Emission pathways consistent with a 2[thinsp][deg]C global temperature limit

In recent years, international climate policy has increasingly focused on limiting temperature rise, as opposed to achieving greenhouse-gas-concentration-related objectives. The agreements reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Cancun in 2010 recognize that countries should take urgent action to limit the increase in global average temperature to less than 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels1. If this is to be achieved, policymakers need robust information about the amounts of future greenhouse-gas emissions that are consistent with such temperature limits. This, in turn, requires an understanding of both the technical and economic implications of reducing emissions and the processes that link emissions to temperature. Here we consider both of these aspects by reanalysing a large set of published emission scenarios from integrated assessment models in a risk-based climate modelling framework. We find that in the set of scenarios with a ‘likely’ (greater than 66%) chance of staying below 2 °C, emissions peak between 2010 and 2020 and fall to a median level of 44 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2020 (compared with estimated median emissions across the scenario set of 48 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2010). Our analysis confirms that if the mechanisms needed to enable an early peak in global emissions followed by steep reductions are not put in place, there is a significant risk that the 2 °C target will not be achieved.

[1]  Reto Knutti,et al.  The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[2]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

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

[4]  Tom M. L. Wigley,et al.  Emulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 2: Applications , 2011 .

[5]  L. K. Gohar,et al.  How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change? , 2011 .

[6]  Pierre Friedlingstein,et al.  Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period , 2011 .

[8]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Mitigation implications of midcentury targets that preserve long-term climate policy options , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  L. K. Gohar,et al.  How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? , 2009 .

[10]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets , 2011 .

[11]  K. Calvin,et al.  The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300 , 2011 .

[12]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[13]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[14]  V. Brovkin,et al.  Atmospheric lifetime of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide , 2009 .

[15]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison , 2012, Climatic Change.

[16]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets—Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century , 2009 .

[17]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy , 2009, Science.

[18]  Jacob Schewe,et al.  Climate change under a scenario near 1.5 °C of global warming: monsoon intensification, ocean warming and steric sea level rise , 2010 .

[19]  Terry Barker and S. Serban Scrieciu,et al.  Modeling Low Climate Stabilization with E3MG:1 Towards a ‘New Economics’ Approach to Simulating Energy-Environment-Economy System Dynamics , 2010 .

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

[21]  María Paz Espinosa,et al.  Supply Function Competition in the Spanish Wholesale Electricity Market , 2010 .

[22]  T. Delworth,et al.  Probing the Fast and Slow Components of Global Warming by Returning Abruptly to Preindustrial Forcing , 2010 .

[23]  E. Stehfest,et al.  RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C , 2011 .

[24]  Julia C. Hargreaves,et al.  Long-term climate commitments projected with climate-carbon cycle models , 2008 .

[25]  J. Edmonds,et al.  2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century , 2009 .

[26]  K. Lindgren,et al.  The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) , 2010 .

[27]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne , 2009, Nature.

[28]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The emissions gap report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2° C or 1.5° C? , 2010 .

[29]  T. Wigley,et al.  Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 - Part 1: Model description and calibration , 2011 .

[30]  H. Damon Matthews,et al.  The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions , 2009, Nature.

[31]  Maryse Labriet,et al.  Deterministic and stochastic analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes , 2009 .