Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-117
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-117

  06 Dec 2017

06 Dec 2017

Review 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 Jana Mintenig et al.
  • Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, Universität Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany

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.

Jana Mintenig et al.

 
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 et al.

Jana Mintenig et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,177 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
805 312 60 1,177 65 81
  • HTML: 805
  • PDF: 312
  • XML: 60
  • Total: 1,177
  • BibTeX: 65
  • EndNote: 81
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Dec 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Dec 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,167 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,164 with geography defined and 3 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 07 Mar 2021
Download
Altmetrics