National GHG emissions reduction pledges and 2°C: comparison of studies

This article provides further detail on expected global GHG emission levels in 2020, based on the Emissions Gap Report (United Nations Environment Programme, December 2010), assuming the emission reduction proposals in the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements are met. Large differences are found in the results of individual groups owing to uncertainties in current and projected emission estimates and in the interpretation of the reduction proposals. Regardless of these uncertainties, the pledges for 2020 are expected to deliver emission levels above those that are consistent with a 2°C limit. This emissions gap could be narrowed through implementing the more stringent conditional pledges, minimizing the use of ‘lenient’ credits from forests and surplus emission units, avoiding double-counting of offsets and implementing measures beyond current pledges. Conversely, emission reduction gains from countries moving from their low to high ambition pledges could be more than offset by the use of ‘lenient’ land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) credits and surplus emissions units, if these were used to the maximum. Laying the groundwork for faster emission reduction rates after 2020 appears to be crucial in any case.

[1]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Decision support for international climate policy - The PRIMAP emission module , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[2]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  The emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the 2 °C climate goal: Options for closing and risks that could widen the gap , 2011 .

[3]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Discrepancies in historical emissions point to a wider 2020 gap between 2 °C benchmarks and aggregated national mitigation pledges , 2011 .

[4]  R. Dellink,et al.  The Copenhagen Accord/Cancún Agreements Emission Pledges for 2020: Exploring Economic and Environmental Impacts , 2011 .

[5]  C. Carraro,et al.  Beyond Copenhagen: a realistic climate policy in a fragmented world , 2010, Climatic Change.

[6]  B. Hare,et al.  CANCUN CLIMATE TALKS KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN CANCUN CLIMATE TALKS KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN TO CLOSE THE GAP , 2011 .

[7]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  The Copenhagen Accord: abatement costs and carbon prices resulting from the submissions , 2011 .

[8]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Emission pathways consistent with a 2 ◦ C global temperature limit , 2011 .

[9]  Mark Roelfsema,et al.  Dealing with surplus emissions in the climate negotiations after Copenhagen: What are the options for compromise? , 2010 .

[10]  Thomas Damassa,et al.  Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Using Existing Federal Authorities and State Action , 2010 .

[11]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts—a snapshot of dissonant ambitions , 2010 .

[12]  D. P. Vuuren,et al.  Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord. Chances and risks for the 2C climate goal , 2010 .

[13]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry , 2010, Nature.

[14]  T. Houser.  Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward , 2010 .

[15]  Kelly Levin,et al.  Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges , 2010 .

[16]  N. Höhne,et al.  Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2°C , 2010 .

[17]  J. Rogelj,et al.  The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 deg. C or 1.5 deg. C? A preliminary assessment , 2010 .

[18]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2009, Nature.

[19]  N. Höhne,et al.  Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets , 2008 .

[20]  V. Bosetti,et al.  Banking Permits: Economic Efficiency and Distributional Effects , 2008 .

[21]  Annette Freibauer,et al.  The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol-lessons learned for the future climate negotiations , 2007 .

[22]  Axel Michaelowa,et al.  Policies, Instruments and Cooperative Arrangements , 2007 .

[23]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective , 2007 .