Next 10 years critical for achieving climate change goals

April 13, 2017, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Clouds over Australia are shown. Credit: NASA

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be reduce in two ways—by cutting our emissions, or by removing it from the atmosphere, for example through plants, the ocean, and soil.

The historic Paris Agreement set a target of limiting future global average temperature increase to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to even further limit the average increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Yet the timing and details of these efforts were left to individual countries.

In a new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) used a global model of the carbon system that accounts for carbon release and uptake through both natural and anthropogenic activities.

"The study shows that the combined and land-use system should deliver zero net anthropogenic emissions well before 2040 in order to assure the attainability of a 1.5°C target by 2100," says IIASA Ecosystems Services and Management Program Director Michael Obersteiner, a study coauthor.

According to the study, fossil fuel consumption would likely need to be reduced to less than 25% of the global energy supply by 2100, compared to 95% today. At the same time, land use change, such as deforestation, must be decreased. This would lead to a 42% decrease in cumulative emissions by the end of the century compared to a business as usual scenario.

"This study gives a broad accounting of the in our atmosphere, where it comes from and where it goes. We take into account not just emissions from fossil fuels, but also agriculture, land use, food production, bioenergy, and carbon uptake by natural ecosystems," explains World Bank consultant Brian Walsh, who led the study while working as an IIASA researcher.

The compares four different scenarios for future energy development, with a range of mixtures of renewable and fossil energy. In a "high-renewable" scenario where wind, solar, and bioenergy increase by around 5% a year, net emissions could peak by 2022, the study shows. Yet without substantial negative emissions technologies, that pathway would still lead to a rise of 2.5°C, missing the Paris Agreement target.

Walsh notes that the high-renewable energy scenario is ambitious, but not impossible—global production of renewable energy grew 2.6% between 2013 and 2014, according to the IEA. In contrast, the study finds that continued reliance on fossil fuels (with growth rates of renewables between 2% and 3% per year), would cause carbon emissions to peak only at the end of the century, causing an estimated 3.5°C global temperature rise by 2100.

The authors note that not only the mix of energy matters, but also the overall amount of energy consumed. The study also included ranges for high energy consumption and low energy consumption.

The study adds to a large body of IIASA research on climate mitigation policy and the chances of achieving targets.

"Earlier work on mitigation strategies by IIASA has shown the importance of demand-side measures, including efficiency, conservation, and behavioral change. Success in these areas may explain the difference between reaching 1.5C instead of 2C," says IIASA Energy Program Director Keywan Riahi, who also contributed to the new work.

A new model

The study is one of the first published results from the newly developed FeliX model, a system dynamics model of social, economic, and environmental earth systems and their interdependencies. The model is freely available for download and use at http://www.felixmodel.com/.

"Compared to other climate and integrated assessment models, the FeliX model is less detailed, but it provides a unique systemic view of the whole carbon cycle, which is vital to our understanding of future climate change and energy," says IIASA Ecosystem Services and Management Program Director.

Explore further: A 'carbon law' offers pathway to halve emissions every decade, say researchers

More information: Walsh B, Ciais P, Janssens IA, Penuelas J, Riahi K, Rydzak F, vanVuuren D, Obersteiner M (2017). Pathways for balancing Co2 emissions and sinks. Nature Communications , DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS14856

Related Stories

Carbon capture technology could be vital for climate targets

December 11, 2013

The future availability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be pivotal in reaching ambitious climate targets, according to a new comprehensive study of future energy technologies from IIASA, the Potsdam Institute for ...

Clean energy could stress global water resources

March 3, 2016

Climate mitigation efforts in the energy system could lead to increasing pressure on water resources, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Yet increased energy efficiency and a ...

Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

July 15, 2015

Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published ...

Carbon sequestration in soil: The potential underfoot

October 19, 2015

Declining greenhouse gas emissions from European cropland could compensate for up to 7 percent of annual agricultural emissions from the region, according to a new study analyzing the carbon uptake potential of soil. However ...

Recommended for you

Amazon River pirating water from neighboring Rio Orinoco

August 16, 2018

The Amazon River is slowly stealing a 40,000-square-kilometer (25,000-square-mile) drainage basin from the upper Orinoco River, according to new research suggesting this may not be the first time the world's largest river ...

37 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

EyeNStein
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2017
Given that fossil fuel powered transport and power stations will not disappear as if by magic over the next 10 years: We need to look at ways of removing and using the CO₂ effectively.
As well as making everything we do more energy efficient. Like modifying plants to grow industrial or pharmaceutic industry or fuel feedstocks.

Given that atmospheric CO₂ has nearly doubled in far les than any evolutionary time scale; then crop and biofuel plants will need a hand to maintain optimal efficiency. Crude attempts to substitute RuBisCo genes to boost photosynthesis didn't work. But we need to smarten our attempts and keep trying.
Davy_Crockett
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
"The study shows that the combined energy and land-use system should deliver zero net anthropogenic emissions well before 2040 in order to assure the attainability of a 1.5°C" ...zero net by 2030?

Everywhere we are currently building and planning to build 40 year infrastructure to facilitate burning at the current rate. At best, supplementing expansion with the renewable fraction. That means we are building and planning to go beyond +2.5C. Why kid ourselves? There are not even negative emissions technologies conceived to put a useful dent in it.

I expect we will keep birthing and feeding, slashing, burrowing, and burning right until insurmountable external forces curb us. Just like any other creature. Still, it's nice to fantasize while there is still a "chance."
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2017
This is hard enough to do without direct opposition from our own government. Ignorance and short-sighted greed are killing us, and now it is all being institutionalized.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
I know @gkam. It's sick isn't it? The parasites have taken over and the planet is diseased. There is only one long term solution, Plant more trees, Be Johnny Appleseed. If there isn't a tree, plant one. WE NEED MORE TREES.
dustywells
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
"There are not even negative emissions technologies conceived to put a useful dent in it."

New technologies will come but we don't need new technologies if we properly apply those we already have and return large portions of the globe to pre-industrial age conditions. We have to overcome our myopic view that the elimination of fossil fuel is the only way to overcome AGW and that temperature is the primary measure of climate change.

With the focus on temperature and CO2, we disregard the other factors driving climate change, deforestation, agriculture, albedo, aerosols, humidity, precipitation, etc.

With renewable energy we now have the means to remediate while quenching the thirst for oil. Much agriculture crop production can be made more efficient with vertical farming, reducing the need for water by as much as 95% and eliminating fertilizer contaminated runoff; with an additional benefit of fresh vegetables with little or no transportation.

dustywells
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
Desalinated water can be pumped inland to be used to recharge depleted aquifers and encourage reforestation and greening of deserts; with the effect of transpiration lowering the temperature and increasing humidity.

This additional humidity will make its way to higher latitudes where precipitation can replenish glaciers and polar ice caps while clouds increase albedo and reflect more incoming sunlight.

These simple but expensive steps are possible with today's technologies. They have the potential to reduce CO2 as well as temperature, increase plant biomass, improve food production, replenish glaciers and ice caps, reduce fertilizer contamination of oceans, reduce flooding, lower sea levels, etc.

What's stopping us?
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
"New technologies will come but we don't need new technologies if we properly apply those we already have and return large portions of the globe to pre-industrial age conditions."

Oh you mean like kill off 5 BILLION people or so. New York City had to dispose of 100s of tons of horse manure each day before the advent of the automobile.

Fossil fuels and the industrial revolution have saved more lives than all of your pipe dreams ever will. These vaulted computer models were written to promote an agenda and are far removed from real science.

dustywells
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
Oh you mean like kill off 5 BILLION people or so.
We don't have to kill anyone. Just make better use of the resources we currently have available.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017

Why am I reminded of the arguments which occurred when the car replaced the horse?
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
Personally I am tired of green pipe dreams. I just had to replace the LED bulb in my garage door opener. 25,000 hours my a$$. I could not think of a LESS demanding application. Then you have the CFLs that take minutes to come to full brightness due to the fact that there is not enough mercury in them. By the time they come to full brightness one has left the room.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
In my state the government forces the electric companies to subsidize the these bulbs. Thus one thinks that they are a bargain. Our rates are among the highest in the nation about 25 to 35 cents per KWH.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
But you guys are right. Electricity production should be totally renewable. This 24/7 nonsense has got to stop. We should start by having the Police, Fire, Traffic Lights, Subways, Trains and Hospitals use electricity only when it is available from these sources. When that works out well then the elderly should be switched over next.
gkam
Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
"In my state the government forces the electric companies to subsidize the these bulbs."
----------------------------------

It would be the Public Utilities Commission or equivalent in your state.

Yeah, and we subsidized Georgia Power with a guarantee which looks shaky now of $8,300,000,000.

I was not in favor.
MR166
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
Like most green promises the life expectancy of LED bulbs in practice is nowhere near what is promised. Yes, if you operate the bulb unenclosed in the middle of an air conditioned lab and never turn it off you will get 25K hours. But put 3 of them in an enclosed kitchen fixture and see how long they last.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017

We do what we can at the time.

Are you aware these kind of things have caused our per capita energy use to go down?
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
"Are you aware these kind of things have caused our per capita energy use to go down?"

Don't get me wrong, I use both. I just get mad when they promote half truths about anything.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
Like most green promises the life expectancy of LED bulbs in practice is nowhere near what is promised.... But put 3 of them in an enclosed kitchen fixture and see how long they last
@mr166
maybe you just need to change your source & buy from somewhere different?

there can be various reasons that your LED's are failing, be it shoddy workmanship on the part of the LED manufacturer to your own power distribution

if you have power surges, you will play havoc on certain types of electrical stuff... how do you know this isn't the cause of your loss? that would put the problem back in the court of your power co, not the LED

the reason i ask: i have LED lights that i've owned for about 15 years. i use them constantly - still

never had to change them. and i spend a lot of time awake during the night, so they get constant use

considering that:
how common is your experience?
is it local or widespread?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
"if you have power surges, you will play havoc on certain types of electrical stuff... how do you know this isn't the cause of your loss? that would put the problem back in the court of your power co, not the LED"
-----------------------------------

"Power surges" from the utility are not the usual cause of problems. It is an urban (or rural) myth.

It is more likely that a poor and/or intermittent connection, usually between bulb and socket, or excessive heat took them out.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
"Power surges" from the utility are not the usual cause of problems. It is an urban (or rural) myth
power surges may well be what is causing the problem, and it may be the power company (brownouts, EM, etc) or his own stuff
Power surges, (sometimes called voltage surges) are fast, temporary spikes in voltage within an electrical circuit. These surges, which are unavoidable, occur when something boosts the electrical charge at some point in the circuit. This boost can increase the current flowing into or within your home's electrical wiring, affecting lighting, appliances and other electrical equipment in your home or business. Power surges are caused by many different factors, including lightning, faulty or damaged electric wiring or the sudden turning on and off of a high power electrical device like an air conditioner or large electric motor.
http://www.askonc...-17.aspx

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam cont'd
"Power surges" from the utility are not the usual cause of problems
how, exactly, is mr166 going to differentiate between a surge from lightning striking the lines and a surge from the power co, you idiot?
also
Other sources of power surges include faulty wiring, problems with the utility company's equipment, and downed power lines. The system of transformers and lines that brings electricity from a power generator to the outlets in our homes or offices is extraordinarily complex. There are dozens of possible points of failure, and many potential errors that can cause an uneven power flow. In today's system of electricity distribution, power surges are an unavoidable occurrence
http://electronic...tor3.htm

that means LED's, too
quit spreading misinformation and lies

per your own request...
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
You are not going to get a power surge. Lightning causes immediate outages until the energy is grounded, done by arc gaps or MOVs, so you get temporary losses ,not surges.

For utility switching to cause problems is unusual, unless you are in areas with low reliability.

I suggest you read the original tome of Alex McEachern on Power Quality Signatures, and go to page ten, which lays out the first rules of analyzing waveshapes of power and disturbances.

It's called "George's Comments".
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
The power "surges", the "spikes" are relatively-high frequency events in a system designed for low voltages and frequencies.

The voltages are immediately capacitively-coupled and any currents inductively chocked. Spikes from your refrigerator travel only a few feet in house wiring.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
Oops, they are inductively-choked.

We can go over all this, because I made the graphs and took the readings in some of those books myself, learning about them by instrumenting the situations and analyzing the situations so I could teach the lessons to others.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
For utility switching to cause problems is unusual, unless you are in areas with low reliability
low reliability like your own PG&E?
Small surges can occur several times a day or a hundred times an hour, ranging from several thousand volts to under 100 volts. These repeated smaller surges can eventually degrade electronic equipment
https://www.pge.c...sors.pdf

There is plenty more on PG-1 alone

you produced no links
your reference is too vague to be meaningful
and i just provided a reference that refutes your own claims that comes from your own power company

you can't substantiate your claims but you want people to accept what you have to say?

so then, per your own request...

PS- never ASSume that all houses of all posters are built to current code in your area, which differs from other areas
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
No, I want you to go to page ten of the Power Quality book, so you can be embarrassed.

https://www.amazo...99788564

"PS- never ASSume that all houses of all posters are built to current code in your area, which differs from other areas"

You ASSerted the causes were from the utility.

I am telling you they are from your own poorly-wired messes.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
We can go over all this, because I made the graphs and took the readings in some of those books myself
no, we can't

you just made a blatantly false claim about your own power company which is directly refuted by their publicly posted information

you stated you worked for them as well

that would mean that either you're so burnt that you are incompetent, your just incompetent, or you have a sh*t memory

considering all the options, i will stick with getting my information from real professionals (an actual engineer who gave me the link to your own PG&E info)

you can continue your rant - i won't respond unless you provide some evidence validated statements which can be substantiated

i will just report your post per your own request to clean up the site

no sense derailing yet another thread because you're an idiot wanting attention
maybe you can move in with rc?

PS- from your link
3 Used from $190.99
ROTFLMFAO
some reference!
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
Go get the book.

Be embarrassed.

I'll sell you my Power Quality handbook for the same price I sold it to Sandia National Labs.

Well, maybe more, . . .
dustywells
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
if you have power surges, you will play havoc on certain types of electrical stuff
I just had to replace the LED bulb in my garage door opener.
Most CFL bulbs and LED bulbs contain a switching power supply that is sensitive to voltage spikes such as those given off by the electric motor in your garage door opener, furnace, mains driven appliances and power tools. Depending on your circuits, you might need one or more surge protectors.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
Dusty, they can help, but those spikes are fast with little energy under the curve. If that is killing the bulbs, it will be from the opener itself, since these disturbances change per foot of house wiring and dissipate quickly.

I have tracked these disturbances, and many others for analysis. Those are many of the ones in the book of Power Quality Signatures.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
Most CFL bulbs and LED bulbs contain a switching power supply that is sensitive to voltage spikes such as those given off by the electric motor in your garage door opener, furnace, mains driven appliances and power tools. Depending on your circuits, you might need one or more surge protectors.
@dusty
absolutely - and that is why power companies recommend surge protection
as they note
Small surges can occur several times a day or a hundred times an hour, ranging from several thousand volts to under 100 volts. These repeated smaller surges can eventually degrade electronic equipment
https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/customerservice/energystatus/powerquality/surge_suppressors.pdf

you can get whole house surge protection (from places like home depot), but i recommend both whole house and at the plug - especially if you have equipment that you want to protect
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
Yeah, we were all on the MOV bandwagon in the 1980s, and they have some use, but are not really needed for the most part. Because they are cheap protection, everyone suggests you get them. If you do, put them on the refrigerator and furnace first, and keep the source isolated from the rest of the house.

But they wear out. If you need them, you will have to replace them.
dustywells
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
Yeah, we were all on the MOV bandwagon in the 1980s, .... But they wear out. If you need them, you will have to replace them.
In over thirty years we haven't come up with anything more reliable than MOVs?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
that would mean that either you're so burnt that you are incompetent, your just incompetent, or you have a sh*t memory
george is just old. He's really really old.
Why am I reminded of the arguments which occurred when the car replaced the horse?
-See? And very sick as well.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
lol , theres a good quote from Mark Steyn, to paraphrase ; government is incapable of fixing immigration, heathcare , the economy or most any problem, yet , THEY ARE GOING TO MOVE THE HEAVENS !! and change the planets climate !
MR166
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
Snoos they may well succeed by accident. We look to be well on the way to WWIII and believe me that WILL change the planets climate as we bomb ourselves back into the stone age. It's not just Trump, Republicans and Democrats it's the whole Dark Government.
MR166
3 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
I ask you, where are the protests. When Bush II went into Iraq everybody was up in arms. Today the media is almost ecstatic that he is bombing Syria and sending war ships to North Korea. The puppet masters must be drinking their best wine in celebration of the upcoming Apocalypse!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.