Allen A. Fawcett

TL;DR: The authors in this paper investigated the importance of individual mitigation options such as energy intensity improvements, carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, solar and wind power and bioenergy for climate mitigation.

TL;DR: It is important to understand what these INDCs collectively deliver in terms of how much do they reduce the probability of the highest levels of global mean surface temperature change and improve the odds of achieving the international goal of limiting temperature change to under 2°C relative to preindustrial levels.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors used the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) to analyze the near versus long-term energy and economic-cost implications of these INDCs, and they found that the announced INDC commitments imply near-term actions that reduce the level of mitigation needed in the post-2030 period, particularly when compared with an alternative path in which nations are unable to undertake emissions mitigation until after 2030.

TL;DR: It is concluded that model uncertainties are too large to make quantitative results useful for near-term policy design and recommendations for policymakers on interacting with model results in the future are described.

TL;DR: The Energy Modeling Forum 22 study as discussed by the authors included a set of U.S. transition scenarios designed to bracket a range of potential climate policy goals, and six teams participated in this part of the study.