Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-117
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-117
06 Dec 2017
 | 06 Dec 2017
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal ESD but the revision was not accepted.

The Role of Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in the Case of Delayed Climate Policy – Insights from Cost-Risk Analysis

Jana Mintenig, Mohammad M. Khabbazan, and Hermann Held

Abstract. Cost-Risk Analysis (CRA), a hybrid of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), has been proposed as an alternative to CEA as a decision criterion for evaluating climate policy. It weighs mitigation costs against associated risks of violating a predefined temperature guardrail, thereby enabling an analysis of otherwise infeasible temperature targets. Under CEA, delaying climate policy causes infeasibility of temperature targets which was resolved by the assessment under CRA. Indeed, CRA enables a quantitative evaluation of any delay scenario, thereby yielding information of the severeness of postponing climate policy. Alternatively, negative emission technologies have been included in CEA to enlarge the leeway in decision making and postpone infeasibility. This study closes the loop by evaluating the impact of the technology option BECCS (Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage) in light of delayed climate policy under CRA. The work is conducted using the Integrated Assessment Model MIND (Model of Investment and Technological Development). This interplay creates the following insights: An inclusion of BECCS avoids corner solutions that were previously identified for delay scenarios, yielding a larger window of opportunity for action to mitigate climate change. Moreover, it postpones mitigation efforts into the future and removes the pressure to shut down fossil fuel use immediately. Thereby, mitigation-induced welfare losses are reduced substantially. BECSS, when evaluated under CRA, has confirmed well-known results from CEA. However, in contrast to results derived from CEA, mitigation-induced welfare losses decline with delay, while climate risk-induced welfare losses increase with delay by approximately the same magnitude. Hence within CRA, BECCS reduces the welfare effect of delayed climate policy by an order of magnitude. This underlines the crucial role of BECCS for the case of delay, even if one changes the decision-analytic framework from CEA to CRA and thereby softened the temperature target.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Jana Mintenig, Mohammad M. Khabbazan, and Hermann Held
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Jana Mintenig, Mohammad M. Khabbazan, and Hermann Held
Jana Mintenig, Mohammad M. Khabbazan, and Hermann Held

Viewed

Total article views: 1,893 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,299 502 92 1,893 94 110
  • HTML: 1,299
  • PDF: 502
  • XML: 92
  • Total: 1,893
  • BibTeX: 94
  • EndNote: 110
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Dec 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Dec 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,851 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,848 with geography defined and 3 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 26 May 2024
Download
Altmetrics