Seite - 9 - in options, Band winter 2021

Science into policy Engaging on the road to net-zero At COP26, IIASA researchers presented their latest research into cost- effective, technologically sound, socially and politically feasible pathways for meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The research was conducted by interdisciplinary teams of scientists brought together from across the community by Elina Brutschin and Keywan Riahi, both from IIASA, to explore net-zero futures and their feasibility. A series of three policy briefs summarize the main policy implications of the work. The first policy brief presents a new, flexible, framework to assess aspects of climate scenarios that raise feasibility concerns, and how to overcome these. Three main results stand out: immediate ambitious transformation has lower feasibility concerns than delayed action; the capacity of governments and other institutions to guide rapid mitigation is a major concern; and balanced mitigation strategies between demand and supply sides raise fewer feasibility concerns. The second policy brief looks at global climate scenarios, highlights the long-term economic benefits of scenarios that avoid emission and temperature overshoot, and points out the short-term investments needed to make it happen. It also shows that following existing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) until 2030 will close the road to limiting warming to 1.5°C. The final policy brief in the series zooms is on national decarbonization pathways and evaluates the effect of current policies, while also exploring the possibilities for more ambitious reduction targets to inform long-term strategies and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions targets. All these scenarios along with the new feasibility framework will inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s sixth assessment report focusing on the mitigation of climate change, which is due to be published in March 2022. Elina Brutschin: brutschin@iiasa.ac.at Keywan Riahi: riahi@iiasa.ac.at Bas van Ruijven: vruijven@iiasa.ac.at Further info: www.iiasa.ac.at/policybrief/29 | www.iiasa.ac.at/policybrief/30 www.iiasa.ac.at/policybrief/31 WEIGHING IN ON THE CONVERSATION AROUND LOSS AND DAMAGE LINKING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT An IIASA policy brief prepared for the UK Presidency’s Adaptation and Loss and Damage Day and an NGO-led side event at the 2021 UN Climate Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, proposes a comprehensive climate risk finance framework that expands the focus of Loss and Damage with provisions for transformational risk management, and curative options to address the residual impacts of climate change. The framework can be applied at different scales and offers an entry point for an extensive approach that informs international negotiations on Loss and Damage and adaptation, as well as country- level policymaking. www.iiasa.ac.at/policybrief/32 A new report by the NewClimate Institute, IIASA, and PBL Netherlands provides an assessment of progress in policy implementation and mitigation commitments for 26 major emitting countries and regions up to 2030. Emissions are projected to remain above 2005 levels in most countries, but the report concludes that 16 of the 26 countries and regions analyzed are on track, or close to achieving the targets they had set for themselves as part of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Further action is however required in several of the countries examined. pure.iiasa.ac.at/17481 Studies have g enerat ed man y poss ible sce narios for clim ate cha nge mitigat ion. So which to cho ose? W hat cha llenges are we likely to face as we negotia te diffe rent fu tures? To asse ss the feasibi lity con cerns o f mitig ation s cenario s, a ne w fram ework looks a t dime nsions of geo physics , techn ology, econom y, socie ty, and institutions. T he framework will be contin ually adapted to make more refined judgme nts, bu t three early r esults are cle ar:  Movin g fast is mo re fea sible. The framewor k confirms the urgency of cl imate action. Immediate ambitio us tran sforma tion ha s lowe r feasib ility co ncerns than d elayed action.  Institu tions a re a m ajor c oncer n. In many place s, governmen ts and other in stitutions may not have the capacity fo r rapid mitigat ion. Internatio nal aid could m ake a big differe nce he re, for examp le inve sting in educa tion.  Dema nd an d supp ly mit igatio n shou ld be b alance d. Each o ption h as feas ibility c oncern s, and overall it is sa fer to t ake a mixed approa ch. A new frame work assess es the feasib ility of clim ate sc enario s, pointi ng ou t stum bling blocks and h ow to sur moun t them . Findin g a feasib le pat h IIAS A PO LICY BRI EF # 29 OCT OBE R 20 21 © T ar ik vi sio n | D re am sti me Most existing climate scenarios focus on distant temperature goals at the end of the century. This allows them to temporarily overshoot those temperatures, with CO 2 emissions that break the carbon budget in mid- century, followed by net-negative emissions to repay the deficit. The ENGAGE project, coordinated by IIASA, has studied the implications of being more ambitious, with scenarios that balance the carbon budget at the time of reaching net-zero emissions. It has also looked at the implications of following existing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) until 2030. These scenarios inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s sixth assessment report (mitigation of climate change) due to be published in March 2022.  1.5°C is out of reach with existing NDCs.  Net-negative scenarios lead to a hazardous level of overshoot. Given a budget of 1000 Gt CO 2 , scenarios that rely on net-negative emissions result in mid-century peak temperatures that are up to 0.15°C higher than if the budget is met by the time of net-zero. This would mean substantially higher climate impacts and risks of reaching tipping points.  Investment in low-carbon power should at least double by 2030 to avoid overshoot (under a 1000 Gt budget). This is mainly in solar, wind, power grids and storage.  Upfront investment brings long-term economic gains. End-of- century GDP is higher in scenarios that avoid overshoot.  Carbon removal technologies need urgent development and deployment. Even in scenarios that avoid net-negative emissions, CO 2 removal is needed to accelerate near-term mitigation and to offset emissions from hard-to-abate sectors. Overshooting global temperature goals is risky. New research from the ENGAGE project shows the long-term economic benefits of scenarios that avoid overshoot and points out the investments needed to make it happen. IIASA POLICY BRIEF #30 OCTOBER 2021 © P av lo Sy vak | D ream stime Avoiding overshoot: why and how  Faced with increasing climate-related risks, decision makers across the globe need to strengthen and transform climate risk management approaches before limits to adaptation are met.  The Loss and Damage dialogue under the Warsaw Mechanism is the international negotiation space for approaches and funding aimed at averting, minimizing, and addressing losses and damages in vulnerable countries. It offers an opportunity to trigger such necessary shifts, but its remit and distinction from adaptation has remained vague and focused on insurance-related solutions for sudden-onset risks.  This policy brief proposes a comprehensive climate risk finance framework that expands the focus of Loss and Damage with provisions for transformational risk management to reduce risk and curative options to address residual impacts ‘beyond adaptation’.  Adapted social protection and national and global loss distribution schemes are suggested to attend to sudden-onset climate-related risks and impacts, such as those triggered by flooding. Instances ‘beyond adaptation’, such as retreat, need to be considered in addition to insurance-focused risk transfer.  Funds are needed for ecosystem and livelihood restoration, as well as rehabilitation support to address slow-onset climate-related impacts and risks, such as loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services due to increasing heatwaves.  Building on the tried-and-tested risk layering approach, the framework can be applied at different scales. It offers an entry point for a comprehensive approach that informs international negotiations on Loss and Damage and adaptation to climate change, as well as country-level policymaking. Decision makers need to step up their game to set up an effective finance approach for increasingly existential climate-related risks. A comprehensive risk finance framework supports the identification of international funding options for reducing climate-related risk and addressing residual impacts beyond adaptation in vulnerable countries. A policy framework for Loss and Damage finance © R us lan N est ere nko | Dr eamstim e IIASA POLICY BRIEF #32 OCTOBER 2021 The Exploring National and Global Actions to reduce Greenhouse gas Emissions (ENGAGE) project is bringing together results from a new set of standardized national scenarios. For the first time, these allow a direct comparison between the climate targets of different countries. This can reveal gaps in the global effort, measure the fairness of national targets, and identify particular challenges. Early conclusions are: A harmonized scenario framework can help to align national climate policies with global goals. IIASA POLICY BRIEF #31OCTOBER 2021 © Tar ikv isio n | D reamst ime United scenarios J National short-term targets do not match long-term targets or meet global goals. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of most countries need to be more ambitious to align with their long-term targets and put the world on a path to meet the Paris goals. J Economic burdens vary widely. A 30% emissions cut in one nation may have more economic impact than a 100% cut in another. This can inform fair national targets and reveal where nations need assistance, or could pay others to make cuts on their behalf. J Government support is needed to help more national modeling teams join this coordinated effort. 9Optionswww.iiasa.ac.at Winter 2021 By Ansa Heyl