Cargando…

Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions

The mitigation scenarios database of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report is an important resource for informing policymaking on energy transitions. However, there is a large variety of models, scenario designs, and resulting outputs. Here we analyse the scenarios...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Achakulwisut, Ploy, Erickson, Peter, Guivarch, Céline, Schaeffer, Roberto, Brutschin, Elina, Pye, Steve
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37704643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41105-z
_version_ 1785105830588186624
author Achakulwisut, Ploy
Erickson, Peter
Guivarch, Céline
Schaeffer, Roberto
Brutschin, Elina
Pye, Steve
author_facet Achakulwisut, Ploy
Erickson, Peter
Guivarch, Céline
Schaeffer, Roberto
Brutschin, Elina
Pye, Steve
author_sort Achakulwisut, Ploy
collection PubMed
description The mitigation scenarios database of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report is an important resource for informing policymaking on energy transitions. However, there is a large variety of models, scenario designs, and resulting outputs. Here we analyse the scenarios consistent with limiting warming to 2 °C or below regarding the speed, trajectory, and feasibility of different fossil fuel reduction pathways. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot, global coal, oil, and natural gas supply (intended for all uses) decline on average by 95%, 62%, and 42%, respectively, from 2020 to 2050, but the long-term role of gas is highly variable. Higher-gas pathways are enabled by higher carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), but are likely associated with inadequate model representation of regional CO(2) storage capacity and technology adoption, diffusion, and path-dependencies. If CDR is constrained by limits derived from expert consensus, the respective modelled coal, oil, and gas reductions become 99%, 70%, and 84%. Our findings suggest the need to adopt unambiguous near- and long-term reduction benchmarks in coal, oil, and gas production and use alongside other climate mitigation targets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10499994
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104999942023-09-15 Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions Achakulwisut, Ploy Erickson, Peter Guivarch, Céline Schaeffer, Roberto Brutschin, Elina Pye, Steve Nat Commun Article The mitigation scenarios database of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report is an important resource for informing policymaking on energy transitions. However, there is a large variety of models, scenario designs, and resulting outputs. Here we analyse the scenarios consistent with limiting warming to 2 °C or below regarding the speed, trajectory, and feasibility of different fossil fuel reduction pathways. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot, global coal, oil, and natural gas supply (intended for all uses) decline on average by 95%, 62%, and 42%, respectively, from 2020 to 2050, but the long-term role of gas is highly variable. Higher-gas pathways are enabled by higher carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), but are likely associated with inadequate model representation of regional CO(2) storage capacity and technology adoption, diffusion, and path-dependencies. If CDR is constrained by limits derived from expert consensus, the respective modelled coal, oil, and gas reductions become 99%, 70%, and 84%. Our findings suggest the need to adopt unambiguous near- and long-term reduction benchmarks in coal, oil, and gas production and use alongside other climate mitigation targets. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10499994/ /pubmed/37704643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41105-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Achakulwisut, Ploy
Erickson, Peter
Guivarch, Céline
Schaeffer, Roberto
Brutschin, Elina
Pye, Steve
Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title_full Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title_fullStr Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title_full_unstemmed Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title_short Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
title_sort global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10499994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37704643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41105-z
work_keys_str_mv AT achakulwisutploy globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions
AT ericksonpeter globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions
AT guivarchceline globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions
AT schaefferroberto globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions
AT brutschinelina globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions
AT pyesteve globalfossilfuelreductionpathwaysunderdifferentclimatemitigationstrategiesandambitions