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
[31]  
IEA, 2019, CSP GEOTH OC POW
[32]  
IEA, 2017, World Energy Statistics and Balances
[33]  
IEA, 2017, IEA
[34]  
International Energy Agency, 2019, KEY EN STAT
[35]   Green growth, degrowth, and the commons [J].
Jakob, Michael ;
Edenhofer, Ottmar .
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, 2014, 30 (03) :447-468
[36]   On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C? [J].
Jewell, Jessica ;
Cherp, Aleh .
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-CLIMATE CHANGE, 2020, 11 (01)
[37]   Research On Degrowth [J].
Kallis, Giorgos ;
Kostakis, Vasilis ;
Lange, Steffen ;
Muraca, Barbara ;
Paulson, Susan ;
Schmelzer, Matthias .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, VOL 43, 2018, 43 :291-316
[38]   In defence of degrowth [J].
Kallis, Giorgos .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2011, 70 (05) :873-880
[39]   A Note on the Role of Energy in Production [J].
Keen, Steve ;
Ayres, Robert U. ;
Standish, Russell .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2019, 157 :40-46
[40]  
Kuhnhenn K, 2018, HEINRICH BOLL STIFTU, V25