A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios

Brutschin, E. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7040-3057, Pianta, S., Tavoni, M., Riahi, K. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7193-3498, Bosetti, V., Marangoni, G., & van Ruijven, B.J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1232-5892 (2021). A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios. Environmental Research Letters 16 (6) 064069. 10.1088/1748-9326/abf0ce.

[thumbnail of Brutschin_2021_Environ._Res._Lett._16_064069.pdf]
Brutschin_2021_Environ._Res._Lett._16_064069.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview
Project: Exploring National and Global Actions to reduce Greenhouse gas Emissions (ENGAGE, H2020 821471)


Long-term mitigation scenarios developed by integrated assessment models underpin major aspects of recent IPCC reports and have been critical to identify the system transformations that are required to meet stringent climate goals. However, they have been criticized for proposing pathways that may prove challenging to implement in the real world and for failing to capture the social and institutional challenges of the transition. There is a growing interest to assess the feasibility of these scenarios, but past research has mostly focused on theoretical considerations. This paper proposes a novel and versatile multidimensional framework that allows evaluating and comparing decarbonization pathways by systematically quantifying feasibility concerns across geophysical, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. This framework enables to assess the timing, disruptiveness and scale of feasibility concerns, and to identify trade-offs across different feasibility dimensions. As a first implementation of the proposed framework, we map the feasibility concerns of the IPCC 1.5 °C Special Report scenarios. We select 24 quantitative indicators and propose feasibility thresholds based on insights from an extensive analysis of the literature and empirical data. Our framework is, however, flexible and allows evaluations based on different thresholds or aggregation rules. Our analyses show that institutional constraints, which are often not accounted for in scenarios, are key drivers of feasibility concerns. Moreover, we identify a clear intertemporal trade-off, with early mitigation being more disruptive but preventing higher and persistent feasibility concerns produced by postponed mitigation action later in the century.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: climate change mitigation, feasibility, integrated assessment models, energy transition
Research Programs: Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) > Sustainable Service Systems (S3)
Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) > Transformative Institutional and Social Solutions (TISS)
Depositing User: Michaela Rossini
Date Deposited: 10 Jun 2021 07:24
Last Modified: 27 Aug 2021 17:34
URI: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/17259

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item