Page - 7 - in options, Volume summer 2015

research news 7summer 2015 + optionswww.iiasa.ac.at iiasa research What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5°C? More than 100 countries worldwide are championing a limit in temperature rise of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels as a safer goal than the currently agreed international aim of 2°C. Now, researchers at IIASA, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK), and other partners have analyzed the climate policy actions and targets required to limit future global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C by 2100. According to a study published this spring, the researchers find that achieving this limit is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint. The new study examines scenarios for energy, the economy, and the environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and compares them to scenarios for limiting climate change to 2°C. “Actions for returning global warming to below 1.5°C by 2100 are in many ways similar to those limiting warming to below 2°C,” says  IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, one of the lead authors of the  study. “However, the more ambitious 1.5°C goal allows for no delay in global mitigation action and the window for achieving this goal by 2100 is small and closing rapidly.” The authors note, however, that the economic, political, and technological requirements to meet even the 2°C target are substantial. In the run-up to climate negotiations in December 2015, such information is important for policymakers considering long-term goals and the steps required to achieve these goals. KL Further info Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K (2015). Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change 5:519–527 [doi:10.1038/nclimate2572]. Joeri Rogelj rogelj@iiasa.ac.at Linking climate mitigation and adaptation What is the connection between policies to mitigate future climate change and those that aim to help societies to adapt and survive in a new climate reality? Can the integration of these two types of climate policies be synergistic or are there conflicts? Surprisingly, the studies on interrelationships between adaptation and mitigation policies have not yet been examined in a systematic manner. In a new study, IIASA  researcher Mia Landauer and colleagues from Aalto University in Finland take the first stab at the issue. “Adaptation and mitigation have been traditionally handled as two separate policies to combat climate change,” says Landauer, a guest research scholar in IIASA’s Risk, Policy and Vulnerability Program. In a recent article in Climatic Change, Landauer and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review of the research on their interrelationships—the conflicts, trade-offs, and synergies between adaptation and mitigation. They found that far from being separate and distinct policies, adaptation and mitigation can often work best if addressed in concert, especially in urban areas. For example, in the building sector, many benefits of integration of climate mitigation and adaptation can be gained. Sometimes, trade-offs between the two climate approaches are inevitable and the policy goals may conflict—for example, urban densification may aid climate mitigation but can reduce the potential to adapt to flood risk. Landauer says that it is not surprising that urban areas have been the particular focus of research. The systematic review identifies a number of opportunities and challenges of integrating adaptation and mitigation in cities that can be identified across multiple scales. Read more at blog.iiasa.ac.at. KL Further info Landauer M, Juhola S, Söderholm M. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation: A systematic literature review. Climatic Change (published online 8 April 2015) [doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1395-1]. Mia Landauer landauem@iiasa.ac.at©