1.5°C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways

被引:210
作者
Keysser, Lorenz T. [1 ,2 ]
Lenzen, Manfred [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sch Phys, ISA, A28, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Dept Environm Syst Sci, Inst Environm Decis, Zurich, Switzerland
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATIONS; ENERGY DEMAND; CLIMATE; MODELS; RETURN;
D O I
10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
1.5 degrees C scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on combinations of controversial negative emissions and unprecedented technological change, while assuming continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Thus far, the integrated assessment modelling community and the IPCC have neglected to consider degrowth scenarios, where economic output declines due to stringent climate mitigation. Hence, their potential to avoid reliance on negative emissions and speculative rates of technological change remains unexplored. As a first step to address this gap, this paper compares 1.5 degrees C degrowth scenarios with IPCC archetype scenarios, using a simplified quantitative representation of the fuel-energy-emissions nexus. Here we find that the degrowth scenarios minimize many key risks for feasibility and sustainability compared to technology-driven pathways, such as the reliance on high energy-GDP decoupling, large-scale carbon dioxide removal and large-scale and high-speed renewable energy transformation. However, substantial challenges remain regarding political feasibility. Nevertheless, degrowth pathways should be thoroughly considered. Established climate mitigation modelling relies on controversial negative emissions and unprecedented technological change, but neglects to consider degrowth scenarios. Here the authors show that degrowth scenarios minimize many key risks for feasibility and sustainability and thus need to be thoroughly assessed.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [2] A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of 'climate progressive' nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways
    Anderson, Kevin
    Broderick, John F.
    Stoddard, Isak
    [J]. CLIMATE POLICY, 2020, 20 (10) : 1290 - 1304
  • [3] The trouble with negative emissions
    Anderson, Kevin
    Peters, Glen
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2016, 354 (6309) : 182 - 183
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2010, REN EN ESS HYDR
  • [5] Brockway P. E., RENEW SUST ENERG REV, DOI [10.1016/j.rser.2021.110781(2021, DOI 10.1016/J.RSER.2021.110781(2021]
  • [6] Challenges for the degrowth transition: The debate about wellbeing
    Buchs, Milena
    Koch, Max
    [J]. FUTURES, 2019, 105 : 155 - 165
  • [7] An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential
    Budinis, Sara
    Krevor, Samuel
    Mac Dowell, Niall
    Brandon, Nigel
    Hawkes, Adam
    [J]. ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS, 2018, 22 : 61 - 81
  • [8] Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies
    Capellan-Perez, Inigo
    de Castro, Carlos
    Miguel Gonzalez, Luis Javier
    [J]. ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS, 2019, 26
  • [9] Carton W., 2020, HAS IT COME THIS PRO
  • [10] CDIAC, 2019, GLOBAL REGIONAL NATL