Low-emission pathways in 11 major economies: comparison of cost-optimal pathways and Paris climate proposals
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 CO2 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.
KeywordsEmission Reduction Climate Policy Baseline Scenario Marginal Abatement Cost Mitigation Scenario
This study benefited from the financial support of the European Commission via the Modelling and Informing Low-Emission Strategies (MILES) project, financed by Directorate General Climate Action (DG CLIMA), under contract to DG CLIMA (No. 21.0104/2014/684427/SER/CLIMA.A.4), and the Linking Climate and Development Policies-Leveraging International Networks and Knowledge Sharing (CD-LINKS) project, financed by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 642147 (CD-LINKS). The work is largely based on published scenarios from integrated assessment modelling studies, collected for MILES. The results presented here are not automatically endorsed by MILES project partners. We thank Annemiek Admiraal (PBL) for providing (I)NDC data.
- Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- EC-JRC, PBL (2014) Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) version 4.2FT2012 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) / PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php
- Emmerling J, Drouet L, Aleluia Reis L et al (2016) The WITCH 2016 model—documentation and implementation of the shared socioeconomic pathways, FEEM Nota di Lavoro 42.2016. FEEM, VeniceGoogle Scholar
- Kriegler E, Tavoni M, Aboumahboub T, et al. (2014b) What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020?. The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios. Climate Change Economics 4Google Scholar
- Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Peters JAHW (2016) Trends in global CO2 emissions; 2016 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency / European Commission, Joint Research Centre, The Hague / IspraGoogle Scholar
- Spencer T, Pierfederici R (eds) (2015) Beyond the numbers: understanding the transformation induced by INDCs. IDDRI - MILES Project Consortium, Paris, p 80Google Scholar
- Tavoni M, Van Vuuren, DP (2015) Regional carbon budgets: do they matter for climate policy?, Nota di Lavoro 71.2015, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2015) The emissions gap report 2015. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NairobiGoogle Scholar
- UNFCCC (2015) Paris Agreement. Decision 1/CP.17. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf, UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
- UNFCCC (2016) Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. Synthesis report by the secretariat. UNFCCC Secretariat, FCCC/CP/2016/2, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/02.pdf