Mitigation and adaptation in the light of climate change impacts and decision-making under uncertainties
Concern about key vulnerabilities and notions of what is dangerous climate change will affect decisions about long-term climate change objectives and hence mitigation pathways. Key vulnerabilities traverse different human and natural systems and exist at different levels of temperature change. More stringent stabilization scenarios achieve more stringent climate targets and lower the risk of triggering key vulnerabilities related to climate change. Using the ‘best estimate’ of climate sensitivity, the most stringent scenarios (stabilizing at 445–490 ppm CO2-eq) could limit global mean temperature increases to 2-2.4°C above pre-industrial, at equilibrium, requiring emissions to peak within 10 years and to be around 50% of current levels by 2050. Scenarios stabilizing at 535-590 ppm CO2-eq could limit the increase to 2.8-3.2°C above pre-industrial and those at 590-710 CO2-eq to 3.2-4°C, requiring emissions to peak within the next 25 and 55 years respectively (see Figure TS.11) [3.3, 3.5].
Figure TS.11: Stabilization scenario categories as reported in Figure TS.8 (coloured bands) and their relationship to equilibrium global mean temperature change above
pre-industrial temperatures [Figure 3.38].
Notes: Middle (black) line – ‘best estimate’ climate sensitivity of 3°C; upper (red) line – upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5°C; lower (blue) line – lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C. Coloured shading shows the concentration bands for stabilization of GHGs in the atmosphere corresponding to the stabilization scenario categories I to VI as indicated in Table TS.2.
The risk of higher climate sensitivities increases the probability of exceeding any threshold for specific key vulnerabilities. Emission scenarios that lead to temporary overshooting of concentration ceilings can lead to higher rates of climate change over the century and increase the probability of exceeding key vulnerability thresholds. Results from studies exploring the effect of carbon cycle and climate feedbacks indicate that the above-mentioned concentration levels and the associated warming of a given emissions scenario might be an underestimate. With higher climate sensitivity, earlier and more stringent mitigation measures are necessary to reach the same concentration level.
Decision-making about the appropriate level of mitigation is an iterative risk-management process considering investment in mitigation and adaptation, co-benefits of undertaking climate change decisions and the damages due to climate change. It is intertwined with decisions on sustainability, equity and development pathways. Cost-benefit analysis, as one of the available tools, tries to quantify climate change damage in monetary terms (as social cost of carbon (SCC) or time-discounted damage). Due to large uncertainties and difficulties in quantifying non-market damage, it is still difficult to estimate SCC with confidence. Results depend on a large number of normative and empirical assumptions that are not known with any certainty. Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the costs and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilization level where benefits exceed costs. Integrated assessment of the economic costs and benefits of different mitigation pathways shows that the economically optimal timing and level of mitigation depends upon the uncertain shape and character of the assumed climate change damage cost curve. To illustrate this dependency:
- if the climate change damage cost curve grows slowly and regularly, and there is good foresight (which increases the potential for timely adaptation), later and less stringent mitigation is economically justified;
- alternatively if the damage cost curve increases steeply, or contains non-linearities (e.g. vulnerability thresholds or even small probabilities of catastrophic events), earlier and more stringent mitigation is economically justified (high agree- ment, much evidence) [3.6.1].