Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal
To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost-effective climate policies in the dynam...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Earth's future 2018-03, Vol.6 (3), p.565-582 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 582 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 565 |
| container_title | Earth's future |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Rickels, Wilfried Reith, Fabian Keller, David Oschlies, Andreas Quaas, Martin F |
| description | To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost-effective climate policies in the dynamic integrated assessment model (IAM) of climate and the economy (DICE2016R) and investigate (1) the utilization of (ocean) CDR under different climate objectives, (2) the sensitivity of policies with respect to carbon cycle feedbacks, and (3) how well carbon cycle feedbacks are captured in the carbon cycle models used in state-of-the-art IAMs. Overall, the carbon cycle model in DICE2016R shows clear improvements compared to its predecessor, DICE2013R, capturing much better long‐term dynamics and also oceanic carbon outgassing due to excess oceanic storage of carbon from CDR. However, this comes at the cost of a (too) tight short-term remaining emission budget, limiting the model suitability to analyze low-emission scenarios accurately. With DICE2016R, the compliance with the 2°C goal is no longer feasible without negative emissions via CDR. Overall, the optimal amount of CDR has to take into account (1) the emission substitution effect and (2) compensation for carbon cycle feedbacks. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/2017EF000724 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2025906524</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2025906524</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4085-a5fa7b2e37545c614c1c1baef42e1262b43f3b8ae45ab19db1131cebd6a516c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90EFLAzEQBeAgCpbam1dhwatrM5Nk0x5LbbVQEKSeQ5KdlS3tpiZbtf_eLfXQk6eZw_dm4DF2C_wROMchctCzOedco7xgPRQ4yiVqfXm2X7NBSuvO8LHmQukeGy6alj6ibanMJilRSltq2ixU2dRGF5rsqQ4_dUnZG23Dl93csKvKbhIN_mafvc9nq-lLvnx9Xkwny9xLPlK5VZXVDkloJZUvQHrw4CxVEgmwQCdFJdzIklTWwbh0AAI8ubKwCgpfiD67P93dxfC5p9SaddjHpntpkKMa80Kh7NTDSfkYUopUmV2stzYeDHBzbMWct9JxOPHvekOHf62ZzVcouOoyd6cM-dDUyRxHakM0iAVoLX4B2nxqdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2025906524</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Open Access</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Rickels, Wilfried ; Reith, Fabian ; Keller, David ; Oschlies, Andreas ; Quaas, Martin F</creator><creatorcontrib>Rickels, Wilfried ; Reith, Fabian ; Keller, David ; Oschlies, Andreas ; Quaas, Martin F</creatorcontrib><description>To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost-effective climate policies in the dynamic integrated assessment model (IAM) of climate and the economy (DICE2016R) and investigate (1) the utilization of (ocean) CDR under different climate objectives, (2) the sensitivity of policies with respect to carbon cycle feedbacks, and (3) how well carbon cycle feedbacks are captured in the carbon cycle models used in state-of-the-art IAMs. Overall, the carbon cycle model in DICE2016R shows clear improvements compared to its predecessor, DICE2013R, capturing much better long‐term dynamics and also oceanic carbon outgassing due to excess oceanic storage of carbon from CDR. However, this comes at the cost of a (too) tight short-term remaining emission budget, limiting the model suitability to analyze low-emission scenarios accurately. With DICE2016R, the compliance with the 2°C goal is no longer feasible without negative emissions via CDR. Overall, the optimal amount of CDR has to take into account (1) the emission substitution effect and (2) compensation for carbon cycle feedbacks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2328-4277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2328-4277</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000724</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley</publisher><subject>Atmospheric models ; Carbon ; Carbon cycle ; Carbon Cycle Feedbacks ; Carbon cycle models ; Carbon dioxide ; Carbon Dioxide Removal ; Climate ; Climate change ; Climate effects ; Climate models ; Climate policy ; Cost analysis ; DICE ; Emission analysis ; Emissions ; Emissions control ; Environmental policy ; Global temperatures ; Integrated Assessment Models ; Negative Emissions ; Outgassing ; Policies ; Temperature rise</subject><ispartof>Earth's future, 2018-03, Vol.6 (3), p.565-582</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors.</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4085-a5fa7b2e37545c614c1c1baef42e1262b43f3b8ae45ab19db1131cebd6a516c63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4085-a5fa7b2e37545c614c1c1baef42e1262b43f3b8ae45ab19db1131cebd6a516c63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7546-4614 ; 0000-0002-8295-4013 ; 0000-0002-5407-6364</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F2017EF000724$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F2017EF000724$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rickels, Wilfried</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reith, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oschlies, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quaas, Martin F</creatorcontrib><title>Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal</title><title>Earth's future</title><description>To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost-effective climate policies in the dynamic integrated assessment model (IAM) of climate and the economy (DICE2016R) and investigate (1) the utilization of (ocean) CDR under different climate objectives, (2) the sensitivity of policies with respect to carbon cycle feedbacks, and (3) how well carbon cycle feedbacks are captured in the carbon cycle models used in state-of-the-art IAMs. Overall, the carbon cycle model in DICE2016R shows clear improvements compared to its predecessor, DICE2013R, capturing much better long‐term dynamics and also oceanic carbon outgassing due to excess oceanic storage of carbon from CDR. However, this comes at the cost of a (too) tight short-term remaining emission budget, limiting the model suitability to analyze low-emission scenarios accurately. With DICE2016R, the compliance with the 2°C goal is no longer feasible without negative emissions via CDR. Overall, the optimal amount of CDR has to take into account (1) the emission substitution effect and (2) compensation for carbon cycle feedbacks.</description><subject>Atmospheric models</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Carbon cycle</subject><subject>Carbon Cycle Feedbacks</subject><subject>Carbon cycle models</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon Dioxide Removal</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climate effects</subject><subject>Climate models</subject><subject>Climate policy</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>DICE</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Emissions control</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Global temperatures</subject><subject>Integrated Assessment Models</subject><subject>Negative Emissions</subject><subject>Outgassing</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Temperature rise</subject><issn>2328-4277</issn><issn>2328-4277</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90EFLAzEQBeAgCpbam1dhwatrM5Nk0x5LbbVQEKSeQ5KdlS3tpiZbtf_eLfXQk6eZw_dm4DF2C_wROMchctCzOedco7xgPRQ4yiVqfXm2X7NBSuvO8LHmQukeGy6alj6ibanMJilRSltq2ixU2dRGF5rsqQ4_dUnZG23Dl93csKvKbhIN_mafvc9nq-lLvnx9Xkwny9xLPlK5VZXVDkloJZUvQHrw4CxVEgmwQCdFJdzIklTWwbh0AAI8ubKwCgpfiD67P93dxfC5p9SaddjHpntpkKMa80Kh7NTDSfkYUopUmV2stzYeDHBzbMWct9JxOPHvekOHf62ZzVcouOoyd6cM-dDUyRxHakM0iAVoLX4B2nxqdQ</recordid><startdate>201803</startdate><enddate>201803</enddate><creator>Rickels, Wilfried</creator><creator>Reith, Fabian</creator><creator>Keller, David</creator><creator>Oschlies, Andreas</creator><creator>Quaas, Martin F</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>OT2</scope><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-4614</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8295-4013</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-6364</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201803</creationdate><title>Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal</title><author>Rickels, Wilfried ; Reith, Fabian ; Keller, David ; Oschlies, Andreas ; Quaas, Martin F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4085-a5fa7b2e37545c614c1c1baef42e1262b43f3b8ae45ab19db1131cebd6a516c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Atmospheric models</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Carbon cycle</topic><topic>Carbon Cycle Feedbacks</topic><topic>Carbon cycle models</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon Dioxide Removal</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climate effects</topic><topic>Climate models</topic><topic>Climate policy</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>DICE</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Emissions control</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Global temperatures</topic><topic>Integrated Assessment Models</topic><topic>Negative Emissions</topic><topic>Outgassing</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Temperature rise</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rickels, Wilfried</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reith, Fabian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oschlies, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quaas, Martin F</creatorcontrib><collection>EconStor</collection><collection>Wiley Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Archive</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Earth's future</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rickels, Wilfried</au><au>Reith, Fabian</au><au>Keller, David</au><au>Oschlies, Andreas</au><au>Quaas, Martin F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal</atitle><jtitle>Earth's future</jtitle><date>2018-03</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>565</spage><epage>582</epage><pages>565-582</pages><issn>2328-4277</issn><eissn>2328-4277</eissn><abstract>To maintain the chance of keeping the average global temperature increase below 2°C and to limit long‐term climate change, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) is becoming increasingly necessary. We analyze optimal and cost-effective climate policies in the dynamic integrated assessment model (IAM) of climate and the economy (DICE2016R) and investigate (1) the utilization of (ocean) CDR under different climate objectives, (2) the sensitivity of policies with respect to carbon cycle feedbacks, and (3) how well carbon cycle feedbacks are captured in the carbon cycle models used in state-of-the-art IAMs. Overall, the carbon cycle model in DICE2016R shows clear improvements compared to its predecessor, DICE2013R, capturing much better long‐term dynamics and also oceanic carbon outgassing due to excess oceanic storage of carbon from CDR. However, this comes at the cost of a (too) tight short-term remaining emission budget, limiting the model suitability to analyze low-emission scenarios accurately. With DICE2016R, the compliance with the 2°C goal is no longer feasible without negative emissions via CDR. Overall, the optimal amount of CDR has to take into account (1) the emission substitution effect and (2) compensation for carbon cycle feedbacks.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1002/2017EF000724</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-4614</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8295-4013</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-6364</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2328-4277 |
| ispartof | Earth's future, 2018-03, Vol.6 (3), p.565-582 |
| issn | 2328-4277 2328-4277 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2025906524 |
| source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Open Access; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Atmospheric models Carbon Carbon cycle Carbon Cycle Feedbacks Carbon cycle models Carbon dioxide Carbon Dioxide Removal Climate Climate change Climate effects Climate models Climate policy Cost analysis DICE Emission analysis Emissions Emissions control Environmental policy Global temperatures Integrated Assessment Models Negative Emissions Outgassing Policies Temperature rise |
| title | Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T18%3A28%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Integrated%20Assessment%20of%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Removal&rft.jtitle=Earth's%20future&rft.au=Rickels,%20Wilfried&rft.date=2018-03&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=565&rft.epage=582&rft.pages=565-582&rft.issn=2328-4277&rft.eissn=2328-4277&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2017EF000724&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2025906524%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2025906524&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |