A multi-model analysis of long-term emissions and the warming implications of current mitigation efforts

  • 1.

    The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2020); https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

  • 2.

    Le Quéré, C. et al. CO drop factors2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Switch 9, 213-218 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • 3.

    Roelfsema, M. et al. Take stock of national climate policies to assess the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Common. 11, 2096 (2020).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 4.

    Hausfather, Z. & Peters, GP Emissions — the “business as usual” story is misleading. Nature 577, 618-620 (2020).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 5.

    Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Napp, T. & Gambhir, A. Appropriate use of baseline scenarios in mitigation analysis. Nat. Clim. Switch ten, 605-610 (2020).

    Google Scholar article

  • 6.

    IPCC Special report on global warming of 1.5 ° C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (OMM, 2018).

  • 7.

    IPCC Climate change 2014: climate change mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  • 8.

    Robinson, JB Futures Under Glass: A Recipe For Those Who Hate To Predict. Futures contracts 22, 820-842 (1990).

  • 9.

    Kriegler, E. et al. Make or break climate objectives: the AMPERE study on phased accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Switch 90, 322-326 (2015).

    Google Scholar

  • ten.

    Eskander, SMSU & Fankhauser, S. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from National Climate Legislation. Nat. Clim. Switch ten, 750-756 (2020).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 11.

    Meckling, J. & Jenner, S. Varieties of market-based policies: choice of instruments in climate policy. About. Polit. 25, 853-874 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • 12.

    Bataille, C., Guivarch, C., Hallegatte, S., Rogelj, J. & Waisman, H. Carbon prices in countries. Nat. Clim. Switch 8, 648-650 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 13.

    Jacoby, HD, Chen, Y.-HH & Flannery, BP Informing transparency in the Paris Agreement: the role of business models. Clim. Politics 17, 873-890 (2017).

    Google Scholar article

  • 14.

    Aldy, J. et al. Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Switch 6, 1000–1004 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • 15.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Understand the origin of the uncertainties on Paris Agreement emissions. Nat. Common. 8, 15748 (2017).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 16.

    Rogelj, J. et al. The Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 ° C. Nature 534, 631-639 (2016).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 17.

    Geiges, A. et al. Gradual improvements to the 2030 targets are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Syst. of Dyna land. 11, 697-708 (2020).

    Google Scholar article

  • 18.

    Fawcett, AA et al. Can Paris promises prevent severe climate change? Science 350, 1168-1169 (2015).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 19.

    Fujimori, S. et al. Implication of the Paris Agreement in the context of long-term climate change mitigation goals. Springerplus 5, 1620 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • 20.

    Vandyck, T., Keramidas, K., Saveyn, B., Kitous, A. & Vrontisi, Z. Global stocktake of the Paris commitments: implications for energy systems and the economy. Glob. About. Switch 41, 46-63 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • 21.

    Vrontisi, Z. et al. Improving the ambition of global climate policy towards stabilization at 1.5 ° C: a short-term multi-model assessment. About. Res. Lett. 13, 044039 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 22.

    McCollum, DL et al. Energy investment needs to fulfill the Paris Agreement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589-599 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 23.

    Jeffery, ML, Gütschow, J., Rocha, MR & Gieseke, R. Measuring Success: Improving Assessments of Global Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. The future of the earth 6, 1260-1274 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 24.

    2020 Emissions Gap Report (UNEP, 2020).

  • 25.

    Giarola, S. et al. Challenges of Harmonizing Global Integrated Assessment Models: A Comprehensive Methodology to Reduce Heterogeneity of Model Responses. Sci. About. 783, 146861 (2021).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 26.

    Krey, V. et al. Looking Under the Hood: A Comparison of Technical-Economic Assumptions Between National and Global Integrated Valuation Models. Energy 172, 1254-1267 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • 27.

    Jaxa-Rozen, M. & Trutnevyte, E. Sources of Uncertainty in Long-Term Global Scenarios for Solar Photovoltaic Technology. Nat. Clim. Switch 11, 266-273 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • 28.

    den Elzen, M. et al. Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets? Energy policy 126, 238-250 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • 29.

    Dubash, NK, Khosla, R., Rao, ND & Bhardwaj, A. India’s Energy and Emissions Future: An Interpretive Analysis of Model Scenarios. About. Res. Lett. 13, 074018 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 30.

    Schaeffer, R. et al. Compare the transformation paths between the main economies. Climate change 162, 1787-1803 (2020).

    Google Scholar article

  • 31.

    Harmsen, M. et al. Diagnosis of the integrated evaluation model: key indicators and model evolution. About. Res. Lett. 16, 054046 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • 32.

    Kriegler, E. et al. Diagnostic indicators for integrated climate policy assessment models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Switch 90, 45-61 (2015).

    Google Scholar article

  • 33.

    Keppo, I. et al. Exploring the Space of Possibilities: Taking stock of the various capacities and gaps in integrated assessment models. About. Res. Lett. 16, 053006 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • 34.

    Hoesly, RM et al. Historical anthropogenic emissions (1750-2014) of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). Geosci. Dev. 11, 369-408 (2018).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 35.

    Nikas, A. et al. Perspective of a comprehensive and understandable multi-model science of energy and climate in Europe. Energy 215, 119153 (2021).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 36.

    Meinshausen, M. et al. Emulation of coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Description and calibration of the model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417-1456 (2011).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 37.

    Matthews, HD et al. Opportunities and challenges of using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat. Geosci. 13, 769-779 (2020).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 38.

    Peters, GP The “best science available” to inform policy choices 1.5 ° C. Nat. Clim. Switch 6, 646-649 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • 39.

    Riahi, K. et al. Shared socio-economic pathways and their implications for energy, land use and greenhouse gas emissions: an overview. Glob. About. Switch 42, 153-168 (2017).

    Google Scholar article

  • 40.

    Sognnaes, I. et al. Sognnaes_et_al_2021_NCC_DATASET version 1.1. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/5562199 (2021).

  • [ad_2]

    About Chris McCarter

    Check Also

    How much will Halloween candy cost you this year?

    The National Retail Federation expects Americans to spend $3 billion this year on Halloween candy. …