From Targets to Action: Rolling up our Sleeves after Paris

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015 ambitious targets for responding to the threat of climate change have been set: limiting global temperature increase to “well below 2 °C […] and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C”. However, calculating the CO2 budget for 1.5 °C, it becomes clear that there is nearly no room left for future emissions. Scenarios suggest that negative emission technologies will play an even more important role for 1.5 °C than they already play for 2 °C. Especially against this background the feasibility of the target(s) is hotly debated, but this debate does not initiate the next steps that are urgently needed. Already the negotiations have featured the move from targets to implementation which is needed in the coming decade. Most importantly, there is an urgent need to develop and implement instruments that incentivize the rapid decarbonization. Moreover, it needs to be worked out how to link the climate and development agenda and prevent a buildup of coal power causing lock‐in effects. Short term entry points into climate policy should now be in the focus instead of the fruitless debate on the feasibility of targets.

[1]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Betting on negative emissions , 2014 .

[2]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions , 2016 .

[3]  Oliver Geden,et al.  Renegotiating the global climate stabilization target , 2014 .

[4]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  King Coal and the queen of subsidies , 2015, Science.

[5]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Implications of climate change mitigation for sustainable development , 2016 .

[6]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options , 2014, Climatic Change.

[7]  Michael O'Hare,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2015 , 2015 .

[9]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Carbon Pricing Revenues Could Close Infrastructure Access Gaps , 2016 .

[10]  Karen C. Seto,et al.  Beyond Technology: Demand-Side Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation , 2016 .

[11]  David G. Victor,et al.  Climate policy: Ditch the 2 °C warming goal , 2014, Nature.

[12]  Oliver Geden,et al.  An actionable climate target , 2016 .

[13]  Eric D. Beinhocker,et al.  The ‘2°C capital stock’ for electricity generation: Committed cumulative carbon emissions from the electricity generation sector and the transition to a green economy , 2016 .

[14]  G. Peters The 'best available science' to inform 1.5 [deg]C policy choices , 2016 .

[15]  Fiona Maisels,et al.  Environmental Issues in Central Africa , 2016 .

[16]  G. Luderer,et al.  Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C , 2015 .

[17]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  2 °C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? , 2016 .

[18]  Gunnar Luderer,et al.  Managing the Low-Carbon Transition - From Model Results to Policies , 2010 .

[19]  P. Ekins,et al.  The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2015, Nature.

[20]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled , 2016 .

[21]  A. Grubler,et al.  Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection , 2012 .

[22]  E. Fischer,et al.  Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C , 2015 .

[23]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Drivers for the renaissance of coal , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Mike Hulme,et al.  1.5 [deg]C and climate research after the Paris Agreement , 2016 .

[25]  Kevin Anderson,et al.  Duality in climate science , 2015 .

[26]  E. Schmid,et al.  Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets , 2011 .

[27]  Renee A. Catullo,et al.  A framework for incorporating evolutionary genomics into biodiversity conservation and management , 2015, Climate Change Responses.

[28]  F. Creutzig Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions , 2016 .

[29]  Jeff Tollefson,et al.  Is the 2 °C world a fantasy? , 2015, Nature.

[30]  L. Goulder,et al.  Climate change policy's interactions with the tax system☆ , 2013 .

[31]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets , 2013 .

[32]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Energy and environment. Transport: A roadblock to climate change mitigation? , 2015, Science.

[33]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment , 2015 .

[34]  H. Lotze-Campen,et al.  Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production , 2010 .

[35]  H. Damon Matthews,et al.  A growing commitment to future CO2 emissions , 2014 .

[36]  Steven J. Davis,et al.  Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions , 2013 .