- A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Nature Climate Change
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Articles
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8
1PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, the Netherlands. 2Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, the Netherlands. *e-mail: Detlef.vanvuuren@pbl.nl
The Paris Agreement on climate change aims at ‘holding the
increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C’,
and ‘to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to
1.5 °C’1. However, the knowledge of how to achieve these ‘Paris
goals’ is still limited. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report examined a considerable
amount of literature on scenarios leading to a radiative forcing at
around 2.6 W m−2 above pre-industrial levels by 2100, correspond-
ing to a likely change (that is, > 66%) of not exceeding the 2 °C goal2.
The IPCC report hardly discussed the question of how to keep
warming below 1.5 °C (corresponding to a forcing level of around
1.9–2.0 W m−2) due to lack of existing literature (with some excep-
tions3,4). New scenarios for this goal are currently being developed
in response to the policy interest, and the IPCC will publish a spe-
cial report on this topic5.
Mitigation scenarios developed using integrated assessment
models (IAMs) can provide insight into strategies that drasti-
cally reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions2,6,7. This is typically
achieved by finding a cost-optimal combination of technologies,
given model rules on system behaviour and a set of technology and
policy assumptions (for example, delay in participation)2,8. Scenarios
consistent with the Paris goals reduce GHG emissions by switch-
ing to zero- and low-carbon energy options, increasing energy effi-
ciency, using carbon capture and storage (CCS), reducing non-CO2
GHG emissions, eliminating emissions related to land-use change
and stimulating afforestation2,7. Cost-optimal scenarios, without
delays or constraints in technology deployment, project GHG emis-
sions to peak around 2020, followed by rapid emission reductions,
carbon neutrality sometime in the second half of the century and
eventually net CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere2,7,9. This
can be referred to as the default strategy. Of the 114 scenarios
assessed by the IPCC leading to forcing values of around 2.6 W m−2
(likely probability for 2 °C), 104 show net CDR in the second half
of the century, mostly achieved by bioenergy with CCS (BECCS),
sometimes complemented by reforestation2. The total CDR in these
scenarios is substantial—that is, typically around 10 GtCO2 per
year in 2100 or 200–400 GtCO2 over the course of the century10,11.
Moreover, the same literature suggests considerable cost increases,
or even infeasibilities, if CDR is not available2. The relatively few
1.5 °C scenarios published to date show pathways similar to the 2 °C
scenarios, but with deeper reductions occurring earlier in time3.
Several publications question whether it is possible to achieve
the IAM-based scenarios and, especially, the proposed scale of
CDR11,12. Their concerns relate to the possible impacts of land-use-
based CDR options, such as bioenergy and reforestation, on food
production, biodiversity, GHG emissions and albedo11. Moreover,
while geological storage capacity estimates exceed several thou-
sand gigatonnes of CO2, questions remain about whether the full
capacity is available13,14. Finally, CCS has currently little societal sup-
port as demonstrated by the difficulty in implementing real-world
experiments13,15. As several key CDR options share these concerns,
they cannot readily substitute one another if future performance is
poorer or more difficult than projected. Since it will soon be impos-
sible to achieve ambitious climate goals without implementing CDR
to compensate overshoot of the carbon budget (that is, cumulative
CO2 emissions corresponding to a climate target)2, an assessment of
their use or alternative options will have to be made now, even if the
situation of net CDR will not occur before 205016.
As IAMs select technologies on the basis of relative costs, they
normally concentrate on reduction measures for which reason-
able estimates of future performance and costs can be made. This
implies that some possible response strategies receive less attention,
as their future performance is more speculative or their introduc-
tion would be based on drivers other than cost, such as lifestyle
change or more rapid electrification17,18. Moreover, existing studies
hardly look into more aggressive implementation of options such
as rapid implementation of the best available technologies or deep
reduction of non-CO2 GHGs (with some exceptions, for example,
Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce
the need for negative emission technologies
Detlef P. van Vuuren 1,2*, Elke Stehfest1, David E. H. J. Gernaat1,2, Maarten van den Berg1, David L. Bijl2,
Harmen Sytze de Boer1,2, Vassilis Daioglou 1,2, Jonathan C. Doelman1, Oreane Y. Edelenbosch1,2,
Mathijs Harmsen1,2, Andries F. Hof 1,2 and Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld1,2
Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas
emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through
large-scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation. However, CDR strategies face several
difficulties such as reliance on underground CO2 storage and competition for land with food production and biodiversity protec-
tion. The question arises whether alternative deep mitigation pathways exist. Here, using an integrated assessment model,
we explore the impact of alternative pathways that include lifestyle change, additional reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases
and more rapid electrification of energy demand based on renewable energy. Although these alternatives also face specific
difficulties, they are found to significantly reduce the need for CDR, but not fully eliminate it. The alternatives offer a means to
diversify transition pathways to meet the Paris Agreement targets, while simultaneously benefiting other sustainability goals.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 8 | MAY 2018 | 391–397 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 391
The Nature trademark is a registered trademark of Springer Nature Limited.





































