Search

Looking at policies instead of promises shows that global climate targets may be missed by a large margin.

The Paris Agreement requires that countries submit and update their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to mitigate global climate change. This study projected greenhouse gas emissions to evaluate the progress of 25 countries towards their original and updated NDCs. It found that almost one-quarter of the countries submitted more ambitious, updated NDCs without adopting sufficient policies to meet their original targets. Additionally, in most countries, updated NDCs lead to emissions above current policies. The findings also suggest that these patterns are influenced by national constraints, especially reliance on fossil fuels. Appropriate sequencing of ambition raising and policy adoption is urgently needed to translate the Paris Agreement into action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than 100 countries have communicated or adopted new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and net‐zero target pledges. We investigate the impact on global, national, sectoral, and individual greenhouse gas emissions projections under different scenarios based on the announced NDCs and net‐zero pledges using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Our results show that while the net‐zero pledges, if implemented, could be an important step forward, they are still not enough to achieve the Paris Agreement goals of well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C by the end of the century. Still, our net‐zero scenarios project significant all‐sector decarbonization, in particular, electricity; however, certain sectors like industry and transport prove hard to completely abate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries. To evaluate the effectiveness of current national policies in achieving global temperature targets is important but a systematic multi-model evaluation is still lacking. Here the authors identified a reduction of 3.5 GtCO2 eq of current national policies relative to a baseline scenario without climate policies by 2030 due to the increasing low carbon share of final energy and the improving final energy intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article shows the potential impact on global GHG emissions in 2030, if all countries were to implement sectoral climate policies similar to successful examples already implemented elsewhere. This assessment was represented in the IMAGE and GLOBIOM/G4M models by replicating the impact of successful national policies at the sector level in all world regions. The first step was to select successful policies in nine policy areas. In the second step, the impact on the energy and land-use systems or GHG emissions was identified and translated into model parameters, assuming that it would be possible to translate the impacts of the policies to other countries. As a result, projected annual GHG emission levels would be about 50 GtCO2e by 2030 (2% above 2010 levels), compared to the 60 GtCO2e in the ‘current policies’ scenario. Most reductions are achieved in the electricity sector through expanding renewable energy, followed by the reduction of fluorinated gases, reducing venting and flaring in oil and gas production, and improving industry efficiency. Materializing the calculated mitigation potential might not be as straightforward given different country priorities, policy preferences and circumstances. Key policy insights Considerable emissions reductions globally would be possible, if a selection of successful policies were replicated and implemented in all countries worldwide. This would significantly reduce, but not close, the emissions gap with a 2°C pathway. From the selection of successful policies evaluated in this study, those implemented in the sector ‘electricity supply’ have the highest impact on global emissions compared to the ‘current policies’ scenario. Replicating the impact of these policies worldwide could lead to emission and energy trends in the renewable electricity, passenger transport, industry (including fluorinated gases) and buildings sector, that are close to those in a 2°C scenario. Using successful policies and translating these to policy impact per sector is a more reality-based alternative to most mitigation pathways, which need to make theoretical assumptions on policy cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most fundamental questions surrounding the new Paris Agreement is whether countries’ proposals to reduce GHG emissions after 2020 are equally ambitious, considering differences in circumstances between countries. We review a variety of approaches to assess the ambition of the GHG emission reduction proposals by countries. The approaches are applied illustratively to the mitigation part of the post-2020 climate proposals (nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) by China, the EU, and the US. The analysis reveals several clear trends, even though the results differ per individual assessment approach. We recommend that such a comprehensive ambition assessment framework, employing a large variety of approaches, is used in the future to capture a wide spectrum of perspectives on ambition. POLICY RELEVANCE Assessing the ambition of the national climate proposals is particularly important as the Paris Agreement asks for regular reviews of national contributions, keeping in mind that countries raise their ambition over time. Such an assessment will be an important part of the regular global stocktake that will take place every five years, starting with a ‘light’ version in 2018. However, comprehensive methods to assess the proposals are lacking. This article provides such a comprehensive assessment framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The IMAGE integrated assessment model was used to develop a set of scenarios to evaluate the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted by Parties under the Paris Agreement. The scenarios project emissions and energy system changes under (i) current policies, (ii) implementation of the NDCs, and (iii) various trajectories to a radiative forcing level of 2.8 W/m in 2100, which gives a probability of about two thirds to limit warming to below 2 °C. The scenarios show that a cost-optimal pathway from 2020 onwards towards 2.8 W/m leads to a global greenhouse gas emission level of 38 gigatonne CO equivalent (GtCOeq) by 2030, equal to a reduction of 20% compared to the 2010 level. The NDCs are projected to lead to 2030 emission levels of 50 GtCOeq, which is still an increase compared to the 2010 level. A scenario that achieves the 2.8 W/m forcing level in 2100 from the 2030 NDC level requires more rapid transitions after 2030 to meet the forcing target. It shows an annual reduction rate in greenhouse gas emissions of 4.7% between 2030 and 2050, rapidly phasing out unabated coal-fired power plant capacity, more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy, and higher mitigation costs. A bridge scenario shows that enhancing the ambition level of NDCs before 2030 allows for a smoother energy system transition, with average annual emission reduction rates of 4.5% between 2030 and 2050, and more time to phase out coal capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of climate policy, it is important to understand emission trends and policies at the national level. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions, so-called (I)NDCs, outlining the contribution of different Parties to the overall target of the agreement to limit global mean temperature increase to well below 2 °C. Here, we assess emission trajectories and the energy system transition of 11 major economies (in the remainder: countries) projected by integrated assessment models (IAMs) for baseline and cost-optimal 450 ppm CO eq mitigation scenarios and compare the results with the (I)NDCs. Limiting global temperature increase to below 2 °C implies a substantial reduction of the estimated available carbon budget for each country. The national carbon budgets between 2010 and 2100 showed reductions between the baseline and the 2 °C consistent mitigation scenario ranging from 52% in South Korea to 95% in Brazil. While in the baseline scenario, the share of low-carbon primary energy sources is projected to remain around 15% (with Brazil being a notable exception, reaching 30%); in the mitigation scenarios, the share of low-carbon energy is projected to increase to over 50% in 2050 in nearly all countries, with the EU, Japan and Canada reaching the largest shares. Comparison with the (I)NDCs shows that in Brazil, Canada, the EU, Mexico (conditional target), South Korea and the USA, the emission reduction targets of the NDCs are closer to the mitigation requirement of the 2 °C scenario; in other countries, however, there is still a large gap. The national detail of the indicators adds to the literature on low-carbon emission pathways, assists the assessment of the Paris Agreement and provides support to national policymakers to identify focus areas for climate policy in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the Paris climate agreement, countries have submitted (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which includes greenhouse gas reduction proposals beyond 2020. In this paper, we apply the IMAGE integrated assessment model to estimate the annual abatement costs of achieving the NDC reduction targets, and the additional costs if countries would take targets in line with keeping global warming well below 2 °C and “pursue efforts” towards 1.5 °C. We have found that abatement costs are very sensitive to socio-economic assumptions: under Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3 (SSP3) assumptions of slow economic growth, rapidly growing population, and high inequality, global abatement costs of achieving the unconditional NDCs are estimated at USD135 billion by 2030, which is more than twice the level as under the more sustainable socio-economic assumptions of SSP1. Furthermore, we project that the additional costs of full implementation of the conditional NDCs are substantial, ranging from 40 to 55 billion USD, depending on socio-economic assumptions. Of the ten major emitting economies, Brazil, Canada and the USA are projected to have the highest cots as share of GDP to implement the conditional NDCs, while the costs for Japan, China, Russia, and India are relatively low. Allowing for emission trading could decrease global costs substantially, by more than half for the unconditional NDCs and almost by half for the conditional NDCs. Finally, the required effort in terms of abatement costs of achieving 2030 emission levels consistent with 2 °C pathways would be at least three times higher than the costs of achieving the conditional NDCs – even though reductions need to be twice as much. For 1.5 °C, the costs would be 5–6 times as high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of recent discussions at the UN climate negotiations we compared several ways of calculating historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assessed the effect of these different approaches on countries’ relative contributions to cumulative global emissions. Elements not covered before are: (i) including recent historical emissions (2000–2010), (ii) discounting historical emissions to account for technological progress; (iii) deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’; (iv) including projected emissions up to 2020, based on countries’ unconditional reduction proposals for 2020. Our analysis shows that countries’ contributions vary significantly based on the choices made in the calculation: e.g. the relative contribution of developed countries as a group can be as high as 80 % when excluding recent emissions, non-CO 2 GHGs, and land-use change and forestry CO 2; or about 48 % when including all these emissions and discounting historical emissions for technological progress. Excluding non-CO 2 GHGs and land-use change and forestry CO 2 significantly changes relative historical contributions for many countries, altering countries’ relative contributions by multiplicative factors ranging from 0.15 to 1.5 compared to reference values (i.e. reference contribution calculations cover the period 1850-2010 and all GHG emissions). Excluding 2000–2010 emissions decreases the contributions of most emerging economies (factor of up to 0.8). Discounting historical emissions for technological progress reduces the relative contributions of some developed countries (factor of 0.8) and increases those of some developing countries (factor of 1.2–1.5). Deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’ results in smaller contributions for countries with low per capita emissions (factor of 0.3–0.5). Finally, including projected emissions up to 2020 further increases the relative contributions of emerging economies by a factor of 1.2, or 1.5 when discounting pre-2020 emissions for technological progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] This study compares 2020 emission levels from pledges to those consistent with 2°C. [•] For a likely chance of 2°C, we find an emission gap of 8.7–12.6GtCO2equiv. by 2020. [•] The pledges could achieve 24–54% of the mitigation effort consistent with 2°C. [•] The effect of accounting rules is lower than in the UNEP (2012) emission gap report. [•] An emission gap does not imply that the 2°C target is definitely out of reach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: As part of the Copenhagen Accord, Annex I Parties (industrialised countries) and non-Annex I Parties (developing countries) have submitted reduction proposals (pledges) and mitigation actions to the UNFCCC secretariat. Our calculations show that if the current reduction offers of Annex I and non-Annex I countries are fully implemented, global greenhouse gas emissions could amount to 48.6–49.7 GtCO2eq by 2020. Recent literature suggests that the emission level should be between 42 and 46 GtCO2eq by 2020 to maintain a “medium” chance (50–66%) of meeting the 2°C target. The emission gap is therefore 2.6–7.7 GtCO2eq. We have identified a combined set of options, which could result in an additional 2.8 GtCO2eq emission reduction. This would lead to an emission level just within the range needed. The options include reducing deforestation and emissions from bunker fuels, excluding emissions allowance increases from land use and forestry rules, and taking into account the national climate plans of China and India. However, there are also important risks that could widen the emissions gap, like lower reductions from countries with only a conditional pledge and the use of Kyoto and/or trading of new surplus emission allowances. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: As part of the Copenhagen Accord, individual countries have submitted greenhouse gas reduction proposals for the year 2020. This paper analyses the implications for emission reductions, the carbon price, and abatement costs of these submissions. The submissions of the Annex I (industrialised) countries are estimated to lead to a total reduction target of 12–18% below 1990 levels. The submissions of the seven major emerging economies are estimated to lead to an 11–14% reduction below baseline emissions, depending on international (financial) support. Global abatement costs in 2020 are estimated at about USD 60–100 billion, assuming that at least two-thirds of Annex I emission reduction targets need to be achieved domestically. The largest share of these costs are incurred by Annex I countries, although the costs as share of GDP are similar for Annex I as a group and the seven emerging economies as a group, even when assuming substantial international transfers from Annex I countries to the emerging economies to finance their abatement costs. If the restriction of achieving two-thirds of the emission reduction target domestically is abandoned, it would more than double the international carbon price and at the same time reduce global abatement costs by almost 25%. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Substantially postponing the emission reductions, compared to the ranges indicated in IPCC’s recent assessment for 2020 as required for meeting the longterm 2°C target, increases the risk of exceeding this target. The costs of a delay strategy are lower in the short term, but leads to higher costs in the longer term. The analysis shows if the emission reductions are postponed to 2030 it is not likely that higher emissions from the earlier years can be fully compensated in future decades in a so-called ‘delayed action scenario’. A full compensation would require emission reduction rates in the coming decades that are much higher than those found in the scenario literature. Without compensation, the risk of exceeding the global temperature rise target of 2°C will increase. This confirms that it is not only the reduction commitments for 2050 that determine the risk of exceeding the 2°C target, but also the path between now and 2050. To meet this 2°C target, more ambitious 2020 reduction targets are needed for the developed and developing countries than those that have been pledged so far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Recent proposals at the UNFCCC meeting in Bali in December 2007 suggest that a 2% levy on the CDM could finance adaptation costs in developing regions. Other proposals include extending the scope of the levy to emissions trading. This study applies an Integrated Assessment Model to gain insight in the interactions between adaptation costs, residual damages and mitigation costs and to analyse the effectiveness of a 2% levy on both the CDM and emissions trading from developing countries. We show that adaptation is especially important in lower income regions where damages are higher. The revenues of a 2% levy strongly depend on both the climate mitigation target and the burden-sharing regime. A more stringent climate mitigation target results in more emissions trade and, in the longer run, less need for adaptation. Both factors increase the share of adaptation costs that can be funded. The burden-sharing regime strongly affects the revenues of a 2% levy as well: relatively more stringent targets for developed countries increase the revenues of a 2% levy. However, in the next two decades the share of adaptation that can be financed remains well below 20% in most cases. Additional funding mechanisms are therefore necessary to substantially finance adaptation costs in developing countries. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change compares costs and benefits of stringent climate policy and concludes that the benefits of stringent policy considerably outweigh the costs. Many other cost–benefit analyses have come up with less ambitious optimal emission reductions. In this study, we systematically explore the impacts of scientific uncertainties and value judgements on the suggested “optimal target” for international climate policy. In this context, we have varied the most important parameters using a range of values from several widely used Integrated Assessment Modes in one consistent framework. Our analysis shows that uncertainties about abatement and damage costs play an almost equally important role as the discount rate. Both stringent and moderate climate policy can be justified by using other parameter settings. Furthermore, for most parameter settings there is a wide range of concentration levels close to the optimal target, providing a much wider range for political choices than often suggested. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper presents a set of technically feasible multi-gas emission pathways (envelopes) for stabilising greenhouse gas concentration at 450, 550 and 650ppm CO2-equivalent and their trade-offs between direct abatement costs and probabilities to meet temperature targets. There are different pathways within the envelope. Delayed response pathways initially follow the upper boundary of the emission envelope and reduce more by the end of the century. In contrast, early action pathways first follow the lower boundary and then the upper boundary. The latter require an early peak in the global emissions but keeps the option open for shifting to lower concentration targets in the future. Costs evaluations depend on the discount rate. Early action profiles have high costs early on, but learning-by-doing and smoother reduction rates over time lead to in most cases to lower costs across the century (net present value (NPV)). To achieve the 450ppm CO2-equivalent, the global emissions need to peak before 2020. The NPV of costs increase from 0.2% of cumulative gross domestic product to 1.0% as the shift is made from 650 to 450ppm (discount rate 5%). However, the chances of limiting global mean warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels are very small for peaking and stabilisation at 650ppm (1–23%) and 550ppm (1–48%), but increase for a peaking at 510ppm with subsequent stabilisation 450ppm to 14–67%. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The “South–North Dialogue” Proposal, developed by researchers from developing and industrialised countries, outlined equitable approaches to mitigation. These approaches were based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate, and include deep cuts in industrialised (Annex I) countries and differentiated mitigation commitments for developing countries. This paper quantitatively analyses the implications of the proposal for countries’ emissions and costs. The analysis focuses on a “political willingness” scenario and four stabilisation scenarios. The analysis shows that stringent stabilisation targets imply that many developing countries would have to take on quantitative mitigation obligations by 2030, even when the Annex I countries take on ambitious mitigation commitments far beyond the Kyoto obligations. The “political willingness scenario” will probably not suffice to limit a warming of the Earth''s atmosphere to below 2°C. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article presents a set of multi-gas emission pathways for different CO2-equivalent concentration stabilization levels, i.e. 400, 450, 500 and 550 ppm CO2-equivalent, along with an analysis of their global and regional reduction implications and implied probability of achieving the EU climate target of 2°C. For achieving the 2°C target with a probability of more than 60%, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilized at 450 ppm CO2- equivalent or below, if the 90% uncertainty range for climate sensitivity is believed to be 1.5-4.5°C. A stabilization at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent or below (400 ppm) requires global emissions to peak around 2015, followed by substantial overall reductions of as much as 25% (45% for 400 ppm) compared to 1990 levels in 2050. In 2020, Annex I emissions need to be approximately 15% (30%) below 1990 levels, and non-Annex I emissions also need to be reduced by 15-20% compared to their baseline emissions. A further delay in peaking of global emissions by 10 years doubles maximum reduction rates to about 5% per year, and very probably leads to high costs. In order to keep the option open of stabilizing at 400 and 450 ppm CO2-equivalent, the USA and major advanced non-Annex I countries will have to participate in the reductions within the next 10-15 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a set of multi-gas emission pathways for different CO2-equivalent concentration stabilization levels, i.e. 400, 450, 500 and 550 ppm CO2-equivalent, along with an analysis of their global and regional reduction implications and implied probability of achieving the EU climate target of 2°C. For achieving the 2°C target with a probability of more than 60%, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilized at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent or below, if the 90% uncertainty range for climate sensitivity is believed to be 1.5-4.5°C. A stabilization at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent or below (400 ppm) requires global emissions to peak around 2015, followed by substantial overall reductions of as much as 25% (45% for 400 ppm) compared to 1990 levels in 2050. In 2020, Annex I emissions need to be approximately 15% (30%) below 1990 levels, and non-Annex I emissions also need to be reduced by 15-20% compared to their baseline emissions. A further delay in peaking of global emissions by 10 years doubles maximum reduction rates to about 5% per year, and very probably leads to high costs. In order to keep the option open of stabilizing at 400 and 450 ppm CO2-equivalent, the USA and major advanced non-Annex F countries will have to participate in the reductions within the next 10-15 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper evaluates the influence of different policy-related and scientific choices on the calculated regional contributions to global climate change (the “Brazilian Proposal”). Policy-related choices include the time period of emissions, the mix of greenhouse gases and different indicators of climate change impacts. The scientific choices include historical emissions and model representations of the climate system. We generated and compared results of several simple climate models. We find that the relative contributions of different nations to global climate change—from emissions of greenhouse gases alone—are quite robust, despite the varying model complexity and differences in calculated absolute changes. For the default calculations, the average calculated contributions to the global mean surface temperature increase in 2000 are about 40% from OECD, 14% from Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union, 24% from Asia and 22% from Africa and Latin America. Policy-related choices, such as time period of emissions, climate change indicator and gas mix generally have larger influence on the results than scientific choices. More specifically, choosing a later attribution start date (1990 instead of 1890) for historical emissions, decreases the contributions of regions that started emitting early, such as the OECD countries by 6 percentage points, whereas it increases the contribution of late emitters such as Asia by 8 percentage points. However, only including the fossil CO2 emissions instead of the emissions of all Kyoto gases (fossil and land use change), increases the OECD contributions by 21 percentage points and decreases the contribution of Asia by 14 percentage points. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article summarises the results of an evaluation of the Climate Change Initiative launched by President Bush in February 2002. The policy target to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the US economy by 18% between 2002 and 2012 can be considered modest at best. The Initiative is likely to result in a 32% increase in US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 compared to the 1990 levels. The effort also falls considerably short of efforts of the EU, Japan and Canada under the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush Initiative advocates using intensity targets in the international climate change regime, but overlooks fundamental problems associated with this approach. All the same, the Bush Initiative is of political significance as it recognises the importance of the climate change problem and may improve the longer-term prospects for US participation in a global climate regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines to what extent climate change policies will alter the effectiveness of agreed-upon or future policies to reduce regional air pollution in Europe and vice versa. And when is it cost-effective to combat regional air pollution with clean technology instead of add-on technology?For this exercise, several extensions were made to the energy model TIMER, to introduce add-on abatement technologies, specified in terms of costs and reduction potentials, in order to be able to calculate cost-effective emission reduction strategies for different scenarios and regions.The results show that add-on technologies to reduce regional air pollution remain necessary throughout the century. The costs to reach the NOx emission reduction targets in Europe are about three times as high as for SO2. Mitigation costs averaged over the century by add-on technologies can be reduced by climate measures by 50–70% for SO2 and around 50% for NOx. The costs of SO2 and NOx mitigation by add-on technology in a world without climate policy are comparable or in some periods even higher than the costs of an integrated mitigation of SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions if a reduction of specific costs by learning is, in contrast with energy technologies, not assumed for abatement technologies. So, the costs of SO2 and NOx add-on measures avoided by climate policies can outweigh the costs of these climate measures. The total annual costs are in the order of 1 or 2% of the present GDP, depending on the scenario. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The aim of this study was to develop consistent scenarios of emissions, climate change and regional air pollution to enable an integrated analysis of the linkage between climate change and regional air pollution in Europe. An integrated modeling framework was developed for this purpose. The framework integrates state-of-the-art models and concepts from the area of climate change and regional air pollution and was supplemented by new modules (e.g. modeling long-term NH3 emissions in Europe, modeling dispersion and transformation of air pollutants under climate change).Consistent climate and air pollution policies were derived, both driven by the desire to achieve certain environmental goals. According to an analysis of scenarios with various combinations of climate and regional air pollution policies the quantitatively most relevant interactions are the effect of climate change policies on the energy mix and the resulting air pollution emissions. In the long-term the global SO2 emissions are expected to decrease (again), accordingly their effect on climate will be minor. Tentatively it can be concluded that for regional air pollution the development of the air pollutant emissions is more important than the effect of climate change on the dispersion and chemical transformation of air pollutants. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Using cost–benefit analysis to determine an optimal climate mitigation target is criticised, especially because i) it fails to sufficiently take into account low-probability, high-impact events, and ii) results strongly depend on the discount rate used. One of the alternative suggestions to inform policymakers about the right mitigation target that does take the risks associated with low-probability, high-impact events explicitly into account is the minimax regret criterion. We apply the minimax regret criterion quantitatively using an integrated assessment model with extreme values for climate sensitivity, damage estimates and mitigation costs. The goal is to analyse whether such a method leads to different results compared to standard cost–benefit analysis and whether the results are still sensitive to the discount rate used. We find that the minimax regret approach leads to more stringent and robust climate targets for relatively low discount rates and if both a high climate sensitivity and high damage estimates are assumed. If one of these assumptions does not hold, the difference between the minimax regret approach and standard cost–benefit analysis is much smaller. Therefore, we conclude that the discount rate used can still be of vital importance even when applying a minimax regret approach. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this paper we argue that the discussion on how to get to an equitable global climate change regime requires a long-term context. Some key dimensions of this discussion are responsibility, capability and development needs. Each of these, separately or in combination, has been used in designing schemes for differentiation of commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many implementation problems of these proposals are often side-stepped. In particular, some proposals may be incompatible with Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), i.e. they are unlikely to keep the option open of long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at relatively low levels. We present some evidence that shifting the emphasis from emission reduction to sustainable development needs can contribute significantly to relieving the threat of human-induced climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]