ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0052-5088
Current Organisations
Climate Analytics
,
Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia
,
Universiteit Utrecht
,
finres
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: IOP Publishing
Date: 12-2019
Abstract: Addressing emissions of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) is an integral part of efficient climate change mitigation and therefore an essential part of climate policy. Metrics are used to aggregate and compare emissions of short- and long-lived GHGs and need to account for the difference in both magnitude and persistence of their climatic effects. Different metrics describe different approaches and perspectives, and hence yield different numerical estimates for aggregated GHG emissions. When interpreting GHG emission reduction targets, being mindful of the underlying metrical choices thus proves to be essential. Here we present the impact a recently proposed GHG metric related to the concept of CO 2 forcing-equivalent emissions (called GWP*) would have on the internal consistency and environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement. We show that interpreting the Paris Agreement goals in a metric like GWP* that is significantly different from the standard metric used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report can lead to profound inconsistencies in the mitigation architecture of the Agreement. It could even undermine the integrity of the Agreement’s mitigation target altogether by failing to deliver net-zero CO 2 emissions and therewith failing to ensure warming is halted. Our results indicate that great care needs to be taken when applying new concepts that appear scientifically favourable to a pre-existing climate policy context.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-09-2014
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2248
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2015
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 26-10-2015
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2826
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 16-08-2022
DOI: 10.1038/S41467-022-31734-1
Abstract: Scientifically rigorous guidance to policy makers on mitigation options for meeting the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal requires an evaluation of long-term global-warming implications of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Here we employ a uniform and transparent methodology to evaluate Paris Agreement compatibility of influential institutional emission scenarios from the grey literature, including those from Shell, BP, and the International Energy Agency. We compare a selection of these scenarios analysed with this methodology to the Integrated Assessment Model scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We harmonize emissions to a consistent base-year and account for all greenhouse gases and aerosol precursor emissions, ensuring a self-consistent comparison of climate variables. An evaluation of peak and end-of-century temperatures is made, with both being relevant to the Paris Agreement goal. Of the scenarios assessed, we find that only the IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario is aligned with the criteria for Paris Agreement consistency employed here. We investigate root causes for misalignment with these criteria based on the underlying energy system transformation.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2015
Publisher: Copernicus GmbH
Date: 03-08-2020
Abstract: Abstract. Current global mitigation ambition up to 2030 under the Paris Agreement, reflected in the National Determined Contributions (NDCs), is insufficient to achieve the agreement's 1.5 ∘C long-term temperature limit. As governments are preparing new and updated NDCs for 2020, the question as to how much collective improvement is achieved is a pivotal one for the credibility of the international climate regime. The recent Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ∘C by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assessed a wide range of scenarios that achieve the 1.5 ∘C limit. Those pathways are characterised by a substantial increase in near-term action and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels about 50 % lower than what is implied by current NDCs. Here we assess the outcomes of different scenarios of NDC updating that fall short of achieving this 1.5 ∘C benchmark. We find that incremental improvements in reduction targets, even if achieved globally, are insufficient to align collective ambition with the goals of the Paris Agreement. We provide estimates for global mean temperature increase by 2100 for different incremental NDC update scenarios and illustrate climate impacts under those median scenarios for extreme temperature, long-term sea-level rise and economic damages for the most vulnerable countries. Under the assumption of maintaining ambition as reflected in current NDCs up to 2100 and beyond, we project a reduction in the gross domestic product (GDP) in tropical countries of around 60 % compared to a no-climate-change scenario and median long-term sea-level rise of close to 2 m in 2300. About half of these impacts can be avoided by limiting warming to 1.5 ∘C or below. Scenarios of more incremental NDC improvements do not lead to comparable reductions in climate impacts. An increase in aggregated NDC ambition of big emitters by 33 % in 2030 does not reduce presented climate impacts by more than about half compared to limiting warming to 1.5 ∘C. Our results underscore that a transformational increase in 2030 ambition is required to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 21-06-2021
DOI: 10.21203/RS.3.RS-599934/V1
Abstract: Scientifically rigorous guidance to policy makers on mitigation options for meeting the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal requires an evaluation of long-term global-warming implications of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Here we employ a uniform and transparent methodology to evaluate Paris Agreement compatibility of influential “institutional” emission scenarios from the grey literature. We compare a selection of these scenarios analyzed with this methodology to the Integrated Assessment Model scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We harmonize emissions to a consistent base-year and account for all greenhouse gases and aerosol precursor emissions, ensuring a self-consistent comparison of climate variables. An evaluation of peak and end-of-century temperatures is made, with both being relevant to the Paris Agreement goal. We find that few published scenarios that claim to be compatible with the Paris Agreement are so, and investigate root causes based on the underlying energy system transformation.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2015
No related grants have been discovered for Michiel Schaeffer.