What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations
What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14693062.2017.1346498
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Anderson, Kevin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Larkin, Alice;Kuriakose, Jaise;Anderson, Kevin
累积排放方法越来越多地用于为缓解政策提供信息。然而，对于2摄氏度的含义有不同的解释。本文认为，通常用于为政策提供信息的成本优化模型通常低估了减缓2摄氏度的紧迫性。在负排放技术的许多乐观假设情景中，采用令人难以置信的提前峰值排放日期和逐步增加的短期缓解措施，将产生与2摄氏度承诺相称的结果。相比之下，考虑到公平和变革的社会技术障碍，表明一个更具挑战性的短期议程。为了理解这些不同的解释，我们在有限的二氧化碳预算下评估了最大的二氧化碳排放国的短期二氧化碳趋势，并假设负排放技术在规模上失败。这些结果对缓解政策的高层框架提出了深刻的问题。文章的结论是，即使采用较弱的公平标准，在短期内不采取紧急缓解措施的情况下，保持50%的机会避免2摄氏度的可行性也受到挑战。这突出表明需要更多地参与：(1)《巴黎协定》的公平层面，(2)受限制的碳预算对短期趋势的敏感性，以及(3)在2摄氏度情景中几乎无处不在地纳入净排放网络给社会带来的气候风险。自巴黎会议以来，人们越来越意识到，大多数与2摄氏度相称的政策解决方案包括广泛部署负排放技术（NETs）。然而，与近期抑制能源需求的努力相比，人们对这一选择的可行性知之甚少。此外，为决策者综合关键信息的许多不同方式，影响了决策者做出明智决策的能力。如果净网无法提供比碳源更多的碳汇，本文提出了考虑《巴黎协定》含义的另一种方法。它说明了政策制定者面临的气候挑战的规模，特别是如果考虑到《巴黎协定》旨在解决“公平”问题的话。在这里，有人认为，需要更多地关注短期内可以实现的二氧化碳减排目标，而不是承担可能导致《巴黎协定》政策目标无法实现的风险。
A cumulative emissions approach is increasingly used to inform mitigation policy. However, there are different interpretations of what 2 degrees C' implies. Here it is argued that cost-optimization models, commonly used to inform policy, typically underplay the urgency of 2 degrees C mitigation. The alignment within many scenarios of optimistic assumptions on negative emissions technologies (NETs), with implausibly early peak emission dates and incremental short-term mitigation, delivers outcomes commensurate with 2 degrees C commitments. In contrast, considering equity and socio-technical barriers to change, suggests a more challenging short-term agenda. To understand these different interpretations, short-term CO2 trends of the largest CO2 emitters, are assessed in relation to a constrained CO2 budget, coupled with a what if' assumption that negative emissions technologies fail at scale. The outcomes raise profound questions around high-level framings of mitigation policy. The article concludes that applying even weak equity criteria, challenges the feasibility of maintaining a 50% chance of avoiding 2 degrees C without urgent mitigation efforts in the short-term. This highlights a need for greater engagement with: (1) the equity dimension of the Paris Agreement, (2) the sensitivity of constrained carbon budgets to short-term trends and (3) the climate risks for society posed by an almost ubiquitous inclusion of NETs within 2 degrees C scenarios.POLICY RELEVANCESince the Paris meeting, there is increased awareness that most policy solutions' commensurate with 2 degrees C include widespread deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). Yet much less is understood about that option's feasibility, compared with near-term efforts to curb energy demand. Moreover, the many different ways in which key information is synthesized for policy makers, clouds the ability of policy makers to make informed decisions. This article presents an alternative approach to consider what the Paris Agreement implies, if NETs are unable to deliver more carbon sinks than sources. It illustrates the scale of the climate challenge for policy makers, particularly if the Agreement's aim to address equity' is accounted for. Here it is argued that much more attention needs to be paid to what CO2 reductions can be achieved in the short-term, rather than taking a risk that could render the Paris Agreement's policy goals unachievable.