Abstract

Long-term mitigation scenarios developed by integrated assessment models underpin major aspects of recent IPCC reports and have been critical to identify the system transformations that are required to meet stringent climate goals. However, they have been criticized for proposing pathways that may prove challenging to implement in the real world and for failing to capture the social and institutional challenges of the transition. There is a growing interest to assess the feasibility of these scenarios, but past research has mostly focused on theoretical considerations. This paper proposes a novel and versatile multidimensional framework that allows evaluating and comparing decarbonization pathways by systematically quantifying feasibility concerns across geophysical, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. This framework enables to assess the timing, disruptiveness and scale of feasibility concerns, and to identify trade-offs across different feasibility dimensions. As a first implementation of the proposed framework, we map the feasibility concerns of the IPCC 1.5 °C Special Report scenarios. We select 24 quantitative indicators and propose feasibility thresholds based on insights from an extensive analysis of the literature and empirical data. Our framework is, however, flexible and allows evaluations based on different thresholds or aggregation rules. Our analyses show that institutional constraints, which are often not accounted for in scenarios, are key drivers of feasibility concerns. Moreover, we identify a clear intertemporal trade-off, with early mitigation being more disruptive but preventing higher and persistent feasibility concerns produced by postponed mitigation action later in the century.

Highlights

  • What drives the feasibility of the systemic transformations required to reach the more ambitious climate goals? The discussions pertaining to feasibility are heating up, with some observers calling the 2◦C world a ‘fantasy’ (Tollefson 2015), and others, like Christiana Figueres, the former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, suggesting that reaching 1.5◦C largely depends on political will (Figueres 2018)

  • Employing data reported by IAMs scenarios, (a) we define five key feasibility dimensions; (b) for each dimension, we select a set of relevant indicators measuring decadal changes; (c) based on past literature and empirical data, we propose thresholds to define low, medium, and high feasibility concerns for each indicator in each decade; and (d) based on the feasibility evaluations of each indicator in each decade, we can compute aggregated feasibility concerns both within or across dimensions and time

  • Our framework is extremely flexible. It allows performing feasibility evaluations based on different sets of thresholds, and other dimensions and indicators can be added in the future, depending on which variables are available in the scenario set under evaluation

Read more

Summary

June 2021

Elina Brutschin1,∗ , Silvia Pianta2,3 , Massimo Tavoni2,4 , Keywan Riahi1,5 , Valentina Bosetti2,3 , Giacomo Marangoni and Bas J van Ruijven. Aspects of recent IPCC reports and have been critical to identify the system transformations that are required to meet stringent climate goals They have been criticized for proposing pathways that may prove challenging to implement in the real world and for failing to capture the social and institutional challenges of the transition. This paper proposes a novel and versatile multidimensional framework that allows evaluating and comparing decarbonization pathways by systematically quantifying feasibility concerns across geophysical, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. This framework enables to assess the timing, disruptiveness and scale of feasibility concerns, and to identify trade-offs across different feasibility dimensions. We identify a clear intertemporal trade-off, with early mitigation being more disruptive but preventing higher and persistent feasibility concerns produced by postponed mitigation action later in the century

Introduction
Systematic framework for scenario evaluation
Data and methods
Nuclear scale-up
Governance level and decarbonization rate
Implementation of the framework
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call