How consistent are alternative short-term climate policies with long-term goals?
A central issue in tackling climate change is to understand to what extent different short-term mitigation strategies are consistent with long-term stabilization targets. The present article aims at cross-comparing emission paths derived by plausible short-term policies against those implied by long-term climate targets, comparing, for example, differences in peak periods. Short-term policies considered are, for instance, Kyoto-type targets with or without participation by the USA and/or by developing countries. Long-term targets focus instead on stabilization of CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations, radiative forcing and the increase in atmospheric temperature relative to pre-industrial levels. In order to account for the uncertainty surrounding the climate cycle, for each long-term goal multiple paths of emission-the most probable, the optimistic and the pessimistic projections-are considered in the comparison exercise. Comparative analysis is performed using the FEEM-RICE model, a regional economy-climate model. The results suggest that some early policy action should take place for short-term emissions to be compatible with long-term targets. In particular, the Kyoto-type regimes appear to be on a compatible emission path, at least up to the second commitment period. However, this is no longer the case when assuming a pessimistic realization of the uncertain climate parameters.
