The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs

B-Tier
Journal: The Energy Journal
Year: 2010
Volume: 31
Issue: 1_suppl
Pages: 11-48

Authors (16)

Ottmar Edenhofer (not in RePEc) Brigitte Knopf (not in RePEc) Terry Barker (not in RePEc) Lavinia Baumstark (not in RePEc) Elie Bellevrat (not in RePEc) Bertrand Chateau (not in RePEc) Patrick Criqui (not in RePEc) Morna Isaac (not in RePEc) Alban Kitous (not in RePEc) Socrates Kypreos (not in RePEc) Marian Leimbach (not in RePEc) Kai Lessmann (Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolg...) Bertrand Magné (not in RePEc) Şerban Scrieciu (not in RePEc) Hal Turton (not in RePEc) Detlef P. van Vuuren (not in RePEc)

Score contribution per author:

0.126 = (α=2.01 / 16 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

This study gives a synthesis of a model comparison assessing the technological feasibility and economic consequences of achieving greenhouse gas concentration targets that are sufficiently low to keep the increase in global mean temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. All five global energy-environment-economy models show that achieving low greenhouse gas concentration targets is technically feasible and economically viable. The ranking of the importance of individual technology options is robust across models. For the lowest stabilization target (400 ppm CO2 eq), the use of bio-energy in combination with CCS plays a crucial role, and biomass potential dominates the cost of reaching this target. Without CCS or the considerable extension of renewables the 400 ppm CO2 eq target is not achievable. Across the models, estimated aggregate costs up to 2100 are below 0.8% global GDP for 550 ppm CO2 eq stabilization and below 2.5% for the 400 ppm CO2 eq pathway.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:sae:enejou:v:31:y:2010:i:1_suppl:p:11-48
Journal Field
Energy
Author Count
16
Added to Database
2026-01-25