Recognizing the importance of multiple baselines in evaluating mitigation strategies, recent studies analyze and compare mitigation scenarios using as their baselines the new SRES scenarios. This allows for the assessment in this report of 76 post-SRES mitigation scenarios produced by nine modelling teams. These mitigation scenarios were quantified on the basis of storylines for each of the six SRES scenarios that describe the relationship between the kind of future world and the capacity for mitigation.
Figure TS.2: Comparison of reference and stabilization scenarios. The figure is divided into six parts, one for each of the reference scenario groups from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Each part of the figure shows the range of total global CO2 emissions (gigatonnes of carbon (GtC)) from all anthropogenic sources for the SRES reference scenario group (shaded in grey) and the ranges for the various mitigation scenarios assessed in the TAR leading to stabilization of CO2 concentrations at various levels (shaded in colour). Scenarios are presented for the A1 family subdivided into three groups (the balanced A1B group (Figure TS-2a), non-fossil fuel A1T (Figure TS-2b), and the fossil intensive A1FI (Figure TS-2c)) and stabilization of CO2 concentrations at 450, 550, 650 and 750ppmv; for the A2 group with stabilization at 550 and 750ppmv in Figure TS-2d, the B1 group and stabilization at 450 and 550ppmv in Figure TS-2e, and the B2 group including stabilization at 450, 550, and 650ppmv in Figure TS-2f. The literature is not available to assess 1000ppmv stabilization scenarios. The figure illustrates that the lower the stabilization level and the higher the baseline emissions, the wider the gap. The difference between emissions in different scenario groups can be as large as the gap between reference and stabilization scenarios within one scenario group. The dotted lines depict the boundaries of the ranges where they overlap (see Box TS.1).
Quantifications differ with respect to the baseline scenario, including assumed storyline, the stabilization target, and the model that was used. The post-SRES scenarios cover a very wide range of emission trajectories, but the range is clearly below the SRES range. All scenarios show an increase in CO2 reduction over time. Energy reduction shows a much wider range than CO2 reduction, because in many scenarios a decoupling between energy use and carbon emissions takes place as a result of a shift in primary energy sources.
In general, the lower the stabilization target and the higher the level of baseline emissions, the larger the CO2 divergence from the baseline that is needed, and the earlier that it must occur. The A1FI, A1B, and A2 worlds require a wider range of and more strongly implemented technology and/or policy measures than A1T, B1, and B2. The 450 ppmv stabilization case requires more drastic emission reduction to occur earlier than under the 650 ppmv case, with very rapid emission reduction over the next 20 to 30 years (see Figure TS.2).
A key policy question is what kind of emission reductions in the medium term (after the Kyoto Protocol commitment period) would be needed. Analysis of the post-SRES scenarios (most of which assume developing country emissions to be below baselines by 2020) suggests that stabilization at 450 ppmv will require emissions reductions in Annex I countries after 2012 that go significantly beyond their Kyoto Protocol commitments. It also suggests that it would not be necessary to go much beyond the Kyoto commitments for Annex I by 2020 to achieve stabilization at 550 ppmv or higher. However, it should be recognized that several scenarios indicate the need for significant Annex I emission reductions by 2020 and that none of the scenarios introduces other constraints such as a limit to the rate of temperature change.
An important policy question already mentioned concerns the participation of developing countries in emission mitigation. A preliminary finding of the post-SRES scenario analysis is that, if it is assumed that the CO2 emission reduction needed for stabilization occurs in Annex I countries only, Annex I per capita CO2 emissions would fall below non-Annex I per capita emissions during the 21st century in nearly all of the stabilization scenarios, and before 2050 in two-thirds of the scenarios, if developing countries emissions follow the baseline scenarios. This suggests that the stabilization target and the baseline emission level are both important determinants of the timing when developing countries emissions might need to diverge from their baseline.
Climate policy would reduce per capita final energy use in the economy-emphasized worlds (A1FI, A1B, and A2), but not in the environment-emphasized worlds (B1 and B2). The reduction in energy use caused by climate policies would be larger in Annex I than in non-Annex I countries. However, the impact of climate policies on equity in per capita final energy use would be much smaller than that of the future development path.
There is no single path to a low emission future and countries and regions
will have to choose their own path. Most model results indicate that known technological
could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO2 stabilization levels,
such as 550 ppmv, 450 ppmv or, below over the next 100 years or more, but implementation
would require associated socio-economic and institutional changes.
Assumed mitigation options differ among scenarios and are strongly dependent on the model structure. However, common features of mitigation scenarios include large and continuous energy efficiency improvements and afforestation as well as low-carbon energy, especially biomass over the next 100 years and natural gas in the first half of the 21st century. Energy conservation and reforestation are reasonable first steps, but innovative supply-side technologies will eventually be required. Possible robust options include using natural gas and combined-cycle technology to bridge the transition to more advanced fossil fuel and zero-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells. Solar energy as well as either nuclear energy or carbon removal and storage would become increasingly important for a higher emission world or lower stabilization target.
Integration between global climate policies and domestic air pollution abatement policies could effectively reduce GHG emissions in developing regions for the next two or three decades. However, control of sulphur emissions could amplify possible climate change, and partial trade-offs are likely to persist for environmental policies in the medium term.
Policies governing agriculture, land use and energy systems could be linked for climate change mitigation. Supply of biomass energy as well as biological CO2 sequestration would broaden the available options for carbon emission reductions, although the post-SRES scenarios show that they cannot provide the bulk of the emission reductions required. That has to come from other options.
Other reports in this collection