Increased energy use for adaptation significantly impacts mitigation pathways.

Climate adaptation actions can be energy-intensive, but how adaptation feeds back into the energy system and the environment is absent in nearly all up-to-date energy scenarios. Here we quantify the impacts of adaptation actions entailing direct changes in final energy use on energy investments and costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution. We find that energy needs for adaptation increase considerably over time and with warming. The resulting addition in capacity for power generation leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollutants, and energy system costs. In the short to medium term, much of the added capacity for power generation is fossil-fuel based. We show that mitigation pathways accounting for the adaptation-energy feedback would require a higher global carbon price, between 5% and 30% higher. Because of the benefits in terms of reduced adaptation needs, energy system costs in ambitious mitigation scenarios would be lower than previous estimates, and they would turn negative in well-below-2-degree scenarios, pointing at net gains in terms of power system costs.

Persistent inequality in economically optimal climate policies.

Benefit-cost analyses of climate policies by integrated assessment models have generated conflicting assessments. Two critical issues affecting social welfare are regional heterogeneity and inequality. These have only partly been accounted for in existing frameworks. Here, we present a benefit-cost model with more than 50 regions, calibrated upon emissions and mitigation cost data from detailed-process IAMs, and featuring country-level economic damages. We compare countries' self-interested and cooperative behaviour under a range of assumptions about socioeconomic development, climate impacts, and preferences over time and inequality. Results indicate that without international cooperation, global temperature rises, though less than in commonly-used reference scenarios. Cooperation stabilizes temperature within the Paris goals (1.80∘C [1.53∘C-2.31∘C] in 2100). Nevertheless, economic inequality persists: the ratio between top and bottom income deciles is 117% higher than without climate change impacts, even for economically optimal pathways.

Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas.

The most important energy development of the past decade has been the wide deployment of hydraulic fracturing technologies that enable the production of previously uneconomic shale gas resources in North America. If these advanced gas production technologies were to be deployed globally, the energy market could see a large influx of economically competitive unconventional gas resources. The climate implications of such abundant natural gas have been hotly debated. Some researchers have observed that abundant natural gas substituting for coal could reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Others have reported that the non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions associated with shale gas production make its lifecycle emissions higher than those of coal. Assessment of the full impact of abundant gas on climate change requires an integrated approach to the global energy-economy-climate systems, but the literature has been limited in either its geographic scope or its coverage of greenhouse gases. Here we show that market-driven increases in global supplies of unconventional natural gas do not discernibly reduce the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions or climate forcing. Our results, based on simulations from five state-of-the-art integrated assessment models of energy-economy-climate systems independently forced by an abundant gas scenario, project large additional natural gas consumption of up to +170 per cent by 2050. The impact on CO2 emissions, however, is found to be much smaller (from -2 per cent to +11 per cent), and a majority of the models reported a small increase in climate forcing (from -0.3 per cent to +7 per cent) associated with the increased use of abundant gas. Our results show that although market penetration of globally abundant gas may substantially change the future energy system, it is not necessarily an effective substitute for climate change mitigation policy.