Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We investigated the feasibilities of 2.0°C and 1.5°C climate targets by considering the abatement potentials of a full suite of greenhouse gases, pollutants, and aerosols. We revised the inter‐temporal dynamic optimization model DICE‐2013R by introducing three features as follows. First, we applied a new marginal abatement cost curve derived under moderate assumptions regarding future socioeconomic development—the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 2 ( SSP2 ) scenario. Second, we addressed emission abatement for not only industrial CO 2 but also land‐use CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O , halogenated gases, CO , volatile organic compounds, SO x , NO x , black carbon and organic carbon. Third, we improved the treatment of the non‐CO 2 components in the climate module based on MAGICC 6.0. We obtained the following findings: (1) It is important to address the individual emissions in an analysis of low stabilization scenarios because abating land‐use CO 2 , non‐CO 2 and aerosol emissions also contributes to maintaining a low level of radiative forcing and substantially affects the climate costs. (2) The 2.0°C target can be efficiently reached under the assumptions of the SSP2 scenario. (3) The 1.5°C target can be met with early deep cuts under the assumption of a temperature overshoot, and it will triple the carbon price and double the mitigation cost compared with the 2.0°C case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: