Background Info

EN-ROADS Climate Policy Simulator - 1.5°C Pathway

1 Background

1.1.	The EN-ROADS Simulator

1.2.	Assumptions for The 1.5°C Pathway

1.3.

Analysis

1.3.

Analysis

Since the EN-ROADS simulator shows that 1.5°C is reached (1) with a climate sensitivity of 3(which is likely low) and (2) with no emissions from natural feedbacks (which almost certainly cause significant additional warming), is not very useful in evaluating policy options as ALL policies must be implemented to the maximum extent possible (i.e., there are no "trade-offs"). In order to be useful the model would need to include both costs and significant more detail for each of the "indicators". For example, " Buildings and industry energy efficiency" improvements provides one of the largest contributions. But this can't be addressed with a single policy as there are dozens of individual improvements which need to be examined for cost, social acceptability, etc. (E.g., will Americans be willing swap out their gas furnaces more expensive electric alternatives?)

A user can see the effect of changing values for the various model "inputs" on the temperature increase but

1.None of the "indicators" directly impact the "average citizen", so the message is that the government and industry are solely responsible for emission reduction and all of us can continue our consumption-based lifestyle with only minor "inconveniences". However, "maxing out" on "Methane and Other" requires huge societal and individual changes for meat, etc, and this is not indicated anywhere.

2.There is no mention of the societal changes that will be needed and the difficulty of implementing them

3.There is no mention of the associated costs (total costs by year, increase in gasoline prices, increase in home utility bills, increase in taxes, reduction of disposable income, costs to home owners/renters for energy efficiency improvements, dietary changes, etc.). We can "afford" to pay the necessary costs but will politicians be willing to raise (and commit) the necessary funds? That is an impossible question to answer without a more detailed analysis of the cost - we will likely to be willing to fund $100/year but not likely $5Trillion/year.

4.The user cannot determine the "carbon budget" for the scenario (needed for comparison to the IPCC reports)

2 The EN-Roads climate simulator includes 16 "basic policies"

2.1.	Coal - Very highly taxed - $120/tce

2.2.	Oil - Very highly taxed - $ 100/boe

2.3.	Natural Gas - Very highly taxed - 6.0$/Mcf

2.4.	Nuclear - Highly subsidized - -0.07$/kWh

2.5.	Renewables - Highly subsidized - -0.07$/kWh

2.6.	New Technology - 2 huge New Technology breakthroughs

2.7.	Carbon price - Very high - $250/ton after 10 years

2.8.	Transport Energy Efficiency - Highly increased - 4.9%/year

2.9.	Transport Electrification Share of final energy - Increases 2%/year

2.10.

Buildings and Industry Energy Efficiency - Increases 5%/year

2.11.

Buildings and Industry Electrification - Highly incentivized - - increases 5%/year

2.12.

Population - Low growth - 1.3%/year

2.13.

Population - High growth (2.5%/year)

2.14.

Economic Growth - Low - 1.7 percent/year

2.15.

Economic Growth - High Growth -3.7 percent/year

2.16.

Deforestation - Highly reduced - reduction 10%/year

2.17.

Methane & Other Gases - Highly reduced

2.18.

Afforestation - High growth - 100% of available

2.19.

Technological Carbon Removal - High growth - 100% of maximum potential