IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisisi/s222018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The EU long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions in light of the Paris Agreement and the IPCC Special Report on 1,5°C

Author

Listed:
  • Wachsmuth, Jakob
  • Schaeffer, Michiel
  • Hare, Bill

Abstract

The European Commission's long-term Strategic Vision "A clean planet for all" and the In-Depth Analysis supporting it were released on 28 November, 2018. The Commission claims that an 80% reduction of the EU's GHG emissions by 2050 can be taken as being in line with the Paris Agreement's long-term temper-ature goal (LTTG). This is shown to be questionable due to the Commission's re-labelling of the former "hold-below-2°C" pathways associated with the 2010 Can-cun Agreements as "well-below 2°C" pathways. Those "hold-below-2°C" path-ways had a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2°C and were further characterised by a peak warming of around 1.7-1.8°C. By contrast, the actual Paris long-term temperature goal is, by design, a strength-ening of the former "hold-below-2°C" goal. In this paper, strong arguments are provided that this implies achieving a lower peak warming and a higher probability of limiting warming to 2°C. Further, the "hold-below-2°C" pathways do not provide guidance in terms of lowering peak warming and increasing the probability of lim-iting warming to 1.5°C, an integral part of the Paris LTTG (unless with negative emissions at a scale the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C does not deem feasible). At the same time, the IPCC SR1.5 is very clear about the increases in climate risks between 1.5°C and 2°C, which relates to the clause of the LTTG that holding warming well below 2°C significantly reduces the risks and impacts of climate change. This provides a clear argument for lower limit to peak warming. Despite the shortcoming with regard to interpreting "well-below-2°C", the EU Strategic Vision is a clear shift away from the lower end of the former "80-95%" re-duction target by 2050 towards achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. This is based on the In-Depth Analysis, which shows that a greenhouse gas emission reduction of 90% by 2050 compared to 1990 is necessary to keep 1.5°C in range, while limiting negative emissions even calls for net-zero green-house gas emissions in 2050. Hence, the "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050" target chosen in the Strategic Vision is a reasonable choice in light of the Paris Agreement and the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C, but 80% reduction by 2050 is not. Thus, the lower end of the current "80-95%" EU target is insufficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Wachsmuth, Jakob & Schaeffer, Michiel & Hare, Bill, 2018. "The EU long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions in light of the Paris Agreement and the IPCC Special Report on 1,5°C," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S22/2018, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s222018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/191245/1/1045800074.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riahi, Keywan & Kriegler, Elmar & Johnson, Nils & Bertram, Christoph & den Elzen, Michel & Eom, Jiyong & Schaeffer, Michiel & Edmonds, Jae & Isaac, Morna & Krey, Volker & Longden, Thomas & Luderer, Gu, 2015. "Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 8-23.
    2. Glen P. Peters & Robbie M. Andrew & Josep G. Canadell & Sabine Fuss & Robert B. Jackson & Jan Ivar Korsbakken & Corinne Le Quéré & Nebojsa Nakicenovic, 2017. "Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 118-122, February.
    3. Richard Kinley, 2017. "Climate change after Paris: from turning point to transformation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 9-15, January.
    4. Joeri Rogelj & Oliver Fricko & Malte Meinshausen & Volker Krey & Johanna J. J. Zilliacus & Keywan Riahi, 2017. "Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2016. "The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind Closed Doors," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, August.
    6. Anju Sharma, 2017. "Precaution and post-caution in the Paris Agreement: adaptation, loss and damage and finance," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 33-47, January.
    7. Michael Mastrandrea & Katharine Mach & Gian-Kasper Plattner & Ottmar Edenhofer & Thomas Stocker & Christopher Field & Kristie Ebi & Patrick Matschoss, 2011. "The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 675-691, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. den Elzen, Michel & Kuramochi, Takeshi & Höhne, Niklas & Cantzler, Jasmin & Esmeijer, Kendall & Fekete, Hanna & Fransen, Taryn & Keramidas, Kimon & Roelfsema, Mark & Sha, Fu & van Soest, Heleen & Vand, 2019. "Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 238-250.
    2. Marco Grasso & J. David Tàbara, 2019. "Towards a Moral Compass to Guide Sustainability Transformations in a High-End Climate Change World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, May.
    3. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    4. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    5. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    6. Tomich, Thomas P. & Lidder, Preetmoninder & Coley, Mariah & Gollin, Douglas & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Webb, Patrick & Carberry, Peter, 2019. "Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1-15.
    7. Salman, Muhammad & Long, Xingle & Wang, Guimei & Zha, Donglan, 2022. "Paris climate agreement and global environmental efficiency: New evidence from fuzzy regression discontinuity design," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Lukas Hermwille & Lisa Sanderink, 2019. "Make Fossil Fuels Great Again? The Paris Agreement, Trump, and the USFossil Fuel Industry," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(4), pages 45-62, November.
    9. Mario A. Fernandez & Adam J. Daigneault, 2018. "Money Does Grow On Trees: Impacts Of The Paris Agreement On The New Zealand Economy," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, August.
    10. Zhu, Sipeng & Ma, Zetai & Zhang, Kun & Deng, Kangyao, 2020. "Energy and exergy analysis of the combined cycle power plant recovering waste heat from the marine two-stroke engine under design and off-design conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    11. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    12. Ottmar Edenhofer & Carlo Carraro & Jean-Charles Hourcade, 2012. "On the economics of decarbonization in an imperfect world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 1-8, September.
    13. Kajikawa, Yuya & Mejia, Cristian & Wu, Mengjia & Zhang, Yi, 2022. "Academic landscape of Technological Forecasting and Social Change through citation network and topic analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    14. Francisco Estrada & Veronica Lupi & Wouter Botzen & Richard S.J. Tol, 2024. "Urban and Non-Urban Contributions to the Social Cost of Carbon," Working Paper Series 0424, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Giani, Paolo & Tagle, Felipe & Genton, Marc G. & Castruccio, Stefano & Crippa, Paola, 2020. "Closing the gap between wind energy targets and implementation for emerging countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    16. Md. Afzal Hossain & Jean Engo & Songsheng Chen, 2021. "The main factors behind Cameroon’s CO2 emissions before, during and after the economic crisis of the 1980s," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 4500-4520, March.
    17. Misconel, S. & Leisen, R. & Mikurda, J. & Zimmermann, F. & Fraunholz, C. & Fichtner, W. & Möst, D. & Weber, C., 2022. "Systematic comparison of high-resolution electricity system modeling approaches focusing on investment, dispatch and generation adequacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. Healey, Stephen & Jaccard, Mark, 2016. "Abundant low-cost natural gas and deep GHG emissions reductions for the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 241-253.
    19. Sigit Perdana and Rod Tyers, 2020. "Global Climate Change Mitigation: Strategic Incentives," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 183-206.
    20. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s222018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.