Search

Abstract This paper performs a multi-model comparison to assess strategies for adaptation to climate change impacts in hydropower generation in Brazil under two Representative Concentration Pathways. The approach used allows for evaluating the interactions between climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies under low and high impact scenarios through 2050. Climate change impact projections of sixteen General Circulation Models indicate that a global high emissions trajectory scenario would likely yield more severe impacts on hydropower generation than a mitigation scenario. Adaptation modeling suggests that climate change impacts can be compensated by a wide range of alternatives, whose optimality will depend on the level of mitigation effort pursued. Our results show that climate change impacts would lead to even higher emissions in the absence of climate change mitigation policies. On the other hand, mitigation strategies to pursue lower emissions are maintained under climate change impacts, meaning that mitigation strategies are robust when faced with adaptation challenges. Mitigation efforts could yield a more diverse and less carbon intensive mix of technological options for adaptation. When analyzing investment costs to adapt to climate change impacts, in some cases mitigation can lead to a lower total investment level. Highlights • Climate change impacts on hydropower are assessed for sixteen models and two scenarios. • Interactions between climate change mitigation and adaptation are analyzed. • Adaptation/mitigation strategies from six different energy models are compared. • Adaptation and mitigation investment costs are assessed and compared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses the potential effects on the U.S. economy if the U.S. retreats from its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions agreed under the Paris Agreement. We assume prior to withdrawal that the U.S. and other nations or regions would introduce climate change policies, such as emissions trading schemes, to meet their emission targets which were agreed in Paris. When the U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement, it will not adopt such a policy. We use a modified version of the GTAP-E model to examine the effects on the U.S. economy of its anti-mitigation action in a counterfactual framework. The findings suggest that a retreat from the Paris Agreement would increase the real GDP and real private consumption by 1.13% and 0.78%, respectively, in the U.S. Given such improvements at the macro level, the effects on the U.S. energy sectors from the withdrawal are substantial. Prices of energy would reduce considerably, particularly for coal, natural gas, and consequently the price of electricity (−17.8%). These three energy sectors would also experience considerable expansions when the U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement compared to its position if it honored its previously pledged committed targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]