Global mitigation efforts cannot neglect emerging emitters

Abstract International efforts to avoid dangerous climate change have historically focused on reducing energy-related CO2 emissions from countries with either the largest economies (e.g. the EU and the USA) and/or the largest populations (e.g. China and India). However, in recent years, emissions have surged among a different and much less-examined group of countries, raising concerns that a next generation of high-emitting economies will obviate current mitigation targets. Here, we analyse the trends and drivers of emissions in each of the 59 countries where emissions in 2010–2018 grew faster than the global average (excluding China and India), project their emissions under a range of longer-term energy scenarios and estimate the costs of decarbonization pathways. Total emissions from these ‘emerging emitters’ reach as much as 7.5 GtCO2/year in the baseline 2.5° scenario—substantially greater than the emissions from these regions in previously published scenarios that would limit warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C. Such unanticipated emissions would in turn require non-emitting energy deployment from all sectors within these emerging emitters, and faster and deeper reductions in emissions from other countries to meet international climate goals. Moreover, the annual costs of keeping emissions at the low level are in many cases 0.2%–4.1% of countries’ gross domestic production, pointing to potential trade-offs with poverty-reduction goals and/or the need for economic support and low-carbon technology transfer from historically high-emitting countries. Our results thus highlight the critical importance of ramping up mitigation efforts in countries that to this point have been largely ignored.

[1]  Ipcc Global Warming of 1.5°C , 2022 .

[2]  E. Verdolini,et al.  Comparing expert elicitation and model-based probabilistic technology cost forecasts for the energy transition , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  K. Riahi,et al.  A framework for national scenarios with varying emission reductions , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[4]  M. Meinshausen,et al.  Country-resolved combined emission and socio-economic pathways based on the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) and Shared Socio-Economic Pathway (SSP) scenarios , 2021, Earth System Science Data.

[5]  Jérôme Hilaire,et al.  Air quality and health implications of 1.5 °C–2 °C climate pathways under considerations of ageing population: a multi-model scenario analysis , 2021, Environmental Research Letters.

[6]  K. Hubacek,et al.  Impacts of COVID-19 and fiscal stimuli on global emissions and the Paris Agreement , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[7]  W. Winiwarter,et al.  Reducing global air pollution: the scope for further policy interventions , 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

[8]  Matthew W. Jones,et al.  Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[9]  S. Davis,et al.  Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target , 2019, Nature.

[10]  B. Belton,et al.  Rural transformation in central Myanmar: By how much, and for whom? , 2019, Journal of Rural Studies.

[11]  Heleen de Coninck,et al.  Technical Summary. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways , 2018 .

[12]  World energy balance , 2018 .

[13]  M. Rosegrant,et al.  Ethiopian energy status and demand scenarios: Prospects to improve energy efficiency and mitigate GHG emissions , 2018 .

[14]  Wolfgang Lutz,et al.  The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100 , 2017, Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions.

[15]  B. W. Ang,et al.  LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation , 2015 .

[16]  Steven J. Davis,et al.  Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997–2013 , 2015, Nature Communications.

[17]  E. Oczkowski,et al.  Has foreign investment played a role in Mongolia's export success? , 2015 .

[18]  P. F. González,et al.  The driving forces behind changes in CO2 emission levels in EU-27. Differences between member states , 2014 .

[19]  Klaus Hubacek,et al.  Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in developing countries: A scenario analysis for China and India , 2007 .

[20]  J. Canadell,et al.  Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  B. W. Ang,et al.  The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide , 2005 .

[22]  M. Kainuma,et al.  SSP3: AIM implementation of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[23]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[24]  B. O’Neill,et al.  Global urbanization projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[25]  M. Strubegger,et al.  The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[26]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Future growth patterns of world regions – A GDP scenario approach , 2017 .

[27]  Jesus Crespo Cuaresma,et al.  Income projections for climate change research: A framework based on human capital dynamics , 2017 .

[28]  K. Calvin,et al.  Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[29]  Jean Chateau,et al.  Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[30]  Kyunam Kim,et al.  Electricity-generation mix considering energy security and carbon emission mitigation: Case of Korea and Mongolia , 2014 .

[31]  Olivia Freeman,et al.  Talking points personal outcomes approach: practical guide. , 2012 .

[32]  P. Mahadevan,et al.  An overview , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.