Search

More than 100 countries have communicated or adopted new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and net-zero target pledges. We investigate the impact on global, national, sectoral, and individual greenhouse gas emissions projections under different scenarios based on the announced NDCs and net-zero pledges using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Our results show that while the net-zero pledges, if implemented, could be an important step forward, they are still not enough to achieve the Paris Agreement goals of well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C by the end of the century. Still, our net-zero scenarios project significant all-sector decarbonization, in particular, electricity; however, certain sectors like industry and transport prove hard to completely abate.

The number and coverage of climate change mitigation policies have increased in the past twenty years, but important policy adoption gaps remain. To analyse sectoral climate policy in the G20 over time (2000–2019), we compiled a dataset of climate change mitigation-relevant policies and identified 50 key policy options that constitute a comprehensive sectoral climate policy package. Approximately half of these policy options are not widely adopted. Adoption is particularly low for policies that aim to: phase out coal and oil and mandate energy reductions in electricity and heat supply; reduce industrial process emissions and incentivise fuel switch in industry; design urban planning strategies for retrofits; and support the use of renewable energy for cooking and heating/cooling purposes in buildings. Policies to remove fossil fuel subsidies and support carbon dioxide removal also need substantial improvement. However, many policy adoption gaps exist as the coverage of at least one policy option could be improved in each sector. Policy adoption gaps leave at least one-tenth of the G20’s emissions completely uncovered. Filling these gaps is fundamental to realize the full mitigation potential of existing policy options and to advance the transition towards global net zero greenhouse gas emissions. Key policy insights: Mitigation-related policy options can be presented as a matrix by sector to shed light on what constitutes a comprehensive climate policy package; looking across sectoral climate policies helps to unpack and clarify the status of adoption. Policy adoption gaps exist in all sectors. Increasing the sectoral coverage of climate policies will help to ensure that all relevant sectoral emissions and mitigation areas are considered in national mitigation efforts. Even if an increase in policy coverage alone does not ensure emission reductions, the absence of policy coverage indicates that emissions can still be further reduced and that a portion of global emissions remain uncovered by policies. Despite the observed increase in the number and coverage of climate policies, slow progress towards reducing global emissions and meeting the collective Paris climate goals calls for more comprehensive climate change mitigation policies. Filling policy adoption gaps presents a concrete strategy to improve sectoral, national and global climate policy.

Globally, the opportunity to use COVID-19 fiscal rescue and recovery spending to accelerate the low-carbon transition has largely been missed so far: the share of low-carbon fiscal spending ranges between 0.5%–2.5% in studies considering both rescue and recovery spending and 18%–30% for studies considering recovery spending alone. This report analyses the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated rescue and recovery packages on greenhouse gas emissions to 2030, focusing on three main aspects: 1) What happened to activities and greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, and what are the preliminary estimates for 2021? 2) How did the 2020 and 2021 emissions changes affect pathways through to 2030? 3) What is the expected impact of fiscal recovery packages on emissions through to 2030?

Due to errors made during the production process, the printed version of the article contained one duplicate reference, which led to an inconsistent numbering in the reference list, and one incorrect citation in Table 3. The online version of the article has been updated with the corrections. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.