Time filter

Source Type

Jakob M.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Luderer G.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Steckel J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Tavoni M.,Euro Mediterranean Center for Climate Change | Monjon S.,Center International Of Recherche Sur Lenvironnement Et Le Developpement
Climatic Change | Year: 2012

This paper compares the results of the three state of the art climate-energy-economy models IMACLIM-R, ReMIND-R, and WITCH to assess the costs of climate change mitigation in scenarios in which the implementation of a global climate agreement is delayed or major emitters decide to participate in the agreement at a later stage only. We find that for stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppm CO 2-only, postponing a global agreement to 2020 raises global mitigation costs by at least about half and a delay to 2030 renders ambitious climate targets infeasible to achieve. In the standard policy scenario-in which allocation of emission permits is aimed at equal per-capita levels in the year 2050-regions with above average emissions (such as the EU and the US alongside the rest of Annex-I countries) incur lower mitigation costs by taking early action, even if mitigation efforts in the rest of the world experience a delay. However, regions with low per-capita emissions which are net exporters of emission permits (such as India) can possibly benefit from higher future carbon prices resulting from a delay. We illustrate the economic mechanism behind these observations and analyze how (1) lock-in of carbon intensive infrastructure, (2) differences in global carbon prices, and (3) changes in reduction commitments resulting from delayed action influence mitigation costs. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Source

Hallegatte S.,Center International Of Recherche Sur Lenvironnement Et Le Developpement | Hallegatte S.,National School of Meteorological Studies | Henriet F.,Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development | Corfee-Morlot J.,Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Climatic Change | Year: 2011

Cities are particularly vulnerable to climate change and climate extremes in part because they concentrate many activities, people and wealth in limited areas. As a result they represent an important scale for assessment and understanding of climate change impacts. This paper provides a conceptual and methodological framework for urban economic impact assessment of climate change. The focus of the paper is on model-based analysis of future scenarios, including a framing of uncertainty for these projections, as one valuable input into the decision-making process. The paper highlights the main assessment difficulties, methods and tools, and selected examples across these areas. A number of challenges are unique to climate change impact assessment and others are unique to the problem of working at local scales. The paper also identifies the need for additional research, including the need for more integrated and systemic approaches to address climate change as a part of the urban development challenge as well as the need to assess the economic impacts of climate change and response policy at local scale. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Source

Ciais P.,French Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory | Gervois S.,French Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory | Gervois S.,University Pierre and Marie Curie | Vuichard N.,French Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory | And 4 more authors.
Global Change Biology | Year: 2011

We model the carbon balance of European croplands between 1901 and 2000 in response to land use and management changes. The process-based ORCHIDEE-STICS model is applied here in a spatially explicit framework. We reconstructed land cover changes, together with an idealized history of agro-technology. These management parameters include the treatment of straw and stubble residues, application of mineral fertilizers, improvement of cultivar species and tillage. The model is integrated for wheat and maize during the period 1901-2000 forced by climate each 1/2-hour, and by atmospheric CO2, land cover change and agro-technology each year. Several tests are performed to identify the most sensitive agro-technological parameters that control the net biome productivity (NBP) in the 1990s, with NBP equaling for croplands the soil C balance. The current NBP is a small sink of 0.16 t C ha-1 yr-1. The value of NBP per unit area reflects past and current management, and to a minor extent the shrinking areas of arable land consecutive to abandonment during the 20th Century. The uncertainty associated with NBP is large, with a 1-sigma error of 0.18 t C ha-1 yr-1 obtained from a qualitative, but comprehensive budget of various error terms. The NBP uncertainty is dominated by unknown historical agro-technology changes (47%) and model structure (27%), with error in climate forcing playing a minor role. A major improvement to the framework would consist in using a larger number of representative crops. The uncertainty of historical land-use change derived from three different reconstructions, has a surprisingly small effect on NBP (0.01 t C ha-1 yr-1) because cropland area remained stable during the past 20 years in all the tested land use forcing datasets. Regional cross-validation of modeled NBP against soil C inventory measurements shows that our results are consistent with observations, within the uncertainties of both inventories and model. Our estimation of cropland NBP is however likely to be biased towards a sink, given that inventory data from different regions consistently indicate a small source whereas we model a small sink. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Source

Hallegatte S.,The World Bank | Hallegatte S.,Center International Of Recherche Sur Lenvironnement Et Le Developpement
Risk Analysis | Year: 2014

Estimates of the cost of potential disasters, including indirect economic consequences, are an important input in the design of risk management strategies. The adaptive regional input-output (ARIO) inventory model is a tool to assess indirect disaster losses and to analyze their drivers. It is based on an input-output structure, but it also (i) explicitly represents production bottlenecks and input scarcity and (ii) introduces inventories as an additional flexibility in the production system. This modeling strategy distinguishes between (i) essential supplies that cannot be stocked (e.g., electricity, water) and whose scarcity can paralyze all economic activity; (ii) essential supplies that can be stocked at least temporarily (e.g., steel, chemicals), whose scarcity creates problems only over the medium term; and (iii) supplies that are not essential in the production process, whose scarcity is problematic only over the long run and are therefore easy to replace with imports. The model is applied to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and identifies two periods in the disaster aftermath: (1) the first year, during which production bottlenecks are responsible for large output losses; (2) the rest of the reconstruction period, during which bottlenecks are inexistent and output losses lower. This analysis also suggests important research questions and policy options to mitigate disaster-related output losses. © 2013 Society for Risk Analysis. Source

Urge-Vorsatz D.,Central European University | Herrero S.T.,Central European University | Dubash N.K.,Center for Policy Research | Lecocq F.,Center International Of Recherche Sur Lenvironnement Et Le Developpement
Annual Review of Environment and Resources | Year: 2014

Co-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because themethodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective-multiple-impact framework. It creates a taxonomy of co-impacts and uses this to propose a methodological framework for the identification of the key co-impacts to be assessed for a given climate policy and to avoid double counting. It reviews the different methods available to quantify and monetize different co-impacts and introduces three methodological frameworks that can be used to integrate these results into decision making. On the basis of an initial assessment of selected studies, it also demonstrates that the incorporation of co-impacts can significantly change the outcome of economic assessments. Finally, the review calls for major new research and innovation toward simplified evaluation methods and streamlined tools for more widely applicable appraisals of co-impacts for decision making. Copyright © 2014 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations