IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v16y2016i3p301-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenarios for a 2 °C world: a trade-linked input--output model with high sector detail

Author

Listed:
  • Arjan De Koning
  • Gjalt Huppes
  • Sebastiaan Deetman
  • Arnold Tukker

Abstract

In this study a scenario model is used to examine if foreseen technological developments are capable of reducing CO 2 emissions in 2050 to a level consistent with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreements, which aim at maximizing the temperature rise to 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels. The model is based on a detailed global environmentally extended supply--use table (EE SUT) for the year 2000, called EXIOBASE. This global EE SUT allows calculating how the final demand in each region drives activities in production sectors, and hence related CO 2 emissions, in each region. Using this SUT framework, three scenarios have been constructed for the year 2050. The first is a business-as-usual scenario (BAU), which takes into account population, economic growth, and efficiency improvements. The second is a techno-scenario (TS), adding feasible and probable climate mitigation technologies to the BAU scenario. The third is the towards-2-degrees scenario (2DS), with a demand shift or growth reduction scenario added to the TS to create a 2 °C scenario. The emission results of the three scenarios are roughly in line with outcomes of typical scenarios from integrated assessment models. Our approach indicates that the 2 °C target seems difficult to reach with advanced CO 2 emission reduction technologies alone. Policy relevance The overall outlook in this scenario study is not optimistic. We show that CO 2 emissions from steel and cement production and air and sea transport will become dominant in 2050. They are difficult to reduce further. Using biofuels in air and sea transport will probably be problematic due to the fact that agricultural production largely will be needed to feed a rising global population and biofuel use for electricity production grows substantially in 2050. It seems that a more pervasive pressure towards emission reduction is required, also influencing the basic fabric of society in terms of types and volumes of energy use, materials use, and transport. Reducing envisaged growth levels, hence reducing global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, might be one final contribution needed for moving to the 2 °C target, but is not on political agendas now.

Suggested Citation

  • Arjan De Koning & Gjalt Huppes & Sebastiaan Deetman & Arnold Tukker, 2016. "Scenarios for a 2 °C world: a trade-linked input--output model with high sector detail," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 301-317, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:16:y:2016:i:3:p:301-317
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.999224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2014.999224
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2014.999224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    2. Neufeldt,Henry, 2009. "Making Climate Change Work for Us," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521119412 edited by Hulme,Mike.
    3. Guy Jakeman and Brian S. Fisher, 2006. "Benefits of Multi-Gas Mitigation: An Application of the Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM)," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 323-342.
    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. Jensen, Charlotte Louise & Goggins, Gary & Røpke, Inge & Fahy, Frances, 2019. "Achieving sustainability transitions in residential energy use across Europe: The importance of problem framings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Distefano, Tiziano & Kelly, Scott, 2017. "Are we in deep water? Water scarcity and its limits to economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 130-147.
    3. Hector Pollitt & Karsten Neuhoff & Xinru Lin, 2020. "The impact of implementing a consumption charge on carbon-intensive materials in Europe," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(S1), pages 74-89, April.
    4. Massimo Beccarello & Giacomo Di Foggia, 2023. "Review and Perspectives of Key Decarbonization Drivers to 2030," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Peter Glavič, 2020. "Identifying Key Issues of Education for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Kirsten Svenja Wiebe & Eivind Lekve Bjelle & Johannes Többen & Richard Wood, 2018. "Implementing exogenous scenarios in a global MRIO model for the estimation of future environmental footprints," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Steckel, Jan Christoph & Brecha, Robert J. & Jakob, Michael & Strefler, Jessica & Luderer, Gunnar, 2013. "Development without energy? Assessing future scenarios of energy consumption in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 53-67.
    2. Rose, Steven K. & Ahammad, Helal & Eickhout, Bas & Fisher, Brian & Kurosawa, Atsushi & Rao, Shilpa & Riahi, Keywan & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2012. "Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 365-380.
    3. Ottmar Edenhofer & Steffen Brunner, 2009. "Adapt, Mitigate, or Die? The Fallacy of a False Trade-off by Ottmar Edenhofer and Steffen Brunner," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(03), pages 14-18, October.
    4. Edenhofer, Ottmar & Hirth, Lion & Knopf, Brigitte & Pahle, Michael & Schlömer, Steffen & Schmid, Eva & Ueckerdt, Falko, 2013. "On the economics of renewable energy sources," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 12-23.
    5. Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Rive, Nathan A. & Mideksa, Torben K., 2012. "Europe’s climate goals and the electricity sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 200-211.
    6. N. Ranger & L. Gohar & J. Lowe & S. Raper & A. Bowen & R. Ward, 2012. "Is it possible to limit global warming to no more than 1.5°C?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 973-981, April.
    7. Hubertus Bardt & Ottmar Edenhofer & Brigitte Knopf & Gunnar Luderer & Sabine Schlacke, 2009. "World climate summit in Copenhagen: What are the chances of success for a global climate agreement?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 62(19), pages 03-13, October.
    8. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Kram, Tom, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 644-647, July.
    9. Timothy J. Foxon & Jonathan Köhler & Jonathan Michie & Christine Oughton, 2013. "Towards a new complexity economics for sustainability," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(1), pages 187-208.
    10. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    11. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    12. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    13. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    14. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    16. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    17. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    18. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Golub, Alexander (Голуб, Александр), 2018. "Methodological Issues of Assessing Investment Risks in Projects Weakening the Dependence of the Russian Economy on Natural Resources and Providing a Transition to Low-Carbon Development [Методологи," Working Papers 071802, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    20. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.

    More about this item

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:16:y:2016:i:3:p:301-317. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.