Search

Companies can support governments in bridging the emissions gap between current policies and the Paris goals by adhering to voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets that align with or surpass those implied by domestic policies. To this end, we assessed the potential impact of EU companies that set targets through the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) in 2020 relative to an EU reference policies scenario that represents the estimated impact of the ETS and ESR policy instruments applicable at that time, with the aim of achieving a 40% reduction relative to 1990 by 2030. Two scenarios were assessed that incorporate the SBTi targets under these instruments: one assuming no additional reductions in the ETS sector due to the waterbed effect, and one with flanking measures to ensure additional emissions reductions regulated by ETS are materialised. Depending on the assumption made about these flanking measures, EU companies with SBTi-approved targets are projected to achieve a 4% or 14% reduction by 2030 compared to the EU 2020 policies scenario. Our findings illustrate that companies with SBTi-approved targets in 2020 were at most in line or modestly more ambitious than the 40% reduction target. This study highlights that voluntary reductions from SBTi companies regulated by ETS display higher estimated reductions than those solely regulated by ESR. Furthermore, this analysis indicates that more policy details are crucial for assessing the potential additional reduction of voluntary targets, and additional reductions under ETS should be assumed zero if a conservative estimate is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By January 2022, 156 countries had submitted new or updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. This study analyses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and macroeconomic impacts of the new NDCs. The total impact of the updated unconditional and conditional NDCs of these countries on global emission levels by 2030 is an additional reduction of about 3.8 and 3.9 GtCO2eq, respectively, compared to the previously submitted NDCs as of October 2020. However, this total reduction must be about three times greater to be consistent with keeping global temperature increase to well below 2 °C, and even seven times greater for 1.5 °C. Nine G20 economies have pledged stronger emission reduction targets for 2030 in their updated NDCs, leading to additional aggregated GHG emission reductions of about 3.3 GtCO2eq, compared to those in the previous NDCs. The socio-economic impacts of the updated NDCs are limited in major economies and largely depend on the emission reduction effort included in the NDCs. However, two G20 economies have submitted new targets that will lead to an increase in emissions of about 0.3 GtCO2eq, compared to their previous NDCs. The updated NDCs of non-G20 economies contain further net reductions. We conclude that countries should strongly increase the ambition levels of their updated NDC submissions to keep the climate goals of the Paris Agreement within reach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Closing the emissions gap between Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the global emissions levels needed to achieve the Paris Agreement's climate goals will require a comprehensive package of policy measures. National and sectoral policies can help fill the gap, but success stories in one country cannot be automatically replicated in other countries. They need to be adapted to the local context. Here, we develop a new Bridge scenario based on nationally relevant, short-term measures informed by interactions with country experts. These good practice policies are rolled out globally between now and 2030 and combined with carbon pricing thereafter. We implement this scenario with an ensemble of global integrated assessment models. We show that the Bridge scenario closes two-thirds of the emissions gap between NDC and 2 °C scenarios by 2030 and enables a pathway in line with the 2 °C goal when combined with the necessary long-term changes, i.e. more comprehensive pricing measures after 2030. The Bridge scenario leads to a scale-up of renewable energy (reaching 52%–88% of global electricity supply by 2050), electrification of end-uses, efficiency improvements in energy demand sectors, and enhanced afforestation and reforestation. Our analysis suggests that early action via good-practice policies is less costly than a delay in global climate cooperation. Comprehensive policy measures are needed to close the emissions gap between Nationally Determined Contributions and emissions goals of the Paris Agreement. Here the authors present a Bridge scenario that may aid in closing the emissions gap by 2030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over 100 countries have set or are considering net-zero emissions or neutrality targets. However, most of the information on emissions neutrality (such as timing) is provided for the global level. Here, we look at national-level neutrality-years based on globally cost-effective 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios from integrated assessment models. These results indicate that domestic net zero greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions in Brazil and the USA are reached a decade earlier than the global average, and in India and Indonesia later than global average. These results depend on choices like the accounting of land-use emissions. The results also show that carbon storage and afforestation capacity, income, share of non-CO2 emissions, and transport sector emissions affect the variance in projected phase-out years across countries. We further compare these results to an alternative approach, using equity-based rules to establish target years. These results can inform policymakers on net-zero targets. Over 100 countries have set or are considering net-zero emissions targets. Here, the authors show that a country's potential for negative emissions and methodological issues affect when countries can reach net-zero, calling for clear internationally agreed definitions and accounting methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The bottom-up approach of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the Paris Agreement has led countries to self-determine their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The planned 'ratcheting-up' process, which aims to ensure that the NDCs comply with the overall goal of limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C or even 1.5 °C, will most likely include some evaluation of 'fairness' of these reduction targets. In the literature, fairness has been discussed around equity principles, for which many different effort-sharing approaches have been proposed. In this research, we analysed how country-level emission targets and carbon budgets can be derived based on such criteria. We apply novel methods directly based on the global carbon budget, and, for comparison, more commonly used methods using GHG mitigation pathways. For both, we studied the following approaches: equal cumulative per capita emissions, contraction and convergence, grandfathering, greenhouse development rights and ability to pay. As the results critically depend on parameter settings, we used the wide authorship from a range of countries included in this paper to determine default settings and sensitivity analyses. Results show that effort-sharing approaches that (i) calculate required reduction targets in carbon budgets (relative to baseline budgets) and/or (ii) take into account historical emissions when determining carbon budgets can lead to (large) negative remaining carbon budgets for developed countries. This is the case for the equal cumulative per capita approach and especially the greenhouse development rights approach. Furthermore, for developed countries, all effort-sharing approaches except grandfathering lead to more stringent budgets than cost-optimal budgets, indicating that cost-optimal approaches do not lead to outcomes that can be regarded as fair according to most effort-sharing approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries. To evaluate the effectiveness of current national policies in achieving global temperature targets is important but a systematic multi-model evaluation is still lacking. Here the authors identified a reduction of 3.5 GtCO2 eq of current national policies relative to a baseline scenario without climate policies by 2030 due to the increasing low carbon share of final energy and the improving final energy intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The IMAGE integrated assessment model was used to develop a set of scenarios to evaluate the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted by Parties under the Paris Agreement. The scenarios project emissions and energy system changes under (i) current policies, (ii) implementation of the NDCs, and (iii) various trajectories to a radiative forcing level of 2.8 W/m in 2100, which gives a probability of about two thirds to limit warming to below 2 °C. The scenarios show that a cost-optimal pathway from 2020 onwards towards 2.8 W/m leads to a global greenhouse gas emission level of 38 gigatonne CO equivalent (GtCOeq) by 2030, equal to a reduction of 20% compared to the 2010 level. The NDCs are projected to lead to 2030 emission levels of 50 GtCOeq, which is still an increase compared to the 2010 level. A scenario that achieves the 2.8 W/m forcing level in 2100 from the 2030 NDC level requires more rapid transitions after 2030 to meet the forcing target. It shows an annual reduction rate in greenhouse gas emissions of 4.7% between 2030 and 2050, rapidly phasing out unabated coal-fired power plant capacity, more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy, and higher mitigation costs. A bridge scenario shows that enhancing the ambition level of NDCs before 2030 allows for a smoother energy system transition, with average annual emission reduction rates of 4.5% between 2030 and 2050, and more time to phase out coal capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of climate policy, it is important to understand emission trends and policies at the national level. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions, so-called (I)NDCs, outlining the contribution of different Parties to the overall target of the agreement to limit global mean temperature increase to well below 2 °C. Here, we assess emission trajectories and the energy system transition of 11 major economies (in the remainder: countries) projected by integrated assessment models (IAMs) for baseline and cost-optimal 450 ppm CO eq mitigation scenarios and compare the results with the (I)NDCs. Limiting global temperature increase to below 2 °C implies a substantial reduction of the estimated available carbon budget for each country. The national carbon budgets between 2010 and 2100 showed reductions between the baseline and the 2 °C consistent mitigation scenario ranging from 52% in South Korea to 95% in Brazil. While in the baseline scenario, the share of low-carbon primary energy sources is projected to remain around 15% (with Brazil being a notable exception, reaching 30%); in the mitigation scenarios, the share of low-carbon energy is projected to increase to over 50% in 2050 in nearly all countries, with the EU, Japan and Canada reaching the largest shares. Comparison with the (I)NDCs shows that in Brazil, Canada, the EU, Mexico (conditional target), South Korea and the USA, the emission reduction targets of the NDCs are closer to the mitigation requirement of the 2 °C scenario; in other countries, however, there is still a large gap. The national detail of the indicators adds to the literature on low-carbon emission pathways, assists the assessment of the Paris Agreement and provides support to national policymakers to identify focus areas for climate policy in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In preparation for the 2015 international climate negotiations in Paris, Parties submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) expressing each countries' respective post-2020 climate actions. In this paper we assess individual Parties' expected reduction of emissions/removals from land use, land use change, and forest (LULUCF) sector for reaching their INDC target, and the aggregate global effect on the INDCs on the future development of emission and removals from the LULUCF sector. This has been done through analysis Parties' official information concerning the role of LULUCF mitigation efforts for reaching INDC targets as presented in National Communications, Biennial Update Reports, and Additional file 1. Results: On the aggregate global level, the Parties themselves perceive that net LULUCF emissions will increase over time. Overall, the net LULUCF emissions are estimated to increase by 0.6 Gt CO2e year-1 (range: 0.1-1.1) in 2020 and 1.3 Gt CO2e year-1 (range: 0.7-2.1) in 2030, both compared to 2010 levels. On the other hand, the full implementation of the INDCs is estimated to lead to a reduction of net LULUCF emissions in 2030 compared to 2010 levels. It is estimated that if all conditional and unconditional INDCs are implemented, net LULUCF emissions would decrease by 0.5 Gt CO2e year-1 (range: 0.2-0.8) by 2020 and 0.9 Gt CO2e year-1 (range: 0.5-1.3) by 2030, both compared to 2010 levels. The largest absolute reductions of net LULUCF emissions (compared to 2010 levels) are expected from Indonesia and Brazil, followed by China and Ethiopia. Conclusions: The results highlights that countries are expecting a significant contribution from the LULUCF sector to meet their INDC mitigation targets. At the global level, the LULUCF sector is expected to contribute to as much as 20% of the full mitigation potential of all the conditional and unconditional INDC targets. However, large uncertainties still surround how Parties estimate, project and account for emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector. While INDCs represent a new source of land-use information, further information and updates of the INDCs will be required to reduce uncertainty of the LULUCF projections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of recent discussions at the UN climate negotiations we compared several ways of calculating historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assessed the effect of these different approaches on countries’ relative contributions to cumulative global emissions. Elements not covered before are: (i) including recent historical emissions (2000–2010), (ii) discounting historical emissions to account for technological progress; (iii) deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’; (iv) including projected emissions up to 2020, based on countries’ unconditional reduction proposals for 2020. Our analysis shows that countries’ contributions vary significantly based on the choices made in the calculation: e.g. the relative contribution of developed countries as a group can be as high as 80 % when excluding recent emissions, non-CO 2 GHGs, and land-use change and forestry CO 2; or about 48 % when including all these emissions and discounting historical emissions for technological progress. Excluding non-CO 2 GHGs and land-use change and forestry CO 2 significantly changes relative historical contributions for many countries, altering countries’ relative contributions by multiplicative factors ranging from 0.15 to 1.5 compared to reference values (i.e. reference contribution calculations cover the period 1850-2010 and all GHG emissions). Excluding 2000–2010 emissions decreases the contributions of most emerging economies (factor of up to 0.8). Discounting historical emissions for technological progress reduces the relative contributions of some developed countries (factor of 0.8) and increases those of some developing countries (factor of 1.2–1.5). Deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’ results in smaller contributions for countries with low per capita emissions (factor of 0.3–0.5). Finally, including projected emissions up to 2020 further increases the relative contributions of emerging economies by a factor of 1.2, or 1.5 when discounting pre-2020 emissions for technological progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Bali Action Plan as adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2007, states that Annex I (developed) countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, based on comparable efforts. Within this context, we have explored various comparable effort approaches (for example, equal marginal abatement costs for all countries) for reducing emissions by the year 2020 for individual countries and regions. In all calculations, the total reduction for Annex I countries as a group is assumed to be 30% below 1990 levels. In the analysis, we compare the reduction targets as calculated from the different approaches with the emission reductions as pledged by these countries as part of the Copenhagen Accord, as drafted under the UNFCCC in 2009. Our analysis indicates that the different elements in these calculations may cause a diversity in outcomes and that, therefore, individual countries may favour certain elements over others. These elements include (a) the choice of the approach itself (the same approach may produce very different outcomes for countries with diverging national circumstances, such as Canada and Russia); (b) the reference year (such as 1990 or 2006 emissions, is very important for countries with an increase in emissions since 1990 (e.g. the United States, Canada) or for those that have lower emission levels (e.g. Russia, the Ukraine)); and (c) rules on land use (these are important for countries with large forest areas). It should be noted that the stringency of the individual countries’ reductions as pledged, differs substantially from the stringency of the reduction targets calculated from the effort-sharing approaches. The current pledges by both the European Union and the United States, are lower than the reductions that would be obtained in the effort-sharing approaches for a 30% overall reduction in Annex I countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substantially postponing the emission reductions, compared to the ranges indicated in IPCC’s recent assessment for 2020 as required for meeting the longterm 2°C target, increases the risk of exceeding this target. The costs of a delay strategy are lower in the short term, but leads to higher costs in the longer term. The analysis shows if the emission reductions are postponed to 2030 it is not likely that higher emissions from the earlier years can be fully compensated in future decades in a so-called ‘delayed action scenario’. A full compensation would require emission reduction rates in the coming decades that are much higher than those found in the scenario literature. Without compensation, the risk of exceeding the global temperature rise target of 2°C will increase. This confirms that it is not only the reduction commitments for 2050 that determine the risk of exceeding the 2°C target, but also the path between now and 2050. To meet this 2°C target, more ambitious 2020 reduction targets are needed for the developed and developing countries than those that have been pledged so far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many studies have been published to evaluate the consequences of different post- 2012 emission allocation regimes on regional mitigation costs. This paper goes one step further and evaluates not only mitigation costs, but also adaptation costs and climate change damages. Three post-2012 emission allocation regimes (Contraction & Convergence, Multistage and Common but differentiated convergence) and two climate targets (2°C and 3°C above the pre-industrial level) are considered. This explorative analysis shows that including these other cost categories could lead to different perspectives on the outcomes of allocation regimes. Up to 2050, the poorest regions have negative mitigation costs under all allocation regimes considered, as they benefit from emission trading. However, these regions also suffer from the most severe climate impacts. As such, the financial flows due to emission trading from developed to developing countries created under these allocation regimes could also be interpreted as compensation of climate change damages and adaptation costs. In the longer run, the sum of climate change damages, adaptation costs and mitigation costs are the highest in the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for both climate targets and practically all emission allocation regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, summarises in Box 13.7 the required emission reduction ranges in Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group, to achieve greenhouse gas concentration stabilisation levels between 450 and 650 ppm CO2-eq. The box summarises the results of the IPCC authors’ analysis of the literature on the regional allocation of the emission reductions. The box states that Annex I countries as a group would need to reduce their emissions to below 1990 levels in 2020 by 25% to 40% for 450 ppm, 10% to 30% for 550 ppm and 0% to 25% for 650 ppm CO2-eq, even if emissions in developing countries deviate substantially from baseline for the low concentration target. In this paper, the IPCC authors of Box 13.7 provide background information and analyse whether new information, obtained after completion of the IPCC report, influences these ranges. The authors concluded that there is no argument for updating the ranges in Box 13.7. The allocation studies, which were published after the writing of the IPCC report, show reductions in line with the reduction ranges in the box. From the studies analysed, this paper specifies the “substantial deviation” or “deviation from baseline” in the box: emissions of non-Annex I countries as a group have to be below the baseline roughly between 15% to 30% for 450 ppm CO2-eq, 0% to 20% for 550 ppm CO2-eq and from 10% above to 10% below the baseline for 650 ppm CO2-eq, in 2020. These ranges apply to the whole group of non-Annex I countries and may differ substantially per country. The most important factor influencing these ranges above, for non-Annex I countries, and in the box, for Annex I countries, is new information on higher baseline emissions (e.g. that of Sheehan, Climatic Change, , this issue). Other factors are the assumed global emission level in 2020 and assumptions on land-use change and forestry emissions. The current, slow pace in climate policy and the steady increase in global emissions, make it almost unfeasible to reach relatively low global emission levels in 2020 needed to meet 450 ppm CO2-eq, as was first assumed feasible by some studies, 5 years ago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of the IPCC B2, A1b and B1 baseline scenarios, mitigation scenarios were developed that stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 650, 550 and 450 and--subject to specific assumptions--400 ppm CO2-eq. The analysis takes into account a large number of reduction options, such as reductions of non-CO2 gases, carbon plantations and measures in the energy system. The study shows stabilization as low as 450 ppm CO2-eq. to be technically feasible, even given relatively high baseline scenarios. To achieve these lower concentration levels, global emissions need to peak within the first two decades. The net present value of abatement costs for the B2 baseline scenario (a medium scenario) increases from 0.2% of cumulative GDP to 1.1% as the shift is made from 650 to 450 ppm. On the other hand, the probability of meeting a two-degree target increases from 0%--10% to 20%--70%. The mitigation scenarios lead to lower emissions of regional air pollutants but also to increased land use. The uncertainty in the cost estimates is at least in the order of 50%, with the most important uncertainties including land-use emissions, the potential for bio-energy and the contribution of energy efficiency. Furthermore, creating the right socio-economic and political conditions for mitigation is more important than any of the technical constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]