Climate Analytics GmbH

Potsdam, Germany

Climate Analytics GmbH

Potsdam, Germany
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Rogelj J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Rogelj J.,ETH Zurich | Chen C.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Nabel J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | And 10 more authors.
Environmental Research Letters | Year: 2010

This analysis of the Copenhagen Accord evaluates emission reduction pledges by individual countries against the Accord's climate-related objectives. Probabilistic estimates of the climatic consequences for a set of resulting multi-gas scenarios over the 21st century are calculated with a reduced complexity climate model, yielding global temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 and CO2-equivalent concentrations. Provisions for banked surplus emission allowances and credits from land use, land-use change and forestry are assessed and are shown to have the potential to lead to significant deterioration of the ambition levels implied by the pledges in 2020. This analysis demonstrates that the Copenhagen Accord and the pledges made under it represent a set of dissonant ambitions. The ambition level of the current pledges for 2020 and the lack of commonly agreed goals for 2050 place in peril the Accord's own ambition: to limit global warming to below 2 °C, and even more so or 1.5 °C, which is referenced in the Accord in association with potentially strengthening the long-term temperature goal in 2015. Due to the limited level of ambition by 2020, the ability to limit emissions afterwards to pathways consistent with either the 2 or 1 .5 °C goal is likely to become less feasible. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.


Grant
Agency: European Commission | Branch: FP7 | Program: CP-FP | Phase: ENV.2010.1.1.6-3 | Award Amount: 4.26M | Year: 2011

Climate policy needs to aim at ambitious long-term climate stabilization. This will require managing the transition from carbon intensive to low carbon economies within this century. Research on mitigation pathways to a low carbon society and the associated mitigation costs is indispensable for informing policy makers. The project AMPERE is aiming for a broad exploration of mitigation pathways and associated mitigation costs under various real world limitations, while at the same time generating a better understanding about the differences across models, and the relation to historical trends. Uncertainties about the costs of mitigation originate from the entire causal chain ranging from economic activity, to emissions and related technologies, and the response of the carbon cycle and climate system to greenhouse gas emissions. AMPERE will use a sizable ensemble of state-of-the-art energy-economy and integrated assessment models to analyse mitigation pathways and associated mitigation costs in a series of multi-model intercomparisons. It will focus on four central areas: (i) The role of uncertainty about the climate response to anthropogenic forcing on the remaining carbon budget for supplying societies around the globe with energy, (ii) the role of technology availability, innovation and myopia in the energy sector, (iii) the role of policy imperfections like limited regional or sectoral participation in climate policy regimes, and (iv) the implications for decarbonisation scenarios and policies for Europe.


Rogelj J.,ETH Zurich | Rogelj J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Hare W.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Hare W.,Climate Analytics GmbH | And 2 more authors.
Environmental Research Letters | Year: 2011

Aggregations of greenhouse gas mitigation pledges by countries are frequently used to indicate whether resulting global emissions in 2020 will be 'on track' to limit global temperature increase to below specific warming levels such as 1.5 or 2 °C. We find that historical emission levels aggregated from data that are officially reported by countries to the UNFCCC are lower than independent global emission estimates, such as the IPCC SRES scenarios. This discrepancy in historical emissions could substantially widen the gap between 2020 pledges and 2020 benchmarks, as the latter tend to be derived from scenarios that share similar historical emission levels to IPCC SRES scenarios. Three methods for resolving this discrepancy, here called 'harmonization', are presented and their influence on 'gap' estimates is discussed. Instead of a 3.4-9.2GtCO2eq shortfall in emission reductions by 2020 compared with the 44GtCO2eq benchmark, the actual gap might be as high as 5.4-12.5GtCO2eq (a 22-88% increase of the gap) if this historical discrepancy is accounted for. Not applying this harmonization step when using 2020 emission benchmarks could lead to an underestimation of the insufficiency of current mitigation pledges. © 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd.


Chen C.M.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Gutschow J.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Vieweg M.,Climate Analytics GmbH | Macey K.,Climate Analytics GmbH | And 2 more authors.
Climatic Change | Year: 2013

The outcome from the December 2012 climate negotiations in Doha has clarified the rules regarding surplus units for the Kyoto Protocol. We summarize these new rules and estimate the resulting effective emissions during the second commitment period using our unit trade model. Other options to deal with surplus emission allowances are employed as benchmarks to assess the Doha outcome. The effective emissions for developed countries as a group under the Doha outcome could be 10-11 % below 1990 levels or 4-5 % points below business-as-usual levels for the second commitment period if we assume that non-Kyoto Protocol countries domestically achieve their targets. However, if mechanisms exist where non-Kyoto Protocol countries can trade units, their emissions could increase and effective emissions for developed countries could be 7-8 % below 1990 levels. In this low-ambition situation we find the main impact of the Doha surplus rules to be the introduction of the historical cap on emissions allowances. Without the effect of the cap, the Doha outcome allows the Parties to the second commitment period to emit at business-as-usual levels until 2020, while still leaving surplus units at the end of the second commitment period. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.


Hare W.,Climate Analytics GmbH | Hare W.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Stockwell C.,Climate Analytics GmbH | Flachsland C.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Oberthur S.,Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Climate Policy | Year: 2010

This article argues that a legally binding, multilateral agreement is a necessary condition for achieving the highest levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions consistent with limiting warming to below either 2°C or below 1.5°C. Clear legally binding commitments within a multilaterally agreed process with strong legal and institutional characteristics are needed to give countries the confidence that their economic interests are being fairly and equally treated. Common accounting rules are needed for comparability of effort, and in order to protect environmental integrity, to demonstrate transparency, for effective monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of emissions and actions, and to facilitate and support a strong international carbon market. Securing full implementation will depend, in part, on the strength of an agreement's compliance mechanism. The Copenhagen Accord, by itself, represents a quintessential 'bottom-up' / 'pledge and review' approach. It is open to interpretation whether the Accord can become a stepping stone on the way to strengthening the legally binding, multilateral framework to fight climate change, building on both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, or whether it will lead to the unravelling and fragmentation of all that has been built up to date. Legal architecture choices made in 2010 and beyond are likely to be determinative. © 2010 Earthscan.


Muller C.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Cramer W.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Hare W.L.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Hare W.L.,Climate Analytics GmbH | Lotze-Campen H.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | Year: 2011

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of major risks for African agriculture and food security caused by climate change during coming decades is confirmed by a review of more recent climate change impact assessments (14 quantitative, six qualitative). Projected impacts relative to current production levels range from-100%to +168%in econometric, from-84%to +62%in process-based, and from -57% to +30% in statistical assessments. Despite large uncertainty, there are several robust conclusions from published literature for policy makers and research agendas: agriculture everywhere in Africa runs somerisk to be negatively affected by climate change; existing cropping systems and infrastructure will have to change to meet future demand. With respect to growing population and the threat of negative climate change impacts, science will now have to show if and how agricultural production in Africa can be significantly improved.


Grant
Agency: European Commission | Branch: H2020 | Program: RIA | Phase: SC5-06-2016-2017 | Award Amount: 2.99M | Year: 2016

The COP21 outcome represents an important new strategic context for EU climate policy. Analysing the implications of this new context requires an interdisciplinary approach, combining analysis of the evolution of the international climate regime as well as of NDCs and their socio-economic implications. Such analysis is also urgent, given the timelines imposed by the Paris Agreement for a facilitative dialogue in 2018 with a view to creating the conditions for the revision of NDC in 2020. In order to address the context described above, this project has four objectives : 1) Assess the adequacy of the NDCs submitted at COP21 in light of the global temperature target of limiting warming to 2C/1.5C. Through the analysis of GHG scenarios and energy system scenarios , the project will pay particular attention to the concrete system changes induced by NDCs, and compare them with the changes required to meet the global temperature limit. The project will also analyse scenarios limiting warming to 1.5C, and the impact of NDCs on other sectors, in particular land-use. 2) Assess the implications of NDCs and deeper mitigation pathways on other European socio-economic objectives. By integrating GHG and energy system scenarios into a range of different macro-economic, global energy system models and other quantified methodologies, the project will investigate implications for European socio-economic objectives related to innovation and technology deployment; trade and competiveness; investment, financial flows and economic growth (green growth); and global energy markets and energy security. 3. Assess the adequacy of the outcomes of COP21, and the implications and opportunities emerging from ongoing UNFCCC negotiations. The project will undertake a social sciences-based (in particular international law and international relations) assessment of the outcome of COP21. 4) Policy recommendations for EU climate policy and climate diplomacy.


Rogelj J.,ETH Zurich | Hare W.,Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research | Hare W.,Climate Analytics GmbH | Lowe J.,University of Reading | And 8 more authors.
Nature Climate Change | Year: 2011

In recent years, international climate policy has increasingly focused on limiting temperature rise, as opposed to achieving greenhouse-gas-concentration- related objectives. The agreements reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Cancun in 2010 recognize that countries should take urgent action to limit the increase in global average temperature to less than 2C relative to pre-industrial levels. If this is to be achieved, policymakers need robust information about the amounts of future greenhouse-gas emissions that are consistent with such temperature limits. This, in turn, requires an understanding of both the technical and economic implications of reducing emissions and the processes that link emissions to temperature. Here we consider both of these aspects by reanalysing a large set of published emission scenarios from integrated assessment models in a risk-based climate modelling framework. We find that in the set of scenarios with a 'likely' (greater than 66%) chance of staying below 2C, emissions peak between 2010 and 2020 and fall to a median level of 44 Gt of CO 2 equivalent in 2020 (compared with estimated median emissions across the scenario set of 48 Gt of CO 2 equivalent in 2010). Our analysis confirms that if the mechanisms needed to enable an early peak in global emissions followed by steep reductions are not put in place, there is a significant risk that the 2C target will not be achieved. © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.


Grant
Agency: European Commission | Branch: H2020 | Program: RIA | Phase: WATER-2b-2015 | Award Amount: 7.46M | Year: 2016

MAGIC is a proposal coordinated by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) in collaboration with partners which have a proven and track record in their respective fields of competence. Our objective is to open the path towards a new way of managing the Nexus in which researchers and decision makers work together in the search for development strategies that can contribute to the smart, sustainable and inclusive economic growth required by the EU 2020 Strategy, while maintaining a leading and informed participation in international discussions about global issues, like climate change or food security. In order to do so, MAGIC deploys a set of novel, cutting-edge and system-oriented approaches that originates from system ecology, bio-economics and Science and Technology Studies. Their combination allows MAGIC to highlights if a certain mix of EU policies results in undesirable or unforeseen outcomes. Climate, water, land energy, and food modeling are integrated into a socio- and bio-economics framework using an iterative and participatory method. Significant care is taken to embed these ideas and approaches within the advisory and decision making functions of the European Commission. Impacts are twofold. First, MAGIC contributes a methodological framework where the needs for advice of different DG in the design of development strategies for the EU are covered using a method that can embrace the complexity of the nexus, for a better understanding of the interactions it holds. Second, the project provides on the flight advice to the EC about the timeliness and soundness for the EU 2020 Strategy and the EU position in international agreements of EU policies -like the Water Framework Directive, the Common Agricultural Policy, or the Low-Carbon Economy Strategy- and targets of implementing technologies -such as fracking, desalination, biofuels and GMOs.

Loading Climate Analytics GmbH collaborators
Loading Climate Analytics GmbH collaborators