Search

Operating within safe and just Earth system boundaries requires mobilizing key actors across scale to set targets and take actions accordingly. Robust, transparent and fair cross-scale translation methods are essential to help navigate through the multiple steps of scientific and normative judgements in translation, with clear awareness of associated assumptions, bias and uncertainties. Here, through literature review and expert elicitation, we identify commonly used sharing approaches, illustrate ten principles of translation and present a protocol involving key building blocks and control steps in translation. We pay particular attention to businesses and cities, two understudied but critical actors to bring on board.

Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

To bridge the knowledge gap between climate scenarios and law, this presentation is aimed to demonstrate currently demanded mutual contributions by legal professionals and integrated assessment modellers on 1) how legal knowledge can be integrated into climate scenarios and 2) how scientific evidence generated from climate scenarios can better guide climate litigation cases. We expect that this could support judges in making trade-offs in climate-related court cases and could contribute to the acceptance of decisions by judges in such cases. Given the emissions gap and the measures that must be taken to comply with the Paris Agreement, the latter is likely becoming more relevant. Regarding the first part, the results are based on an empirical research project on Improving the Integration of Legal Knowledge and Scholars in Climate Scenario Assessments (https://www.uu.nl/en/research/sustainability/improving-the-integration-of-legal-knowledge-and-scholars-in-climate-scenario-assessments) and a workshop (https://www.uu.nl/en/research/sustainability/workshop-report-promoting-the-mutual-understanding-between-legal-and-governance-scholars-and-climate) resulted from this project held in May 2023. Via interviews and focus-group discussions with 24 experts in climate modelling, climate law and politics, and ethics, our research highlights four legal aspects for integration, which are: 1) implementation end enforcement of climate targets, 2) key normative principles, 3) legal uncertainties, and 4) the applicability of scenarios in regional and local legal contexts. Considering the challenges of integration due to epistemic distinctions between disciplines, experts held different opinions on the feasibility of integrating those four aspects. Regarding actionable steps for the short term, revising narratives and a ‘legal reality check’ are the most agreed ones. The former refers to adding legal obligations that safeguard justice, fairness and fundamental human rights - traceable

Despite its projected crucial role in stringent, future global climate policy, non-CO2 greenhouse gas (NCGG) mitigation remains a large uncertain factor in climate research. A revision of the estimated mitigation potential has implications for the feasibility of global climate policy to reach the Paris Agreement climate goals. Here, we provide a systematic bottom-up estimate of the total uncertainty in NCGG mitigation, by developing 'optimistic', 'default' and 'pessimistic' long-term NCGG marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves, based on a comprehensive literature review of mitigation options. The global 1.5-degree climate target is found to be out of reach under pessimistic MAC assumptions, as is the 2-degree target under high emission assumptions. In a 2-degree scenario, MAC uncertainty translates into a large projected range in relative NCGG reduction (40-58%), carbon budget (±120 Gt CO2) and policy costs (±16%). Partly, the MAC uncertainty signifies a gap that could be bridged by human efforts, but largely it indicates uncertainty in technical limitations.

As the world faces the risks of dangerous climate change, policymakers, industry and civil society leaders are counting on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to inform and guide strategies to deliver on the objectives of the Paris Agreement (PA) and subsequent agreements. The Exploring National and Global Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (ENGAGE) project has responded to this challenge by engaging these stakeholders in co-producing a new generation of global and national decarbonization pathways.

Energy models are used to study emissions mitigation pathways, such as those compatible with the Paris Agreement goals. These models vary in structure, objectives, parameterization and level of detail, yielding differences in the computed energy and climate policy scenarios. To study model differences, diagnostic indicators are common practice in many academic fields, for example, in the physical climate sciences. However, they have not yet been applied systematically in mitigation literature, beyond addressing individual model dimensions. Here we address this gap by quantifying energy model typology along five dimensions: responsiveness, mitigation strategies, energy supply, energy demand and mitigation costs and effort, each expressed through several diagnostic indicators. The framework is applied to a diagnostic experiment with eight energy models in which we explore ten scenarios focusing on Europe. Comparing indicators to the ensemble yields comprehensive ‘energy model fingerprints’, which describe systematic model behaviour and contextualize model differences for future multi-model comparison studies.

Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), both for idealized model experiments, and for climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was pragmatic to allow parallel development of Earth System Model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth System Models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently represented upstream of ESMs in an idealized fashion during scenario development. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon-climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular sources and sinks of methane) and process

Introduction: With the pressing need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, this study aims to simplify complex data from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). It focuses on identifying dietary shifts that align with the 1.5°C global warming limit as stipulated by the Paris Agreement. Methods: The research utilises the IMAGE Integrated Assessment Model and applies the Diets, Dishes, Dish Ingredients (DDDI) communication framework. This methodology enables the visualisation of potential dietary and dish composition changes, thereby making the data more comprehensible to a broader audience. Results: The study effectively translates traditional IAM outputs into accessible visualisations. These visual tools provide a nuanced understanding of a low greenhouse gas diet, extending its relevance beyond academia to include professionals in diet and nutrition. Discussion: This research stands as a significant advancement in the field, lowering the barrier to understanding sustainable diets for the future. It enriches the existing dialogue on dietary change and climate goals and serves as a catalyst for further research and practical applications in diverse contexts

The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) is a heuristic tool for co-creating positive futures for nature and people. It seeks to open up a diversity of futures through mainly three value perspectives on nature – Nature for Nature, Nature for Society, and Nature as Culture. This paper describes how the NFF can be applied in modelling to support decision-making. First, we describe key considerations for the NFF in developing qualitative and quantitative scenarios: i) multiple value perspectives on nature as a state space where pathways improving nature toward a frontier can be represented, ii) mutually reinforcing key feedbacks of social-ecological systems that are important for nature conservation and human wellbeing, iii) indicators of multiple knowledge systems describing the evolution of complex social-ecological dynamics. We then present three approaches to modelling Nature Futures scenarios in the review, screening, and design phases of policy processes. This paper seeks to facilitate the integration of relational values of nature in models and strengthen modelled linkages across biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, and quality of life.

Despite decades of increasing investment in conservation, we have not succeeded in “bending the curve” of biodiversity decline. Efforts to meet new targets and goals for the next three decades risk repeating this outcome due to three factors: neglect of increasing drivers of decline; unrealistic expectations and time frames of biodiversity recovery; and insufficient attention to justice within and between generations and across countries. Our Earth system justice approach identifies six sets of actions that when tackled simultaneously address these failings: (1) reduce and reverse direct and indirect drivers causing decline; (2) halt and reverse biodiversity loss; (3) restore and regenerate biodiversity to a safe state; (4) raise minimum wellbeing for all; (5) eliminate over-consumption and excesses associated with accumulation of capital; and (6) uphold and respect the rights and responsibilities of all communities, present and future. Current conservation campaigns primarily address actions 2 and 3, with urgent upscaling of actions 1, 4, 5, and 6 needed to help deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1,2,3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.

Increasing renewable energy use is an essential strategy for mitigating climate change. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of renewable energy to climatic conditions means that the energy system's vulnerability to climate change can also become larger. In this research, we used two integrated assessment models and data from four climate models to analyse climate change impacts on primary energy use at a global and regional scale under a low-level (RCP2.6) and a medium-level (RCP6.0) climate change scenario. The impacts are analysed on the energy system focusing on four renewable sources (wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass). Globally, small climate impacts on renewable primary energy use are found in both models (5% for RCP2.6 and 6% for RCP6.0). These impacts lead to a decrease in the use of fossil sources for most regions, especially for North America and Europe under the RCP60 scenario. Overall, IMAGE and GCAM provide a similar signal impact response for most regions. E.g. in Asia (excluding China and India), climate change induces an increase in wind and hydropower use under the RCP6.0 scenarios; however, for India, a decrease in solar energy use can be expected under both scenarios and models.

In 2015, the United Nations agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals as the central normative framework for sustainable development worldwide. The effectiveness of governing by such broad global goals, however, remains uncertain, and we lack comprehensive meta-studies that assess the political impact of the goals across countries and globally. We present here condensed evidence from an analysis of over 3,000 scientific studies on the Sustainable Development Goals published between 2016 and April 2021. Our findings suggests that the goals have had some political impact on institutions and policies, from local to global governance. This impact has been largely discursive, affecting the way actors understand and communicate about sustainable development. More profound normative and institutional impact, from legislative action to changing resource allocation, remains rare. We conclude that the scientific evidence suggests only limited transformative political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals thus far., Correction in: Nature Sustainability, DOI: 10.1038/s41893-022-00938-0, Scopus 2-s2.0-85132893355, WOS: 000817066600002, QC 20230328

This chapter provides an overview of the multi-faceted landscape of methods used to study the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. After a discussion of the political use of science and the complex relations between science and politics, the chapter showcases a selection of different methods that are employed to trace the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. Selecting the most suitable method for a particular research question requires understanding their main characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The chapter highlights that all methods and tools need to be combined to comprehensively assess the political impact of the goals, the progress towards their achievement, and their overall transformative potential. As data gaps and unequal geographical coverage still hamper a broader understanding of the political impact of the globalgoals, we need to build bridges across language communities, disciplines and methodological camps, which still work very much in isolation.

Long-term global emission scenarios enable the analysis of future climate change, impacts, and response strategies by providing insight into possible future developments and linking these different climate research elements. Such scenarios play a crucial role in the climate change literature informing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Assessment Reports (ARs) and support policymakers. This article reviews the evolution of emission scenarios, since 1990, by focusing on scenario critiques and responses as published in the literature. We focus on the issues raised in the critiques and the possible impact on scenario development. The critique (280) focuses on four areas: 1) key scenario assumptions (40%), 2) the emissions range covered by the scenarios and missing scenarios (25%), 3) methodological issues (24%), and 4) the policy relevance and handling of uncertainty (11%). Scenario critiques have become increasingly influential since 2000. Some areas of critique have decreased or become less prominent (probability, development process, convergence assumptions, and economic metrics). Other areas have become more dominant over time (e.g., policy relevance & implications of scenarios, transparency, Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) assumptions, missing scenarios). Several changes have been made in developing scenarios and their content that respond to the critique.

Bioenergy is projected to have a prominent, valuable, and maybe essential, role in climate management. However, there is significant variation in projected bioenergy deployment results, as well as concerns about the potential environmental and social implications of supplying biomass. Bioenergy deployment projections are market equilibrium solutions from integrated modeling, yet little is known about the underlying modeling of the supply of biomass as a feedstock for energy use in these modeling frameworks. We undertake a novel diagnostic analysis with ten global models to elucidate, compare, and assess how biomass is supplied within the models used to inform long-run climate management. With experiments that isolate and reveal biomass supply modeling behavior and characteristics (costs, emissions, land use, market effects), we learn about biomass supply tendencies and differences. The insights provide a new level of modeling transparency and understanding of estimated global biomass supplies that informs evaluation of the potential for bioenergy in managing the climate and interpretation of integrated modeling. For each model, we characterize the potential distributions of global biomass supply across regions and feedstock types for increasing levels of quantity supplied, as well as some of the potential societal externalities of supplying biomass. We also evaluate the biomass supply implications of managing these externalities. Finally, we interpret biomass market results from integrated modeling in terms of our new understanding of biomass supply. Overall, we find little consensus between models on where biomass could be cost-effectively produced and the implications. We also reveal model specific biomass supply narratives, with results providing new insights into integrated modeling bioenergy outcomes and differences. The analysis finds that many integrated models are considering and managing emissions and land use externalities of supplying biomass and estimati

Despite decades of increasing investment in conservation, we have not succeeded in “bending the curve” of biodiversity decline. Efforts to meet new targets and goals for the next three decades risk repeating this outcome due to three factors: neglect of increasing drivers of decline; unrealistic expectations and time frames of biodiversity recovery; and insufficient attention to justice within and between generations and across countries. Our Earth system justice approach identifies six sets of actions that when tackled simultaneously address these failings: (1) reduce and reverse direct and indirect drivers causing decline; (2) halt and reverse biodiversity loss; (3) restore and regenerate biodiversity to a safe state; (4) raise minimum wellbeing for all; (5) eliminate over-consumption and excesses associated with accumulation of capital; and (6) uphold and respect the rights and responsibilities of all communities, present and future. Current conservation campaigns primarily address actions 2 and 3, with urgent upscaling of actions 1, 4, 5, and 6 needed to help deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

The global climate goals of the Paris Agreement will have to be met through action at the national level. So how do existing national plans and pledges stack up? One of the leading efforts to answer this question is through the Exploring National and Global Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (ENGAGE) Project. Within ENGAGE, a collaboration of international groups is calculating how national policies would affect global emissions.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, paved the way for a new hybrid global climate governance architecture with both bottom-up and top-down elements. While governments can choose individual climate goals and actions, a global stocktake and a ratcheting-up mechanism have been put in place with the overall aim to ensure that collective efforts will prevent increasing adverse impacts of climate change. Integrated assessment models show that current combined climate commitments and policies of national governments fall short of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Although major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China, the European Union, India, the United States under the Biden administration, and several other countries, have made new pledges to take more ambitious climate action, it is highly uncertain where global climate policy is heading. Scenarios in line with long-term temperature targets typically assume a simplistic and hardly realistic level of harmonization of climate policies across countries. Against this backdrop, this article develops four archetypes for the further evolution of the global climate governance architecture and matches them with existing sets of scenarios developed by integrated assessment models. By these means, the article identifies knowledge gaps in the current scenario literature and discusses possible research avenues to explore the pre-conditions for successful coordination of national policies towards achieving the long-term target stipulated in the Paris Agreement.

As part of the IPCC's 6th Assessment Report (AR6), authors from Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change undertook a comprehensive exercise to collect and assess quantitative, model-based scenarios related to the mitigation of climate change. Building on previous assessments, such as those undertaken for the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) and the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), the calls for AR6 for scenarios have been expanded and includes economy-wide GHG emissions, energy, and sectoral scenarios from global to national scales, thus more broadly supporting the assessment across multiple chapters (see Annex III, Part 2 of the WGIII report for more details). The compilation and assessment of the scenario ensemble was conducted by authors of the IPCC AR6 report, and the resource is hosted by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) as part of a cooperation agreement with Working Group III of the IPCC. The scenario ensemble contains 3,131 quantitative scenarios with data on socio-economic development, greenhouse gas emissions, and sectoral transformations across energy, land use, transportation, buildings and industry. These scenarios derive from 191 unique modelling frameworks, 95+ model families that are either globally comprehensive, national, multi-regional or sectoral. The criteria for submission included that the scenario is presented in a peer-reviewed journal accepted for publication no later than October 11th, 2021, or published in a report determined by the IPCC WG III Bureau to be eligible grey literature by the same date. The AR6 scenario database is documented in Annex III.2 of the Sixth Assessment Report of Working Group III. For the purpose of the assessment, scenarios have been grouped in various categories relating to, among other things, climate outcomes, overshoot, technology availability and policy assumptions.

As they gain new users, climate change mitigation scenarios are playing an increasing role in transitions to net zero. One promising practice is the analysis of scenario ensembles. Here we argue that this practice has the potential to bring new and more robust insights compared with the use of single scenarios. However, several important aspects have to be addressed. We identify key methodological challenges and the existing methods and applications that have been or can be used to address these challenges within a three-step approach: (1) pre-processing the ensemble; (2) selecting a few scenarios or analysing the full ensemble; and (3) providing users with efficient access to the information.

With the establishment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all. This ambition, however, exposes a critical gap in science-based insights, namely on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help explore the needed systems' transformations. This requires a clear definition of the "target space." The 169 targets and 232 indicators used for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be used for this; they are too many, too broad, unstructured, and sometimes not formulated quantitatively. Here, we propose a streamlined set of science-based indicators and associated target values that are quantifiable and actionable to make scenario analysis meaningful, relevant, and simple enough to be transparent and communicable. The 36 targets are based on the SDGs, existing multilateral agreements, literature, and expert assessment. They include 2050 as a longer-term reference point. This target space can guide researchers in developing new sustainable development pathways.

By adopting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), countries worldwide agreed to an agenda for achieving a prosperous, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable future for all1. This ambition, however, also exposes a critical knowledge gap since science-based insights on how to achieve the 17 SDGs simultaneously are lacking. Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could enable exploration of the systems' transformations required to achieve the SDGs, but this requires a clear definition of the "target space". The 169 targets and 232 indicators defined by the international community for monitoring SDG implementation cannot be directly used for this purpose. Here, we define a streamlined set of well-defined, science-based indicators and associated target values that is quantifiable and actionable to make quantitative scenario analysis meaningful, relevant (i.e. reflecting societal goals), and yet simple enough to keep analysis transparent and communicable. The set of 36 targets is based on the UN 2030 Agenda, other existing multilateral agreements and insights from sustainability science and expert assessment, and it includes 2050 as an additional longer-term reference point. Thus, this target space provides a strategic focus to guide the scientific community in developing new global sustainable development pathways.

Global emissions scenarios play a critical role in the assessment of strategies to mitigate climate change. The current scenarios, however, are criticized because they feature strategies with pronounced overshoot of the global temperature goal, requiring a long-term repair phase to draw temperatures down again through net-negative emissions. Some impacts might not be reversible. Hence, we explore a new set of net-zero CO2 emissions scenarios with limited overshoot. We show that upfront investments are needed in the near term for limiting temperature overshoot but that these would bring long-term economic gains. Our study further identifies alternative configurations of net-zero CO2 emissions systems and the roles of different sectors and regions for balancing sources and sinks. Even without net-negative emissions, CO2 removal is important for accelerating near-term reductions and for providing an anthropogenic sink that can offset the residual emissions in sectors that are hard to abate.

Mitigation pathways exploring end-of-century temperature targets often entail temperature overshoot. Little is known about the additional climate risks generated by overshooting temperature. Here we assessed the benefits of limiting overshoot. We computed the probabilistic impacts for different warming targets and overshoot levels on the basis of an ensemble of integrated assessment models. We explored both physical and macroeconomic impacts, including persistent and non-persistent climate impacts. We found that temperature overshooting affects the likelihood of many critical physical impacts, such as those associated with heat extremes. Limiting overshoot reduces risk in the right tail of the distribution, in particular for low-temperature targets where larger overshoots arise as a way to lower short-term mitigation costs. We also showed how, after mid-century, overshoot leads to both higher mitigation costs and economic losses from the additional impacts. The study highlights the need to include climate risk analysis in low-carbon pathways.