Louth Online
The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2020); https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
Le Quéré, C. et al. CO drop factors2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Switch 9, 213-218 (2019).
Roelfsema, M. et al. Take stock of national climate policies to assess the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Common. 11, 2096 (2020).
Hausfather, Z. & Peters, GP Emissions — the “business as usual” story is misleading. Nature 577, 618-620 (2020).
Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Napp, T. & Gambhir, A. Appropriate use of baseline scenarios in mitigation analysis. Nat. Clim. Switch ten, 605-610 (2020).
IPCC Special report on global warming of 1.5 ° C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (OMM, 2018).
IPCC Climate change 2014: climate change mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Robinson, JB Futures Under Glass: A Recipe For Those Who Hate To Predict. Futures contracts 22, 820-842 (1990).
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
Eskander, SMSU & Fankhauser, S. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from National Climate Legislation. Nat. Clim. Switch ten, 750-756 (2020).
Meckling, J. & Jenner, S. Varieties of market-based policies: choice of instruments in climate policy. About. Polit. 25, 853-874 (2016).
Bataille, C., Guivarch, C., Hallegatte, S., Rogelj, J. & Waisman, H. Carbon prices in countries. Nat. Clim. Switch 8, 648-650 (2018).
Jacoby, HD, Chen, Y.-HH & Flannery, BP Informing transparency in the Paris Agreement: the role of business models. Clim. Politics 17, 873-890 (2017).
Aldy, J. et al. Economic tools to promote transparency and comparability in the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Switch 6, 1000–1004 (2016).
Rogelj, J. et al. Understand the origin of the uncertainties on Paris Agreement emissions. Nat. Common. 8, 15748 (2017).
Rogelj, J. et al. The Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 ° C. Nature 534, 631-639 (2016).
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).
Fawcett, AA et al. Can Paris promises prevent severe climate change? Science 350, 1168-1169 (2015).
Fujimori, S. et al. Implication of the Paris Agreement in the context of long-term climate change mitigation goals. Springerplus 5, 1620 (2016).
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).
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).
McCollum, DL et al. Energy investment needs to fulfill the Paris Agreement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589-599 (2018).
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).
2020 Emissions Gap Report (UNEP, 2020).
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).
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).
Jaxa-Rozen, M. & Trutnevyte, E. Sources of Uncertainty in Long-Term Global Scenarios for Solar Photovoltaic Technology. Nat. Clim. Switch 11, 266-273 (2021).
den Elzen, M. et al. Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets? Energy policy 126, 238-250 (2019).
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).
Schaeffer, R. et al. Compare the transformation paths between the main economies. Climate change 162, 1787-1803 (2020).
Harmsen, M. et al. Diagnosis of the integrated evaluation model: key indicators and model evolution. About. Res. Lett. 16, 054046 (2021).
Kriegler, E. et al. Diagnostic indicators for integrated climate policy assessment models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Switch 90, 45-61 (2015).
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).
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).
Nikas, A. et al. Perspective of a comprehensive and understandable multi-model science of energy and climate in Europe. Energy 215, 119153 (2021).
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).
Matthews, HD et al. Opportunities and challenges of using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat. Geosci. 13, 769-779 (2020).
Peters, GP The “best science available” to inform policy choices 1.5 ° C. Nat. Clim. Switch 6, 646-649 (2016).
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).
Sognnaes, I. et al. Sognnaes_et_al_2021_NCC_DATASET version 1.1. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/5562199 (2021).
Source link
