The non-CO2 greenhouse gases have so far jointly contributed around 40 percent to overall global warming. In this paper we examine the role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in meeting long-term climate change targets. For this purpose, we develop climate mitigation scenarios aimed at achieving long-term stabilization of global radiative forcing. We use the MESSAGE model for a thorough bottom-up representation of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases and corresponding mitigation technologies. This approach endogenizes energy feedback effects from mitigation of non-CO2 gases and takes into account the interplay and side benefits that exist across GHGs. We analyze two mitigation scenarios that stabilize global radiative forcing at 4.5 W/m2 as compared to pre-industrial times—one allowing only for CO2 mitigation and another with multigas mitigation. In addition, we also investigate a lower stabilization level of 3 W/m2 and look into the implications this has for abatement strategies. Our approach helps us to identify a portfolio of measures in the energy, industry and agricultural sectors for achieving a proposed climate target. We find that considering the full basket of GHGs improves the effectiveness of the mitigation portfolio resulting in significantly lower costs, especially in the short term. In the long run, the bulk of the emissions reductions are still found to come from CO2 and this effect becomes more pronounced under the more stringent climate target. This emphasizes the importance of a diverse mitigation portfolio that includes both CO2 and non-CO2 related abatement options in meeting long-term climate targets.
AzarC.RodheH. (1997). Targets for Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2. Science 276, 1818-1819.AlleyRBMarotzkeJNordhausWDOverpeckJTPeteetDMPielkeJr. RAPierrehumbertRTRhinesPBStockerTFTalleyLDWallaceJM(2003). Abrupt climate change. Science 299:2005-2010.
2.
BradfordDFKellerK (2000). Global Warming Potentials: A cost-effectiveness approach. Paper presented at the NBER Summer Institute Environmental Economics Workshop, Cambridge, MA, August 7-8, 2000.
3.
DeAngeloBJde la ChesnayeBJ BeachR.H.SommerA.MurrayB.C. (2005). Methane and nitrous oxide mitigation in agriculture. Energy (forthcoming in this issue).
4.
DelhotalKCde la ChesnayeFCGardinerABatesJSankovskiA. (2005). Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from waste, energy and industry. Energy (forthcoming in this issue).
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2000). Global impact domain: Methane Emissions. http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6116E/X6116E00.HTM, June2004.
7.
Frink CR, Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH (1999). Nitrogen fertilizer: Retrospect and prospect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96:1175-1180.
8.
Grubler A (1998). Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, [ISBN 0 521 59109 9].
9.
Grubler A, Messner S (1998). Technological change and the timing of mitigation measures. Energy Economics 20(5,6):495-512.
10.
HansenJ. E. (2005). A slippery slope: how much global warming constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference. Climatic Change 68, 269-279.
11.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2001). Putting carbon back into the ground. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Gloucestershire, U.K.
12.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001a). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (2001), Summary for Policy Makers - Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of IPCC, Cambridge University Press, UK [ISBN: 052180769] pp. 7-8.
13.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001b). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of IPCC, Cambridge University Press, UK [ISBN: 052180769] pp. 700-1000.
14.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2005). Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage - Special Report of Working Group III, B. Metz , Cambridge University Press, UK [ISBN 92-9169-119-4].
15.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996a). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
16.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2000, Published by Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan [ISBN 4-88788-000-6]: Chapter 5.
17.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996b). Technologies, Policies and Measures for Mitigating Climate Change, ed. Watson R.T., Zinyofera M.C., Moss R.H. http://www.gcno.org/ipcc/techrepI/
18.
Makihira A, Barreto L, Riahi K (2003). Assessment of alternative hydrogen pathways: Natural gas and biomass. IIASA Interim Report, IR-03-037, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
19.
ManneA.RichelsR. (1992). Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of CO2 Emissions Limits, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
20.
Mastrandrea M, Schneider SH (2004). Probabilistic integrated assessment of dangerous climate change. Science 304(23April):571-575.
21.
MessnerS.SchrattenholzerL. (2000). MESSAGE-MACRO: Linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively, Energy 25:267-282.
22.
Messner S, Strubegger M (1995). User’s guide for MESSAGE III. IIASA Working Paper, WP-95-69. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
23.
Nakicenovic N, ed., (2000). Global greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: Five modeling approaches, Special Issue. Technological Forecasting &Social Change 63(2-3):105-372.
24.
Obersteiner M, Azar C, Mollersten K, Riahi K (2002). Biomass energy, carbon removal and permanent sequestration - A ‘real option’ for managing climate risk. IIASA Interim Report, IR-02-042, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
25.
ObersteinerM.AlexandrovG.BenitezMcCallumPC.KraxnerI.RiahiF.K.RokityanskiyD.YamagataY. (2005). Global supply of biomass for energy and carbon sequestration from afforestation/reforestation activities. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (forthcoming).
26.
O’Neill BC, (2000). The Jury is still out on Global Warning Potentials: An Editorial Comment. Climatic Change XLIV(2000):427-443.
27.
ObersteinerMAzarCMollerstenKRiahiK(2002). Biomass energy, carbon removal and permanent sequestration - A ‘real option’ for managing climate risk, IR-02-042, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg.
28.
Parson EA, Keith DW (1998). Fossil fuels without CO2 emissions: Progress, prospects, and policy implications. Science 282:1053-4.
29.
Raper SCB, Warrick RA, Wigley TML (1996). Global sea level rise: Past and future. In: Sea-level rise and coastal subsidence: causes, consequences and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany, pp 11-45.
30.
Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Prinn RG (2003). Multigas contributors to global climate change: Climate Impacts and Mitigation Costs of Non-CO2 Gases, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, USA. 2
31.
Riahi K, Roehrl RA (2000). Greenhouse gas emissions in a dynamics-as-usual scenario of economic and energy development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 63:175-205.
32.
Riahi K, Rubin ES, Schrattenholzer L (2004). Prospects for carbon capture and sequestration technologies assuming their technological learning. Energy 29(9-10):1309-1318.
33.
RiahiK.BarretoL.RaoS.RubinE.S. (2005). Towards fossil-based electricity systems with integrated CO2 capture: Implications of an illustrative long-term technology policy. In:RubinE.S.KeithD.W.GilboyC.F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UK, 2005
34.
RoehrlRARiahiK (2000). Technology dynamics and greenhouse gas emission mitigation: A cost assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 63:231-261.
35.
RokityanskiyD.RametsteinerE.KraxnerF.McCallumI.ObersteinerM. (2006). Modeling land-use changes, carbon sequestration and biomass supply for SRES scenarios in geographically explicit form assuming profit-maximizing land owners: Results of the DIMA model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change (forthcoming).
36.
SchaeferDOGodwinDHarnischJ (2005). Estimating future emissions and potential reductions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Energy (forthcoming in this issue).
37.
Socolow RH (1999). Nitrogen management and the future of food: Lessons from the management of energy and carbon, Proc. National Academy of Sciences, USA, 96 (May1999):6001-6008.
38.
SohngenBSedjoR(2005). Carbon sequestration costs in global forests. Energy (forthcoming in this issue).
39.
SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nakicenovic , Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, ISBN: 0-521-80493-0.
40.
UNEP (2000). Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, UNEP, Nairobi, 2000, ISBN: 92-807-1888-6.
41.
WigleyT.M.L.RaperS.C.B. (2002). Reasons for larger warming projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. J Climate 15(20):2945-2952.
