Abstract

Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through large-scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation. However, CDR strategies face several difficulties such as reliance on underground CO2 storage and competition for land with food production and biodiversity protection. The question arises whether alternative deep mitigation pathways exist. Here, using an integrated assessment model, we explore the impact of alternative pathways that include lifestyle change, additional reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and more rapid electrification of energy demand based on renewable energy. Although these alternatives also face specific difficulties, they are found to significantly reduce the need for CDR, but not fully eliminate it. The alternatives offer a means to diversify transition pathways to meet the Paris Agreement targets, while simultaneously benefiting other sustainability goals.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty-First Session, Held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. Decision 1/CP.21 (UNFCCC, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  3. 3.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–528 (2015).

  4. 4.

    Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013).

  5. 5.

    Decision IPCC/XLIV-4. Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Products, Outline of the Special Report on 1.5°C (IPCC, 2016).

  6. 6.

    Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: An assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change 81, 119–159 (2007).

  7. 7.

    Tavoni, M. et al. Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 119–126 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Kriegler, E. et al. Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 24–44 (2015).

  9. 9.

    Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Carbon budgets and energy transition pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 075002 (2016).

  11. 11.

    Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).

  12. 12.

    Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).

  13. 13.

    De Coninck, H. & Benson, S. M. Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and prospects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 243–270 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Global Status of CCS 2015: Summary Report (Global CCS Institute, 2015).

  15. 15.

    Vaughan, N. E. & Gough, C. Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095003 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Van Vuuren, D. P., Hof, A. F., Van Sluisveld, M. A. E. & Riahi, K. Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat. Energy 2, 902–904 (2017).

  17. 17.

    Mercure, J. F., Pollitt, H., Bassi, A. M., Viñuales, J. E. & Edwards, N. R. Modelling complex systems of heterogeneous agents to better design sustainability transitions policy. Glob. Environ. Change 37, 102–115 (2016).

  18. 18.

    Geels, F. W., Berkhout, F. & Van Vuuren, D. P. Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 576–583 (2016).

  19. 19.

    van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).

  20. 20.

    Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 329–332 (2015).

  21. 21.

    Trutnevyte, E. Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition? Energy 106, 182–193 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Stehfest, E., Van Vuuren, D. P., Kram, T. & Bouwman, A. F. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model Description and Policy Applications (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).

  23. 23.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3 (2018).

  24. 24.

    Post, M. J. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 92, 297–301 (2012).

  25. 25.

    Verbeke, W. et al. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 102, 49–58 (2015).

  26. 26.

    Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102 (2009).

  27. 27.

    Van Sluisveld, M. A. E., Martínez, S. H. Daioglou, V. & van Vuuren, D. P. Exploring the implications of lifestyle change in 2 °C mitigation scenarios using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 309–319 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Willett, M. D. W. C. Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating (Free Press, 2005).

  29. 29.

    KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 245–252 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. & Riahi, K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83 (2013).

  33. 33.

    Sovacool, B. K. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Social. Sci. 13, 202–215 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Grubler, A., Wilson, C. & Nemet, G. Apples, oranges, and consistent comparisons of the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Social. Sci. 22, 18–25 (2016).

  35. 35.

    Riahi, K. et al. in Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future Ch. 17 (IIASA, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  36. 36.

    Paul, K. I. et al. Managing reforestation to sequester carbon, increase biodiversity potential and minimize loss of agricultural land. Land Use Policy 51, 135–149 (2016).

  37. 37.

    Woltjer, G. B. et al. The MAGNET Model: Module Description Report no. 14-057 (LEI Wageningen UR, 2014).

  38. 38.

    Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007).

  39. 39.

    Müller, C. et al. Drivers and patterns of land biosphere carbon balance reversal. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 044002 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B. & Wigley, T. M. L. Emulating coupled atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 - Part 1: Model description and calibration. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417–1456 (2011).

  41. 41.

    World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2015).

  42. 42.

    Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 119–135 (2018).

  43. 43.

    Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Olivier, J. G. J. & den Elzen, M. G. J. Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85–103 (2007).

  44. 44.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. and Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2015).

  45. 45.

    Millar, R. J. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nat. Geosci. 10, 741–747 (2017).

  46. 46.

    Bijl, D. L. et al. A physically-based model of long-term food demand. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 47–62 (2017).

  47. 47.

    Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P. & de Vries, B. Influence of travel behavior on global CO2 emissions. Transp. Res. A 50, 183–197 (2013).

  48. 48.

    Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).

  49. 49.

    Bouwman, A. F., Van Der Hoek, K. W., Eickhout, B. & Soenario, I. Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems. Agric. Syst. 84, 121–153 (2005).

  50. 50.

    Bylin, C. et al. Designing the ideal offshore platform methane mitigation strategy. In SPE Int. Conf. on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production 126964 (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010).

  51. 51.

    Höglund-Isaksson, L. Bottom-up simulations of methane and ethane emissions from global oil and gas systems 1980 to 2012. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 024007 (2016).

  52. 52.

    Hinde, P., Mitchell, I. & Riddell, M. COMETTM – A new ventilation air methane (VAM) abatement technology reducing greenhouse gas potential from the mining industry. Technol. Rev. 60, 211–221 (2016).

  53. 53.

    Patel, S., Tremain, P., Sandford, J., Moghtaderi, B. & Shah, K. Empirical kinetic model of a stone dust looping carbonator for ventilation air methane abatement. Energy Fuels 30, 1869–1878 (2016).

  54. 54.

    Smith, P. et al. Science-based GHG Emissions Targets for Agriculture and Forestry Commodities (University of Aberdeen, Ecofys, PBL, 2016).

  55. 55.

    Höglund-Isaksson, L. & Mechler, R. The GAINS Model for Greenhouse Gases—Version 1.0: Methane (CH 4 ) (IIASA, 2005).

  56. 56.

    Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R. & Genovese, N. J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11941–11949 (2015).

  57. 57.

    Petroff, A. Airbus hopes to launch hybrid passenger planes by 2030. CNNMoney (7 April 2016); http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/07/news/companies/hybrid-electric-plane-airbus-siemens/index.html

  58. 58.

    Khandelwal, B., Karakurt, A., Sekaran, P. R., Sethi, V. & Singh, R. Hydrogen powered aircraft: The future of air transport. Progress Aerosp. Sci. 60, 45–59 (2013).

  59. 59.

    Luderer, G. et al. Assessment of wind and solar power in global low-carbon energy scenarios: An introduction. Energy Econ. 64, 542–551 (2017).

  60. 60.

    Marangoni, G. et al. Sensitivity of projected long-term CO2 emissions across the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 113–117 (2017).

  61. 61.

    Graus, W., Blomen, E., Kleßmann, C., Capone, C. & Stricker, E. Global technical potentials for energy efficiency improvement. In IAEE European Conf. (IAEE, 2009).

  62. 62.

    Plotkin, S. & Singh, M. Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle Characterization and Scenario Analyses (Argonne National Laboratory, 2009).

  63. 63.

    Neuffer, B. & Laney, M. Alternative Control Techniques Document Update: NO x Emissions from New Cement Kilns (US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 2007).

  64. 64.

    The Cement Sustainability Initiative – Cement Industry Energy and CO 2 Performance (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2009).

  65. 65.

    Xu, J.-H., Fleiter, T., Eichhammer, W. & Fan, Y. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China’s cement industry: a perspective from LMDI decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 50, 821–832 (2012).

  66. 66.

    Worrell, E., Price, L., Neelis, M., Galitsky, C. & Zhou, N. World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2007).

  67. 67.

    Neelis, M. & Patel, M. Long-term Production, Energy Use and CO 2 Emission Scenarios for the Worldwide Iron and Steel Industry (Utrecht Univ., 2006).

  68. 68.

    Van Ruijven, B. J. et al. Long-term model-based projections of energy use and CO2 emissions from the global steel and cement industries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 112, 15–36 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, the Netherlands

    • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • , Elke Stehfest
    • , David E. H. J. Gernaat
    • , Maarten van den Berg
    • , Harmen Sytze de Boer
    • , Vassilis Daioglou
    • , Jonathan C. Doelman
    • , Oreane Y. Edelenbosch
    • , Mathijs Harmsen
    • , Andries F. Hof
    •  & Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld
  2. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • , David E. H. J. Gernaat
    • , David L. Bijl
    • , Harmen Sytze de Boer
    • , Vassilis Daioglou
    • , Oreane Y. Edelenbosch
    • , Mathijs Harmsen
    • , Andries F. Hof
    •  & Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld

Authors

  1. Search for Detlef P. van Vuuren in:

  2. Search for Elke Stehfest in:

  3. Search for David E. H. J. Gernaat in:

  4. Search for Maarten van den Berg in:

  5. Search for David L. Bijl in:

  6. Search for Harmen Sytze de Boer in:

  7. Search for Vassilis Daioglou in:

  8. Search for Jonathan C. Doelman in:

  9. Search for Oreane Y. Edelenbosch in:

  10. Search for Mathijs Harmsen in:

  11. Search for Andries F. Hof in:

  12. Search for Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld in:

Contributions

D.P.v.V. supervised the work and developed the original idea. All authors were involved in the design of the experiments, the model analysis and contributed to the writing of the article.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Detlef P. van Vuuren.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary References

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8

Further reading