IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v10y2022i8p186-d875514.html

Decarbonizing the Global Economy—Investigating the Role of Carbon Emission Inertia Using the Integrated Assessment Model MIND

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad M. Khabbazan

    (Workgroup for Economic and Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Technical University of Berlin (TU Berlin), Strasse des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany
    Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
    Center for Earth System Research and Sustainablity (CEN), University of Hamburg, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Sascha Hokamp

    (Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
    Center for Earth System Research and Sustainablity (CEN), University of Hamburg, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
    Research Group Climate Change and Security (CliSec), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 7, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
    Institute of Geography, University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 7, 20144 Hamburg, Germany)

Abstract

In 2015, the 21st Conference of the Parties reaffirmed the target of keeping the global mean temperature rise below 2 °C or 1.5 °C by 2100 while finding no consensus on how to decarbonize the global economy. In this regard, the speed of decarbonization reflects the (in)flexibility of transforming the energy sector due to engineering, political, or societal constraints. Using economy–energy–climate-integrated assessment models (IAMs), the maximum absolute rate of change in carbon emission allowed from each time step to the next, so-called carbon emission inertia (CEI), governs the magnitude of emission change, affecting investment decisions and economic welfare. Employing the model of investment and endogenous technological development (MIND), we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and examine anthropogenic global carbon emission scenarios in line with decarbonizing the global economy while measuring the global mean temperature. We examine the role of CEI as a crucial assumption, where the CEI can vary in four scenarios from 3.7% to 12.6% p.a. We provide what-if studies on global carbon emissions, global mean temperature change, and investments in renewable energy production and show that decarbonizing the global economy might still be possible before 2100 only if the CEI is high enough. In addition, we show that climate policy scenarios with early decarbonization and without negative emissions may still comply with the 2 °C target. However, our results indicate that the 1.5 °C target is not likely to be reached without negative emission technologies. Hence, the window of opportunity is beginning to close. This work can also assist to better interpret existing publications on various climate targets when altering CEI could have played a significant role.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad M. Khabbazan & Sascha Hokamp, 2022. "Decarbonizing the Global Economy—Investigating the Role of Carbon Emission Inertia Using the Integrated Assessment Model MIND," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:10:y:2022:i:8:p:186-:d:875514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/8/186/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/8/186/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aen:journl:2006se_jaccard-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Delf Neubersch & Hermann Held & Alexander Otto, 2014. "Operationalizing climate targets under learning: An application of cost-risk analysis," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 305-318, October.
    3. World Bank, 2015. "World Development Indicators 2015," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 21634, April.
    4. Edenhofer, Ottmar & Bauer, Nico & Kriegler, Elmar, 2005. "The impact of technological change on climate protection and welfare: Insights from the model MIND," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 277-292, August.
    5. Held, Hermann & Kriegler, Elmar & Lessmann, Kai & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2009. "Efficient climate policies under technology and climate uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 50-61.
    6. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    7. William Nordhaus, 2014. "Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2013R Model and Alternative Approaches," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 000.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Redouane Lamharher & Oussama Ritahi & Abdellah Echaoui, 2025. "The Interconnected Dynamics of Agricultural Growth, Employment, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Emissions: Evidence from Morocco," African Journal of Commercial Studies, African Journal of Commercial Studies, vol. 6(3).

    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. Stein, Lukas & Khabbazan, Mohammad Mohammadi & Held, Hermann, 2020. "Replacing temperature targets by subsidiary targetsː How accurate are they? – Overshooting vs. economic losses," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 57, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    2. Armon Rezai & Frederick Ploeg, 2017. "Second-Best Renewable Subsidies to De-carbonize the Economy: Commitment and the Green Paradox," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. George A. Gonzalez, 2016. "Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy . New York : Cambridge University Press . 360 pages. ISBN 9781107614970, $29.99 paperback. Anthony Patt , 2015 ," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 111-113, January.
    4. Vito Avakumović & Benjamin Blanz, 2026. "Modified cost-risk analysis as a bridge between target-based and trade-off-based decision-making frameworks," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Roth, Robert & Neubersch, Delf & Held, Hermann, 2020. "Evaluating Delayed Climate Policy by Cost-Risk Analysis," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 53, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    6. Elnaz Roshan & Mohammad M. Khabbazan & Hermann Held, 2019. "Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 263-279, January.
    7. Anthony G. Patt & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 219-232, March.
    8. Held, Hermann, 2020. "Cost Risk Analysisː How Robust Is It in View of Weitzman's Dismal Theorem and Undetermined Risk Functions?," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 55, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    9. Frederick Ploeg & Aart Zeeuw, 2019. "Pricing Carbon and Adjusting Capital to Fend Off Climate Catastrophes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 29-50, January.
    10. Ingmar Schumacher, 2014. "The Aggregation Dilemma," Working Papers 2014-224, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    11. Peter Harrison Howard & Derek Sylvan, 2020. "Wisdom of the experts: Using survey responses to address positive and normative uncertainties in climate-economic models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 213-232, September.
    12. Diana Dimitrova, 2018. "The 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 98-152.
    13. Sheng, Yu & Xu, Xinpeng, 2019. "The productivity impact of climate change: Evidence from Australia's Millennium drought," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 182-191.
    14. Hermann Held, 2019. "Cost Risk Analysis: Dynamically Consistent Decision-Making under Climate Targets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 247-261, January.
    15. Frederick Ploeg & Armon Rezai, 2019. "Simple Rules for Climate Policy and Integrated Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 77-108, January.
    16. Giudice, Renzo & Börner, Jan, 2021. "Benefits and costs of incentive-based forest conservation in the Peruvian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Luke G. Fitzpatrick & David L. Kelly, 2017. "Probabilistic Stabilization Targets," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 611-657.
    18. Franziska Piontek & Matthias Kalkuhl & Elmar Kriegler & Anselm Schultes & Marian Leimbach & Ottmar Edenhofer & Nico Bauer, 2019. "Economic Growth Effects of Alternative Climate Change Impact Channels in Economic Modeling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1357-1385, August.
    19. Grimaud, André & Lafforgue, Gilles & Magné, Bertrand, 2007. "Innovation Markets in the Policy Appraisal of Climate Change Mitigation," IDEI Working Papers 481, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    20. Weyant John, 2014. "Integrated assessment of climate change: state of the literature," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 377-409, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jecomi:v:10:y:2022:i:8:p:186-:d:875514. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.