THREAD: Yes, 1.5°C is possible with low BECCS...
A new @NatureClimate paper from @DetlefvanVuuren & the @IMAGE_PBL team shows that there are alternative pathways to 1.5°C with less negative emissions. (the blue areas get small in the bottom right figure)
nature.com/articles/s4155…
A new @NatureClimate paper from @DetlefvanVuuren & the @IMAGE_PBL team shows that there are alternative pathways to 1.5°C with less negative emissions. (the blue areas get small in the bottom right figure)
nature.com/articles/s4155…
The alternative pathways include lifestyle change, additional reduction of non-CO₂ GHGs, & more rapid electrification of energy demand based on renewable energy. Some of these alternative may not be easy to implement, but they are additional tools to add to the toolbox!
Important points for me
* Options with low non-CO₂ seem to have the biggest impact (LoNCO2)
* None of the options get rid of BECCS alone
* Combined the options have bigger impact
* Less BECCS means more space for afforestation (or food or ...)
* Options with low non-CO₂ seem to have the biggest impact (LoNCO2)
* None of the options get rid of BECCS alone
* Combined the options have bigger impact
* Less BECCS means more space for afforestation (or food or ...)
It is worth emphasising that non-CO₂ has a big effect on the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C. Less non-CO₂, (slightly) more CO₂ can be emitted. Long standing problem on how to best compare CO₂ & non-CO₂ both physically & economically.
doi.org/10.1038/s41558…
doi.org/10.1038/s41558…
The CO₂ emission pathway in all scenarios is about the same (top), as is the share of low-carbon sources in primary energy (bottom right), but the energy system can be quite different (bottom left). If something changes, something else must compensate to follow the same pathway.
It is worth noting that not all options remove the need for BECCS, thus likely we need some level of negative emissions in the future. My assessment would be that options that lower non-CO₂ lead to the biggest reductions in BECCS.
For a great summary & expert comments, read @DrSimEvans article @CarbonBrief. One of the most important passages of the paper is a discussion on what mitigation options are included in IAMs & how they are costed. This is an important discussion.
carbonbrief.org/world-can-limi…
carbonbrief.org/world-can-limi…
I hope this paper leads to a better understanding & discussion of the challenges & opportunities of 1.5°C or 2°C. There are many alternative pathways often not modelled, & modelled pathways may be unrealistic.
Paper nature.com/articles/s4155…
Summary carbonbrief.org/world-can-limi…
Paper nature.com/articles/s4155…
Summary carbonbrief.org/world-can-limi…
