Costs Of Climate Change Mitigation Research Articles

The role and deployment timing of direct air capture in Saudi Arabia’s net-zero transition

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has pledged to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) is critical for the country to meet its net-zero target given its reliance on fossil fuels and limited options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, the role of DACCS in KSA’s national climate change mitigation has not been studied in the literature. In this study, we aim to understand the potential role of DACCS and the effect of its deployment timing in KSA’s transition toward its net-zero target using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM)-KSA, which is a version of GCAM with KSA split out as an individual region. We find that the annual DACCS CO2 sequestration in KSA reaches 0.28–0.33 Gt yr−1 by 2060 depending on its deployment timing. Early DACCS deployment, driven by its early and rapid cost reduction worldwide, could bring significant savings (∼420 billion USD during 2020–2060) in the cost of climate change mitigation in KSA, approximately 17% reduction relative to delayed DACCS deployment. Our study suggests a strong role for KSA to proactively invest in the R&D of DACCS, initiate early DACCS deployment, and explore a broad suite of CDR options.

Impacts of climate change-induced heat stress on pig productivity in China

The economic impacts of climate-induced heat stress on pig farming have not been sufficiently investigated, despite the significant threat it poses to the industry. In this study, we coupled consecutive years of county-scale meteorological data with operational-level economic data to estimate the impact of climate-induced heat stress on the productivity of the Chinese pig industry using a stochastic frontier production function model. Based on model results, we projected the impact of heat stress on pig production in 2030 and 2050 with and without technological advances. Results showed that heat stress has a significant negative impact on pig production, with southern regions being more affected. However, considering technological advances, losses will decrease by 21 % and 52 %, respectively, compared with the scenario without technological advances. Simultaneously, we calculated the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation and found that increasing production inputs to reduce production losses from heat stress costs one-fifth of forgoing production losses. Therefore, we recommend a positive climate change response strategy.

Integrated assessment models and input–output analysis: bridging fields for advancing sustainability scenarios research

Technology-rich Integrated assessment models (IAMs) and Environmentally-Extended Input–Output Analysis (EEIOA) are widely employed for sustainability analysis, each offering unique strengths. IAMs focus on forward-looking scenarios, exploring technological shifts and climate change mitigation costs. EEIOA provides more comprehensive but static assessments of environmental and socio-economic impacts throughout supply chains, adopting a lifecycle perspective. I conduct a literature review to assess the current state of IAM-IO integration, paving the way for future research opportunities with advanced models. Existing studies have loosely linked IAM and IO models to improve one field or the other. This perspective highlights the potential for more advanced IAM-IO model linking and identifies three domains within sustainability scenarios research where IAM-IO integration could play a crucial role: the energy-industry nexus in decarbonization pathways, multi-dimensional sustainability impact assessment and demand-side solutions and post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. The expected research insights may be pivotal to design effective sustainable policies.

The political economy of the climate crisis in Southern Africa

ABSTRACT This article maps out the dynamics of the climate crisis that is unfolding globally, but whose consequences have a disproportionate impact on countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the wider global South. Although these countries have contributed insignificant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions (compared to their industrialised counterparts), their populations are the major victims of climate change, whose disastrous impacts were recently witnessed in Zimbabwe during Cyclone Idai and in South Africa during the Durban floods. In addition, Southern Africa is experiencing climate change-induced droughts, depleting water in major dams and undermining hydroelectric power generation, especially in Zambia and Zimbabwe. As a result, the region is experiencing dangerous power outages affecting agriculture and other key industries. This article adopts a novel decolonial perspective to make sense of these extreme weather events, arguing that the climate crisis is already affecting the livelihoods of many people in Southern Africa and that it is often the poor and vulnerable who suffer most from the impacts of climate change. There is thus a need for industrialised countries to contribute towards the costs of climate change mitigation since they are historically responsible for most of the carbon emissions.

Climate change mitigation costs reduction caused by socioeconomic-technological transitions

Numerical scenarios generated by Integrated Assessment Models describing future energy and land-use systems that attain climate change mitigation goals have been considered important sources of guidance for climate policymaking. The climate change mitigation cost is one of the concerns in the emissions reduction efforts. However, how to moderate climate change mitigation costs is not well understood. Here, we describe the conditions needed for reducing or taking away climate change mitigation costs by implementing socioeconomic-technological transitions into numerical scenario assessment. The results indicate that integration of multiple socioeconomic-technological transitions would be effective, including lowering energy demand, shifting to an environmentally friendly food system, energy technology progress and the stimulus of capital formation that is additionally imposed to the normal carbon pricing mechanism. No single measure is sufficient to fully take away mitigation costs. These results indicate that cross-sectoral transformation is needed, as the realisation of all measures depends on effective government policies as well as uncertain social and technological changes.

Information about historical emissions drives the division of climate change mitigation costs

Despite worsening climate change, the international community still disagrees on how to divide the costs of mitigation between developing countries and developed countries, which emitted the bulk of historical carbon emissions. We study this issue using an economic experiment. Specifically, we test how information about historical emissions influences how much participants pay for climate change mitigation. In a four-player game, participants are assigned to lead two fictional countries as members of either the first or the second generation. The first generation produces wealth at the expense of greater carbon emissions. The second generation inherits their predecessor’s wealth and negotiates how to split the climate change mitigation costs. Here we show that when the second generation knows that the previous generation created the current wealth and mitigation costs, participants whose predecessor generated more carbon emissions offered to pay more, whereas the successors of low-carbon emitters offered to pay less.

Labour productivity and economic impacts of carbon mitigation: a modelling study and benefit–cost analysis

Despite the emerging carbon neutrality pledges from different countries, it is still unclear how much these pledges would cost and how the costs would compare with the economic benefits. Comparisons at the country level are important for tightening country-specific emissions trajectories to keep the temperature limit targets outlined in the Paris Agreement within reach. We aimed to systematically estimate avoided heat-related labour productivity losses against the costs of climate change mitigation at country and regional levels. In this modelling study, to address the above-mentioned research gaps, we first selected two representative climate change scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0 [RCP6.0] scenario, a higher warming scenario representing limited mitigation pledges before the Paris Agreement with around 3°C warming by the end of this century; and RCP2.6 scenario, a lower warming scenario assuming global temperature rise is limited to 2°C) and estimated heat-related labour productivity loss using the exposure-response function at country and regional levels. By representing the direct heat-related labour productivity losses in a multiregional global computable general equilibrium model, we then did a benefit-cost analysis to quantify the economic benefits of avoided heat-related labour productivity losses as well as the estimated reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) related to carbon reduction. By 2100, the overall economic losses due to heat-related labour productivity loss could range from about 1·5% of global GDP under the RCP6.0 scenario to about 0·1% of global GDP under the RCP2.6 scenario. The productivity losses will be highly concentrated in low-latitude regions, especially in southeast Asia, India, and the Middle East, implying the necessity of additional adaptation measures. By 2100, about 51·8% of global climate change mitigation costs could be offset by economic benefits from reduced labour productivity losses. Cumulatively, about 17·0% of climate change mitigation costs could be offset by the economic benefits between 2020 and 2100, when using a 2% social discounting rate. The costs and benefits of climate change mitigation will be distributed highly unevenly across regions due to their varying climate zones and economic structures. Regions with benefits from reduced productivity losses higher than mitigation costs are mainly low-latitude and tropical regions with lower income and lower emissions, such as southeast Asia, Brazil, and Mexico. More than half the climate change mitigation costs could be offset by the economic benefits by 2100 for the world's largest emitters, including the USA, China, the EU, and India. Low benefit-cost ratios are expected in economies that rely on fossil fuels, such as Canada, Russia, and the Middle East. Although pledging carbon neutrality implies radical changes to most economies, substantial health and economic gains can be achieved by reduced heat-related labour productivity loss, even without accounting for other benefits. The benefit-cost analysis in this study shows the potential for choosing more stringent climate change mitigation pathways in some regions. Regions with low benefit-cost ratios need to restructure their economies to reduce mitigation costs as well as losses from declined fossil fuel exports. National Natural Science Foundation of China, Tsinghua-Toyota Joint Research Fund, the Wellcome Trust, Tsinghua University-China Three Gorges Corporation Joint Research Center for Climate Governance Mechanism and Green Low-carbon Transformation Strategy, the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore (Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise [CREATE] programme), and the Global Energy Interconnection Development and Coorperation Organization.

Costs of forest carbon sequestration in the presence of climate change impacts

Forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change, and, at the same time, are predicted to experience large-scale impacts of climate change that will affect the efficiency of forests in mitigation efforts. Projections of future carbon sequestration potential typically do not account for the changing economic costs of timber and agricultural production and land use change. We integrated a dynamic forward-looking economic optimization model of global land use with results from a dynamic global vegetation model and meta-analysis of climate impacts on crop yields to project future carbon sequestration in forests. We find that the direct impacts of climate change on forests, represented by changes in dieback and forest growth, and indirect effects due to lost crop productivity, together result in a net gain of 17 Gt C in aboveground forest carbon storage from 2000 to 2100. Increases in climate-driven forest growth rates will result in an 81%–99% reduction in costs of reaching a range of global forest carbon stock targets in 2100, while the increases in dieback rates are projected to raise the costs by 57%–132%. When combined, these two direct impacts are expected to reduce the global costs of climate change mitigation in forests by more than 70%. Inclusion of the third, indirect impact of climate change on forests through reduction in crop yields, and the resulting expansion of cropland, raises the costs by 11%–38% and widens the uncertainty range. While we cannot rule out the possibility of climate change increasing mitigation costs, the central outcomes of the simultaneous impacts of climate change on forests and agriculture are 64%–86% reductions in the mitigation costs. Overall, the results suggest that concerns about climate driven dieback in forests should not inhibit the ambitions of policy makers in expanding forest-based climate solutions.

Waiting for Godot? The case for climate change adaptation and mitigation in small island states

ABSTRACT Global warming is the most significant threat to ecosystems and people’s health and living standards in the coming decades, especially in small island states in the Caribbean and elsewhere. This paper contributes to the debate by analyzing different options to scale up climate change mitigation and adaptation. In particular, the empirical analysis indicates that increasing energy efficiency and reducing the use of fossil fuel in electricity generation could lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions, while investing in physical and financial resilience would yield long-run benefits. From a risk-reward perspective, the advantages of reducing the risks associated with climate change and the health benefits from higher environmental quality clearly outweigh the potential cost of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the short run. The additional revenue generated by environmental taxes could be used to compensate the most vulnerable households, building a multilayered safety net, and strengthening structural resilience.

The cost of mitigation revisited

Estimates of economic implications of climate policy are important inputs into policy-making. Despite care to contextualize quantitative assessments of mitigation costs, one strong view outside academic climate economics is that achieving Paris Agreement goals implies sizable macroeconomic losses. Here, we argue that this notion results from unwarranted simplification or omission of the complexities of quantifying mitigation costs, which generates ambiguity in communication and interpretation. We synthesize key factors influencing mitigation cost estimates to guide interpretation of estimates, for example from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and suggest ways to improve the underlying models. We propose alternatives for the scenario design framework, the framing of mitigation costs and the methods used to derive them, to better inform public debate and policy. Assessing the cost of climate change mitigation is essential to policy-making, yet for many the perception remains that meeting climate goals will entail economic loss. This Perspective unpacks key aspects of mitigation cost estimates to clarify interpretation and discussion of costs.

Ten new insights in climate science 2021: a horizon scan

Non-technical summaryWe summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.Technical summaryA synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.Social media summaryHow do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

Toward Better Estimates of the Cost of Climate Change Mitigation: Guidelines for Studying Potential Health Benefits.

Toward Better Estimates of the Cost of Climate Change Mitigation: Guidelines for Studying Potential Health Benefits.

Nudging Climate Change Mitigation: A Laboratory Experiment with Inter-Generational Public Goods

To avoid the dangerous consequences of climate change, humans need to overcome two intertwined conflicts. First, they must deal with an intra-generational conflict that emerges from the allocation of costs of climate change mitigation among different actors of the current generation. Second, they face an inter-generational conflict that stems from the higher costs for long-term mitigation measures, particularly helping future generations, compared to the short-term actions aimed at adapting to the immediate effects of climate change, benefiting mostly the current generation. We devise a novel game to study this multi-level conflict and investigate individuals’ behavior in a lab experiment. We find that, although individuals reach sufficient cooperation levels to avoid adverse consequences for their own generation, they contribute more to cheaper short-term than to costlier long-term measures, to the detriment of future generations. Simple “nudge” interventions, however, may alter this pattern considerably. We find that changing the default contribution level to the inter-generational welfare optimum increases long-term contributions. Moreover, providing individuals with the possibility to commit themselves to inter-generational solidarity leads to an even stronger increase in long-term contributions. Nevertheless, the results also suggest that nudges alone may not be enough to induce inter-generationally optimal contributions.

The limit of climate justice: unfair sacrifice and aggregate harm

ABSTRACT This article revisits a principle of distributive justice accepted by most, if not all, scholars of climate justice. The principle at stake, the limit, protects those who are very badly off from bearing the costs of climate change mitigation. The persistent noncompliance of developed states with their obligations toward burden sharing, however, means that this principle is increasingly in tension with successful climate change mitigation, given it seems to require that those in poverty have continued access to emissions in cases where alternative forms of energy are not provided. In the first half of the paper I outline this tension and show how the dominant expression of the limit in the literature, advanced by Henry Shue, must be abandoned. I argue that any attempt to articulate the limit in current circumstance, where the carbon budget is very scarce, must consider the climate harm associated with continued subsistence emissions. The second half of the article defends a principle, the exemption, which is best able to maintain the strong commitment to shielding those below the minimal threshold from the costs of mitigation, even in light of the potential harm that will result if they require emissions to fuel their energy needs.

Nudging Climate Change Mitigation: A Laboratory Experiment with Inter-Generational Public Goods

To avoid the dangerous consequences of climate change, humans need to overcome two intertwined conflicts. First, they have to deal with an intra-generational conflict that emerges from the allocation of costs of climate change mitigation among different actors of the current generation. Second, they face an inter-generational conflict that stems from the higher costs for long-term mitigation measures, particularly helping future generations, compared to the short-term actions aimed at adapting to the immediate effects of climate change, benefiting mostly the current generation. We devise a novel game to study this multi-level conflict and investigate individuals’ behavior in a lab experiment. We find that, although individuals reach sufficient cooperation levels to avoid adverse consequences for their own generation, they contribute more to cheaper short-term than to costlier long-term measures, to the detriment of future generations. Simple “nudge” interventions, however, may alter this pattern considerably. We find that changing the default contribution level to the inter-generational welfare optimum increases long-term contributions. Moreover, providing individuals with the possibility to commit themselves to inter-generational solidarity leads to an even stronger increase in long-term contributions. Nevertheless, the results also suggest that nudges alone may not be enough to induce intergenerationally optimal contributions.

De-risking policies as a substantial determinant of climate change mitigation costs in developing countries: Case study of the Middle East and North African region

Ambitious goals for climate change mitigation and energy security policies are driving deployment of renewable energy sources globally. However, the deployment of renewable energies at scale requires not only public but also private capital, such as foreign direct investment (FDI). Many countries with favourable conditions for renewables, such as the countries of the Middle East and North African (MENA) region, are not attracting sufficient FDI. Risk perceptions of FDI stakeholders are one of the reasons. This paper discusses the de-risking approach as a possible tool to address subjective risk perceptions and assesses with a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model macroeconomic feedback-effects of employing a de-risking strategy for FDI into a particular kind of renewable electricity (RES-E) technology, concentrated solar power, in the MENA region. Our results show that the application of a de-risking approach reduces the costs for deployment of CSP, and therefore, also volumes of subsidies that would be needed to make CSP cost competitive with fossil fuel based electricity generation. This, in turn, leads to positive GDP and welfare effects in the MENA region. Our results allow us developing of recommendations for energy policy the implementation of the de-risking approach as a potential consensual option with high political feasibility to reduce climate change mitigation costs.

How do climate-related uncertainties influence 2 and 1.5\xa0\xb0C pathways?

We investigate how uncertainties in key parameters in the carbon cycle and climate system propagate to the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation needed to achieve the 2 and 1.5 °C targets by 2100 using a stochastic version of the simple climate model for optimization (SCM4OPT), an integrated assessment model. For the 2 °C target, we find a difference in 2100 CO2 emission levels of 20.5 GtCO2 (− 1.2 GtCO2 to 19.4 GtCO2), whereas this difference is 12.0 GtCO2 (− 6.9 GtCO2 to 5.1 GtCO2) for the 1.5 °C target (17–83% range). Total radiative forcing in 2100 is estimated to be 3.3 (2.7–3.9) Wm−2 for the 2 °C case and 2.5 (2.0–3.0) Wm−2 for the 1.5 °C case. Carbon prices in 2100 are 482 (181–732) USD(2005)/tCO2 and 713 (498–1014) USD(2005)/tCO2 for the 2 and 1.5 °C targets, respectively. We estimate GDP losses in 2100 that correspond to 1.9 (1.2–2.5)% of total gross output for the 2 °C target and 2.0 (1.5–2.7)% for the 1.5 °C target.

The Impact of CCS Readiness on the Evolution of China's Electric Power Sector

In this study, GCAM-China is exercised to examine the impact of CCS availability on the projected evolution of China's electric power sector under the Paris Increased Ambition policy scenario developed by Fawcett et al. based on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted under the COP-21 Paris Agreement. This policy scenario provides a backdrop for understanding China's electric generation mix over the coming century under several CCS availability scenarios. In all scenarios, the electric power sector shifts towards low-carbon generation technologies including significant nuclear, wind, and solar to meet growing demands and emissions targets. The availability and timing of CCS technologies to deploy at scale impacts the resulting generation mix and mitigation costs. Should large-scale CCS deployment be delayed in China by 25 years, the modeled per-ton cost of climate change mitigation is projected to be roughly $420/tC (2010 US dollars) by 2050, relative to $360/tC in the case in which CCS is available to deploy by 2025, a 16% increase. Once CCS is available for commercial use, mitigation costs for the two cases converge, equilibrating by 2085. However, should CCS be entirely unavailable to deploy in China, the mitigation cost spread, compared to the 2025 case, doubles by 2075 ($580/tC and $1130/tC respectively), and triples by 2100 ($1050/tC vs. $3200/tC). However, while delays in CCS availability may have short-term impacts on China's overall per-ton cost of meeting the emissions reduction target evaluated here, the net impact is much smaller compared with not having CCS available within the century and in each case the carbon price is likely to approach the price path associated with the full CCS availability case within a decade following CCS deployment. Having CCS available before the end of the century, even under the delays examined here, could reduce the total amount of nuclear and renewable energy that must deploy, significantly reducing the overall cost of meeting the emissions mitigation targets.

Cost of climate change mitigation in Canada’s forest sector

Managing forests and forest products has substantial potential to help mitigate climate change but the cost has not been extensively examined in Canada. We estimated the cost of seven forest-related mitigation strategies in Canada’s 230 million hectares of managed forest, divided into 32 spatial units. For each strategy and spatial unit, we determined forest sector mitigation cost per tonne (t) using estimated impacts on forest sector greenhouse gas emissions and removals and net revenue. National cost curves showed that mitigation averaged 11.0 Mt CO2e·year–1 in 2015–2050 at costs below $50·t CO2e–1 for a strategy of increased recovery of harvested biomass, increased salvage, extraction of harvest residues for bioenergy, and increased production of longer lived products. We also examined national portfolios in which the strategy selected for each spatial unit (from among the seven examined) was chosen to maximize mitigation or minimize costs. At low levels of mitigation, portfolios chosen to minimize costs were much cheaper than those that maximized mitigation, but overall, they yielded less than half the total mitigation of the latter portfolios. Choosing strategies to maximize mitigation in 2015–2050 yielded an average of 16.5 Mt·year–1 at costs below $50·t CO2e–1. Our analysis suggests that forest-related strategies may be cost-effective choices to help achieve long-term emission reductions in Canada.

Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation

Despite the shift from multilateral negotiations on legally binding mitigation commitments to the decentralized nonbinding Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) approach in global climate policy, governments and other stakeholders continue to insist that fairness principles guide the overall effort. Key recurring principles in this debate are capacity and historical responsibility. To keep global warming within the internationally agreed 2 °C limit, many countries will have to engage in more ambitious climate policies relative to current INDCs. Public support will be crucial in this respect. We thus explore the implications of different fairness principles for citizens’ preferences concerning burden sharing in climate policy. To this end, we implemented an online experiment in which participants (N = 414) played an ultimatum game. Participants were tasked with sharing the costs of climate change mitigation. The aim was to examine how participants’ willingness to pay for mitigation was influenced by capacity and historical responsibility considerations. The results show that fairness principles do have a strong effect and that participants applied fairness principles differently depending on their position at the outset. It turns out that participants paid more attention to other players’ capacity and historical responsibility when proposing a particular cost allocation and more attention to their own capacity and responsibility when responding to proposals by others. These and other findings suggest that framing climate policy in terms of internationally coordinated unilateral measures is likely to garner more public support than framing climate policy in terms of a global bargaining effort over the mitigation burden.