wilfried Winiwarter8,12, Prabir K. Patra13, Matthias Kuhnert14, Gabriel D. Oreggioni4, Monica Crippa4, Marielle Saunois2, Lucia Perugini15, Tiina Markkanen11, Tuula Aalto11, Christine D. Groot Zwaaftink3, Hanqin Tian16, Yuanzhi Yao16, Chris Wilson17,18, Giulia Conchedda5, Dirk Günther19, Adrian Leip4, Pete Smith14, Jean-Matthieu Haussaire6, Antti Leppänen20, Alistair J. Manning21, Joe McNorton22, Patrick Brockmann2, and Albertus Johannes Dolman1 1Department of Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 2Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 3Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller, Norway 4European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 21027 Ispra (Va), Italy 5Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division, 00153 Rome, Italy 6Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland 7CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway 8International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria 9Biogeochemistry and Modeling of the Earth System, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium 10Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden 11Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O.
    [Show full text]