A multimodel analysis of post-Glasgow climate targets and feasibility challenges

[1]  D. V. van Vuuren,et al.  Achieving net‐zero emissions targets: An analysis of long‐term scenarios using an integrated assessment model , 2023, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[2]  M. Tavoni,et al.  Glasgow to Paris—The impact of the Glasgow commitments for the Paris climate agreement , 2023, iScience.

[3]  H. Doukas,et al.  Expert perceptions of game-changing innovations towards net zero , 2023, Energy Strategy Reviews.

[4]  P. Stern,et al.  Feasible climate mitigation , 2022, Nature Climate Change.

[5]  L. Gohar,et al.  Post COP26: does the 1.5°C climate target remain alive? , 2022, Weather.

[6]  H. Mcjeon,et al.  Ratcheting of climate pledges needed to limit peak global warming , 2022, Nature Climate Change.

[7]  Alexander J. M. Kell,et al.  MUSE: An open-source agent-based integrated assessment modelling framework , 2022, Energy Strategy Reviews.

[8]  T. Lenton,et al.  Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points , 2022, Science.

[9]  P. Stern,et al.  The science of mitigation: Closing the gap between potential and actual reduction of environmental threats , 2022, Energy Research & Social Science.

[10]  C. Kemfert,et al.  The expansion of natural gas infrastructure puts energy transitions at risk , 2022, Nature Energy.

[11]  M. Meinshausen,et al.  Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C , 2022, Nature.

[12]  Neil Grant,et al.  The Paris Agreement’s ratcheting mechanism needs strengthening 4-fold to keep 1.5°C alive , 2022, Joule.

[13]  J. Rogelj,et al.  An emission pathway classification reflecting the Paris Agreement climate objectives , 2022, Communications Earth & Environment.

[14]  P. Fragkos,et al.  Updated nationally determined contributions collectively raise ambition levels but need strengthening further to keep Paris goals within reach , 2021, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[15]  Antonio Soria,et al.  Global and Regional Energy and Employment Transition Implied by Climate Policy Pledges , 2022, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[16]  G. Peters,et al.  A multi-model analysis of long-term emissions and warming implications of current mitigation efforts , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[17]  James R. McFarland,et al.  Can updated climate pledges limit warming well below 2°C? , 2021, Science.

[18]  A. Hawkes,et al.  The policy implications of an uncertain carbon dioxide removal potential , 2021, Joule.

[19]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Wave of net zero emission targets opens window to meeting the Paris Agreement , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[20]  K. Riahi,et al.  A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios , 2021, Environmental Research Letters.

[21]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal , 2021, Environmental Research Letters.

[22]  G. Peters,et al.  Challenges in the harmonisation of global integrated assessment models: A comprehensive methodology to reduce model response heterogeneity. , 2021, The Science of the total environment.

[23]  Alexandros Nikas,et al.  Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate science in Europe , 2021, Energy.

[24]  S. Fankhauser,et al.  Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[25]  Ajay Gambhir,et al.  The appropriate use of reference scenarios in mitigation analysis , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[26]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Silicone v1.0.0: an open-source Python package for inferring missing emissions data for climate change research , 2020, Geoscientific Model Development.

[27]  G. Luderer,et al.  Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement , 2020, Nature Communications.

[28]  Glen P. Peters,et al.  Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading , 2020, Nature.

[29]  T. Lenton,et al.  Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against , 2019, Nature.

[30]  Aleh Cherp,et al.  On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C? , 2019, WIREs Climate Change.

[31]  Pete Smith,et al.  A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS , 2019, Energies.

[32]  Nada Maamoun,et al.  The Kyoto protocol: Empirical evidence of a hidden success , 2019, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

[33]  M. Obersteiner,et al.  On the financial viability of negative emissions , 2019, Nature Communications.

[34]  J. Canadell,et al.  Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[35]  P. Kyle,et al.  GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems , 2019, Geoscientific Model Development.

[36]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Energy system changes in 1.5 °C, well below 2 °C and 2 °C scenarios , 2019, Energy Strategy Reviews.

[37]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A methodology and implementation of automated emissions harmonization for use in Integrated Assessment Models , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..

[38]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals , 2018, Nature Energy.

[39]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[40]  E. Chu,et al.  Political feasibility of 1.5°C societal transformations: the role of social justice , 2018 .

[41]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[42]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects , 2018 .

[43]  G. Luderer,et al.  Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment , 2018 .

[44]  Meng Li,et al.  Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS) , 2017 .

[45]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity of projected long-term CO2 emissions across the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[46]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Assessing the Feasibility of Global Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios , 2017 .

[47]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals , 2017 .

[48]  Roger Fouquet,et al.  Historical energy transitions: Speed, prices and system transformation ☆ , 2016 .

[49]  K. Keramidas,et al.  A global stocktake of the Paris pledges: Implications for energy systems and economy , 2016 .

[50]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C , 2016, Nature.

[51]  Kenichi Wada,et al.  A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: Rejoinder to the review of "Making or breaking climate targets - The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy" , 2015 .

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

[53]  A. Markandya,et al.  Routledge handbook of the economics of climate change adaptation , 2014 .

[54]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[55]  Alain Bernard,et al.  GEMINI-E3, a general equilibrium model of international–national interactions between economy, energy and the environment , 2008, Comput. Manag. Sci..

[56]  Maryse Labriet,et al.  ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: Model structure , 2008, Comput. Manag. Sci..