Why the timing of climate assessments matters

Fabrice Lambert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03156-0

IF: 64.8

2024-10-01

Nature

Abstract:The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris agreement must align their schedules — or progress will slip. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris agreement must align their schedules — or progress will slip.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Timing Is Everything: How Economists Can Better Address the Urgency of Stronger Climate Policy

Lawrence H Goulder,Lawrence H. Goulder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez014

IF: 7.0481

2020-01-01

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

Abstract:Building on recent consensus findings from climate scientists, this article argues that stronger policy action to address global climate change is urgent. The article indicates how economists can better address this urgency and thereby contribute more effectively to climate policy discussions. Greater effectiveness requires that economists focus their policy assessments more sharply on the timing of policy implementation and the environmental and economic costs of delayed implementation. The article also shows that focusing more on the prospects for near-term implementation can alter the cost rankings of U.S. climate policy alternatives, increasing the attractiveness of some climate policy approaches that economists might otherwise tend to dismiss.

economics,environmental studies
The Paris Agreement: Destined to Succeed or Doomed to Fail?

Oran R. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.635

2016-01-01

Politics and Governance

Abstract:Is the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change destined to succeed or doomed to fail? If all the pledges embedded in the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are implemented fully, temperatures at the Earth’s surface are predicted to rise by 3–4 °C, far above the agreement’s goal of limiting increases to 1.5 °C. This means that the fate of the agreement will be determined by the success of efforts to strengthen or ratchet up the commitments contained in the national pledges over time. The first substantive section of this essay provides a general account of mechanisms for ratcheting up commitments and conditions determining the use of these mechanisms in international environmental agreements. The second section applies this analysis to the specific case of the Paris Agreement. The conclusion is mixed. There are plenty of reasons to doubt whether the Paris Agreement will succeed in moving from strength to strength in a fashion resembling experience with the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances. Nevertheless, there is more room for hope in this regard than those who see the climate problem as unusually malign, wicked, or even diabolical are willing to acknowledge.
Evaluation and performance prospect analysis of Paris Agreement by foreign academic circles

WANG Yu-he,ZHANG Hai-bin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12062/cpre.20170503

2017-01-01

China Population Resources and Environment

Abstract:Paris Agreement's taking into effect in 2016 is an important milestone in the global environment governance and an important step in the difficult process of responding to climate change for the international society,which marks that the global environmental governance has entered the stage of implementation.Based on the 2015 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report issued by Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of University of Pennsylvania,this paper selects the reports of top 10 international environmental think-tanks and related papers of representative scholars in this field,gives a systematic introduction of performance analysis of the prospects for the Paris Agreement by foreign academic circles and makes a brief comment about this topic.At the same time of confirming the Paris Agreement's role of promoting international climate govemance,this paper also points out that under the new international situation,especially the official start of Brexit and Trump as the new US president.There are many challenges and uncertainty in the implementation process inside and outside the agreement.The basic conclusion is as follows:First,it faces challenges inside the agreement,including domestic approval process challenges for the parties of the agreement,realization of INDCs and the capacity building in developing countries,prospect of 2℃ temperature rise goal,effectiveness of review and assessment,and whether the carbon market can run effectively.Second,it faces uncertainty outside the agreement,potential climate policy change and influence of Brexit,and potential change of US climate policy and its impact.Based on the analysis of think-tank reports and related papers above,the authors conclude some thinking on the performance of Paris Agreement:① Face the opportunities and challenges of international climate cooperation.②Have confidence in the specific issues.③View the potential change of Britain and US climate policy rationally.④ Encourage the cooperation of non-government actors besides the international environmental organizations.Therefore,we should face up to the opportunities and challenges in the implementation process and make full preparation so as to ensure the smooth completion of the implementation process.In all,the performance prospect of Paris Agreement is not optimistic and the international community still has a long way to go.
Points of No Return to Respect the Paris Agreement

Thomas Bossy,Thomas Gasser,Philippe Ciais,Katsumasa Tanaka,Franck Lecocq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-1075

2022-01-01

Abstract:The physical reality of the Earth system implies that there are clear conditions to respect the Paris agreement, or to limit any climate impact below a certain level. To be policy relevant, these conditions should be expressed in terms of emission targets, such as peaking date, budget, or annual value of global CO2 emissions. They have been explored by the IPCC using integrated assessment models. However, past work has focused on bottom-up scenarios, and on temperature as the only metric evaluating climate impacts, even though not all impacts are linearly related to it.Here, we show that for these emission targets, across thousands of scenarios we have generated, there are points of no return after which limiting a given climate impact becomes geophysically infeasible. In addition to the Paris Agreement objectives (consisting of a 1.5 °C temperature target above pre-industrial (PI) era possibly overshot by no more than 0.5°C), we investigate three other climate targets: ocean acidification, sea-level elevation rate, and Arctic sea-ice melting. We use a newly developed model called PathFinder; a reduced-form carbon-climate model that also emulates the three global climate impacts we investigate. The model is calibrated through Bayesian inference, using outputs from the state-of-the-art CMIP6 models as prior parameters, and the latest IPCC assessment and observations of the Earth system as constraints. This advanced calibration is enabled by the model’s capacity of using temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration as inputs (instead of anthropogenic emissions and non-CO2 radiative forcing).Thanks to this backward approach, we demonstrate that, for every emission target considered, the combination of climate impact targets is non-linear. While the Paris Agreement insists on the importance of reaching a carbon neutral world in 2050, our results show that global CO2 emissions must peak before 2030 but do not have to reach net-zero to keep all targets reachable with at least 50% chances. We also highlight the inevitable role of geoengineering technologies in reaching the Paris Agreement, as chances to keep it reachable goes from at least 69% if SRM or CDR are available to 10% if none of them is.
Exploring Global Climate Policy Futures and Their Representation in Integrated Assessment Models

Thomas Hickmann,Christoph Bertram,Frank Biermann,Elina Brutschin,Elmar Kriegler,Jasmine E. Livingston,Silvia Pianta,Keywan Riahi,Bas Van Ruijven,Detlef Van Vuuren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5328

2022-09-21

Politics and Governance

Abstract:The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, paved the way for a new hybrid global climate governance architecture with both bottom-up and top-down elements. While governments can choose individual climate goals and actions, a global stocktake and a ratcheting-up mechanism have been put in place with the overall aim to ensure that collective efforts will prevent increasing adverse impacts of climate change. Integrated assessment models show that current combined climate commitments and policies of national governments fall short of keeping global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Although major greenhouse gas emitters, such as China, the European Union, India, the United States under the Biden administration, and several other countries, have made new pledges to take more ambitious climate action, it is highly uncertain where global climate policy is heading. Scenarios in line with long-term temperature targets typically assume a simplistic and hardly realistic level of harmonization of climate policies across countries. Against this backdrop, this article develops four archetypes for the further evolution of the global climate governance architecture and matches them with existing sets of scenarios developed by integrated assessment models. By these means, the article identifies knowledge gaps in the current scenario literature and discusses possible research avenues to explore the pre-conditions for successful coordination of national policies towards achieving the long-term target stipulated in the Paris Agreement.

political science
Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement

Mark Roelfsema,Heleen L. van Soest,Mathijs Harmsen,Detlef P. van Vuuren,Christoph Bertram,Michel den Elzen,Niklas Höhne,Gabriela Iacobuta,Volker Krey,Elmar Kriegler,Gunnar Luderer,Keywan Riahi,Falko Ueckerdt,Jacques Després,Laurent Drouet,Johannes Emmerling,Stefan Frank,Oliver Fricko,Matthew Gidden,Florian Humpenöder,Daniel Huppmann,Shinichiro Fujimori,Kostas Fragkiadakis,Keii Gi,Kimon Keramidas,Alexandre C. Köberle,Lara Aleluia Reis,Pedro Rochedo,Roberto Schaeffer,Ken Oshiro,Zoi Vrontisi,Wenying Chen,Gokul C. Iyer,Jae Edmonds,Maria Kannavou,Kejun Jiang,Ritu Mathur,George Safonov,Saritha Sudharmma Vishwanathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6

IF: 16.6

2020-04-29

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO 2 eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries.

multidisciplinary sciences
Lessons from past mitigation efforts

Nada Maamoun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01991-7

IF: 30.7

2024-04-17

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:International cooperation is essential to mitigate climate change, yet it comes with challenges that often hinder countries from achieving their climate targets. Now, a study shows that timely monitoring and review of national climate mitigation efforts are essential for the Paris Agreement to accomplish its targets.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
A well-timed switch from local to global agreements accelerates climate change mitigation

Vadim A. Karatayev,Vítor V. Vasconcelos,Anne-Sophie Lafuite,Simon A. Levin,Chris T. Bauch,Madhur Anand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.13238

2020-07-26

Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems

Abstract:Recent attempts at cooperating on climate change mitigation highlight the limited efficacy of large-scale agreements, when commitment to mitigation is costly and initially rare. Bottom-up approaches using region-specific mitigation agreements promise greater success, at the cost of slowing global adoption. Here, we show that a well-timed switch from regional to global negotiations dramatically accelerates climate mitigation compared to using only local, only global, or both agreement types simultaneously. This highlights the scale-specific roles of mitigation incentives: local incentives capitalize on regional differences (e.g., where recent disasters incentivize mitigation) by committing early-adopting regions, after which global agreements draw in late-adopting regions. We conclude that global agreements are key to overcoming the expenses of mitigation and economic rivalry among regions but should be attempted once regional agreements are common. Gradually up-scaling efforts could likewise accelerate mitigation at smaller scales, for instance when costly ecosystem restoration initially faces limited public and legislative support.
Extending Near‐Term Emissions Scenarios to Assess Warming Implications of Paris Agreement NDCs

Bill Hare,Johannes Gütschow,Michiel Schaeffer,Mairi Louise Jeffery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000781

2019-10-03

Abstract:Abstract In the Paris Agreement countries have agreed to act together to hold global warming well below 2°C over preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. To assess if the world is on track to meet this long‐term temperature goal, countries' pledged emissions reductions (Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs) need to be analyzed for their implied warming. Several research groups and nongovernmental organizations have estimated this warming and arrived at very different results but have invariably concluded that the current pledges are inadequate to hold warming below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. In this paper we analyze different methods to estimate 2100 global mean temperature rise implied by countries' NDCs, which often only specify commitments until 2030. We present different methods to extend near‐term emissions pathways that have been developed by the authors or used by different research groups and nongovernmental organizations to estimate 21st century warming consequences of Paris Agreement commitments. The abilities of these methods to project both low and high warming scenarios in line with the scenario literature is assessed. We find that the simpler methods are not suitable for temperature projections while more complex methods can produce results consistent with the energy and economic scenario literature. We further find that some methods can have a strong high or low temperature bias depending on parameter choices. The choice of methods to evaluate the consistency of aggregated NDC commitments is very important for reviewing progress toward the Paris Agreement's long‐term temperature goal.
Do you manage what you measure? Investor views on the question of climate actions with empirical results from the Swiss pension fund and insurance sector

Jakob Thomä,Clare Murray,Vincent Jerosch-Herold,Janina Magdanz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2019.1673142

2019-10-10

Abstract:Despite the political mandate of Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement (United Nations 2015. 'Adoption of the Paris Agreement.' 21st Conference of the Parties, Paris, United Nations, 2) to align finance flows 'with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development,' many investors do not manage physical and transitional climate risks. The Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures' 2019 Status Report highlighted this asymmetry. The following paperseeks to evaluate the efficacy of informing investors about the alignment of their portfolios with the Paris Agreement. Based on survey feedback from a 2017 pilot study conducted with Swiss pension funds and insurance companies, the results suggest that after the pilot 40% of respondents implemented a climate strategy or integrated climate criteria into their investment process, showing the potential impact of climate assessments on portfolio strategy. This fact affirms both the positives of portfolio climate assessments, but also the need to explore alternatives avenues for engaging with investors regarding climate risks.
Ten new insights in climate science 2023

Mercedes Bustamante,Joyashree Roy,Daniel Ospina,Ploy Achakulwisut,Anubha Aggarwal,Ana Bastos,Wendy Broadgate,Josep G. Canadell,Edward R. Carr,Deliang Chen,Helen A. Cleugh,Kristie L. Ebi,Clea Edwards,Carol Farbotko,Marcos Fernandez-Martinez,Thomas L. Froelicher,Sabine Fuss,Oliver Geden,Nicolas Gruber,Luke J. Harrington,Judith Hauck,Zeke Hausfather,Sophie Hebden,Aniek Hebinck,Saleemul Huq,Matthias Huss,M. Laurice P. Jamero,Sirkku Juhola,Nilushi Kumarasinghe,Shuaib Lwasa,Bishawjit Mallick,Maria Martin,Steven Mcgreevy,Paula Mirazo,Aditi Mukherji,Greg Muttitt,Gregory F. Nemet,David Obura,Chukwumerije Okereke,Tom Oliver,Ben Orlove,Nadia S. Ouedraogo,Prabir K. Patra,Mark Pelling,Laura M. Pereira,Asa Persson,Julia Pongratz,Anjal Prakash,Anja Rammig,Colin Raymond,Aaron Redman,Cristobal Reveco,Johan Rockstroem,Regina Rodrigues,David R. Rounce,E. Lisa F. Schipper,Peter Schlosser,Odirilwe Selomane,Gregor Semieniuk,Yunne-Jai Shin,Tasneem A. Siddiqui,Vartika Singh,Giles B. Sioen,Youba Sokona,Detlef Stammer,Norman J. Steinert,Sunhee Suk,Rowan Sutton,Lisa Thalheimer,Vikki Thompson,Gregory Trencher,Kees van der Geest,Saskia E. Werners,Thea Wuebbelmann,Nico Wunderling,Jiabo Yin,Kirsten Zickfeld,Jakob Zscheischler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.25

2023-01-01

Global Sustainability

Abstract:Non-technical summary We identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5 degrees C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems.Technical summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5 degrees C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.Social media summary We highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research - with input from more than 200 experts.
Global temperature goals should determine the time horizons for greenhouse gas emission metrics

Sam Abernethy,Robert B Jackson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4940

IF: 6.7

2022-02-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Abstract Emission metrics, a crucial tool in setting effective exchange rates between greenhouse gases, currently require an arbitrary choice of time horizon. Here, we propose a novel framework to calculate the time horizon that aligns with scenarios achieving a specific temperature goal. We analyze the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C Scenario Database to find that time horizons aligning with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming goals of the Paris Agreement are 24 [90% prediction interval: 7, 41] and 58 [90% PI: 41, 74] years, respectively. We then use these time horizons to quantify time-dependent emission metrics for methane. We find that the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values that align with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C goals are GWP 1.5 °C = 75 [90% PI: 54, 107] and GWP 2 °C = 42 [90% PI: 35, 54]. For the Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) they are GTP 1.5 °C = 41 [90% PI: 16, 102] and GTP 2 °C = 9 [90% PI: 7, 16]. The most commonly used time horizon, 100 years, underestimates methane’s GWP and GTP by 34% and 38%, respectively, relative to the values we calculate that align with the 2 °C goal and by 63% and 87%, respectively, relative to the 1.5 °C goal. To best align emission metrics with the Paris Agreement 1.5 °C goal, we recommend a 24 year time horizon, using 2045 as the endpoint time, with its associated GWP 1.5 °C = 75 and GTP 1.5 °C = 41.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2023/2024

Mercedes Bustamante,Joyashree Roy,Daniel Ospina,Ploy Achakulwisut,Anubha Aggarwal,Ana Bastos,Wendy Broadgate,Josep G. Canadell,Edward R. Carr,Deliang Chen,Helen Cleugh,Kristie L. Ebi,Clea Edwards,Carol Farbotko,Marcos Fernández‐Martínez,Thomas L. Frölicher,Sabine Fuss,Oliver Geden,Nicolas Gruber,Luke J. Harrington,Judith Hauck,Zeke Hausfather,Sophie Hebden,Aniek Hebinck,Saleemul Huq,Matthias Huss,Ma. Laurice Jamero,Sirkku Juhola,Nilushi Kumarasinghe,Shuaib Lwasa,Bishawjit Mallick,Maria A. Martin,Steven R. McGreevy,Paula Mirazo,Aditi Mukherji,Greg Muttitt,Gregory F. Nemet,David Obura,Chukwumerije Okereke,Tom H. Oliver,Ben Orlove,Nadia S. Ouédraogo,Prabir K. Patra,Mark Pelling,Laura Pereira,Åsa Persson,Julia Pongratz,Anjal Prakash,Anja Rammig,Colin Raymond,Aaron Redman,Cristobal Reveco,Johan Rockström,Regina R. Rodrigues,David R. Rounce,E. Lisa F. Schipper,Peter Schlösser,Odirilwe Selomane,Gregor Semieniuk,Yunne‐Jai Shin,Tasneem A. Siddiqui,Vartika Singh,Giles B. Sioen,Youba Sokona,Detlef Stammer,Norman Julius Steinert,Sunhee Suk,Rowan Sutton,Lisa Thalheimer,Vikki Thompson,Gregory Trencher,Kees van der Geest,S.E. Werners,Thea Wübbelmann,Nico Wunderling,Jiabo Yin,Kirsten Zickfeld,Jakob Zscheischler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.25

2023-01-01

Global Sustainability

Abstract:Non-technical summary We identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. Technical summary The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Social media summary We highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research – with input from more than 200 experts.
From science to policy: how can research community contribute to the reporting and verification needs under the Paris Agreement?

Lucia Perugini,Guido Pellis,Giacomo Grassi,Philippe Ciais,Han Dolman,Joanna I. House,Glen Peters,Pete Smith,Dirk Günter,Philippe Peylin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-8683

2020-01-01

Abstract:The time for action on the Paris Agreement is upon us, requiring all signatory countries to have a robust reporting and accounting system that is transparent, accurate, complete, consistent and comparable (through the Enhanced Transparency Framework), with a periodical review of the collective achievement of the 2&#176;C temperature goal (the Global Stocktake). The research community is therefore called to reinforce databases and methodologies to improve national greenhouse gas inventory estimates, especially for developing countries that are subject to new reporting obligations, but also to define a comparable scientific &#8220;benchmark" to assess the achievement of the Paris Agreement goal.Despite the key role of science in the process, often research communities working on emission statistics have approached the problem of climate change through different angles and by using terminologies, metrics, rules and approaches (e.g. spatial and temporal scales) that do not always match with those used by the inventory communities. Within the VERIFY project (Horizon 2020, grant agreement No 776810) a networking between the two communities (research and inventory) has been established. The discussion between them highlighted the importance of a continue exchange to increase the mutual understanding of needs, terms, rules, procedures and guidelines in use, especially those adopted under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement process.The presentation will therefore guide the researchers through the monitoring, reporting and verification frameworks under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, identifying how and where science production can assist the inventory communities in improving greenhouse gasses estimations and verification systems. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry is the most complicate sector to deal with because of intricacy of flux attribution (that can be both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic) and methodological complexity, affected also by common misunderstandings in the use of terminologies and different definitions.&#160;On the basis of the available literature and the outcomes of the work undertaken under VERIFY project, we provide an analysis on the possible critical issues and main misunderstanding that could arise, identifying options on how to solve them.
Uncertain Pathways to a Future Safe Climate

S. C. Sherwood,G. Hegerl,P. Braconnot,P. Friedlingstein,H. Goelzer,N. R. P. Harris,E. Holland,H. Kim,M. Mitchell,T. Naish,P. Nobre,B. L. Otto‐Bliesner,K. A. Reed,J. Renwick,N. P. M. van der Wel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023ef004297

2024-06-08

Earth's Future

Abstract:Global climate change is often thought of as a steady and approximately predictable physical response to increasing forcings, which then requires commensurate adaptation. But adaptation has practical, cultural and biological limits, and climate change may pose unanticipated global hazards, sudden changes or other surprises–as may societal adaptation and mitigation responses. These poorly known factors could substantially affect the urgency of mitigation as well as adaptation decisions. We outline a strategy for better accommodating these challenges by making climate science more integrative, in order to identify and quantify known and novel physical risks including those arising from interactions with ecosystems and society. We need to do this even–or especially–when they are highly uncertain, and to explore risks and opportunities associated with mitigation and adaptation responses by engaging across disciplines. We argue that upcoming climate assessments need to be more risk‐aware, and suggest ways of achieving this. These strategies improve the chances of anticipating potential surprises and identifying and communicating "safe landing" pathways that meet UN Sustainable Development Goals and guide humanity toward a better future.

geosciences, multidisciplinary,environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

Piers M. Forster,Christopher J. Smith,Tristram Walsh,William F. Lamb,Robin Lamboll,Mathias Hauser,Aurélien Ribes,Debbie Rosen,Nathan Gillett,Matthew D. Palmer,Joeri Rogelj,Karina von Schuckmann,Sonia I. Seneviratne,Blair Trewin,Xuebin Zhang,Myles Allen,Robbie Andrew,Arlene Birt,Alex Borger,Tim Boyer,Jiddu A. Broersma,Lijing Cheng,Frank Dentener,Pierre Friedlingstein,José M. Gutiérrez,Johannes Gütschow,Bradley Hall,Masayoshi Ishii,Stuart Jenkins,Xin Lan,June-Yi Lee,Colin Morice,Christopher Kadow,John Kennedy,Rachel Killick,Jan C. Minx,Vaishali Naik,Glen P. Peters,Anna Pirani,Julia Pongratz,Carl-Friedrich Schleussner,Sophie Szopa,Peter Thorne,Robert Rohde,Maisa Rojas Corradi,Dominik Schumacher,Russell Vose,Kirsten Zickfeld,Valérie Masson-Delmotte,Panmao Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023

IF: 11.4

2023-06-08

Earth System Science Data

Abstract:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement that will conclude at COP28 in December 2023. Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles.

geosciences, multidisciplinary,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement

Lambert Schneider,Stephanie La Hoz Theuer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1521332

2018-09-21

Climate Policy

Abstract:The Paris Agreement establishes provisions for using international carbon market mechanisms to achieve climate mitigation contributions. Environmental integrity is a key principle for using such mechanisms under the Agreement. This paper systematically identifies and categorizes issues and options to achieve environmental integrity, including how it could be defined, what influences it, and what approaches could mitigate environmental integrity risks. Here, environmental integrity is assumed to be ensured if the engagement in international transfers of carbon market units leads to the same or lower aggregated global emissions. Four factors are identified that influence environmental integrity: the accounting for international transfers; the quality of units generated, i.e. whether the mechanism ensures that the issuance or transfer of units leads to emission reductions in the transferring country; the ambition and scope of the mitigation target of the transferring country; and incentives or disincentives for future mitigation action, such as possible disincentives for transferring countries to define future mitigation targets less ambitiously or more narrowly in order to sell more units. It is recommended that policy-makers combine several approaches to address the significant risks to environmental integrity. Key policy insights Robust accounting is a key prerequisite for ensuring environmental integrity. The diversity of nationally determined contributions is an important challenge, in particular for avoiding double counting and for ensuring that the accounting for international transfers is representative for the mitigation efforts by Parties over time.Unit quality can, in theory, be ensured through appropriate design of carbon market mechanisms; in practice, existing mechanisms face considerable challenges in ensuring unit quality. Unit quality could be promoted through guidance under Paris Agreement Article 6, and reporting and review under Article 13.The ambition and scope of mitigation targets is key for the incentive for transferring countries to ensure unit quality because countries with ambitious and economy-wide targets would have to compensate for any transfer of units that lack quality. Encouraging countries to adopt ambitious and economy-wide NDC targets would therefore facilitate achieving environmental integrity.Restricting transfers in instances of high environmental integrity risk – through eligibility criteria or limits – could complement these approaches. Robust accounting is a key prerequisite for ensuring environmental integrity. The diversity of nationally determined contributions is an important challenge, in particular for avoiding double counting and for ensuring that the accounting for international transfers is representative for the mitigation efforts by Parties over time. Unit quality can, in theory, be ensured through appropriate design of carbon market mechanisms; in practice, existing mechanisms face considerable challenges in ensuring unit quality. Unit quality could be promoted through guidance under Paris Agreement Article 6, and reporting and review under Article 13. The ambition and scope of mitigation targets is key for the incentive for transferring countries to ensure unit quality because countries with ambitious and economy-wide targets would have to compensate for any transfer of units that lack quality. Encouraging countries to adopt ambitious and economy-wide NDC targets would therefore facilitate achieving environmental integrity. Restricting transfers in instances of high environmental integrity risk – through eligibility criteria or limits – could complement these approaches.

environmental studies,public administration
Determining the credibility of commitments in international climate policy

David G. Victor,Marcel Lumkowsky,Astrid Dannenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01454-x

IF: 30.7

2022-09-01

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Abstract The Paris Agreement on climate change aims to improve cooperation by allowing governments to set their own commitments. Its success hinges on whether governments and investors believe those national commitments. To assess credibility, we interrogate a large novel sample of climate policy elites with decades of experience and well-placed to evaluate whether nations’ policy pledges are aligned with what they are politically and administratively able to implement. This expert assessment reveals that countries making the boldest pledges are also making the most credible pledges, contrasting theoretical warnings of a trade-off between ambition and credibility. We find that the quality of national political institutions is the largest explanator of the variation in credibility, and Europe’s credibility is exceptionally high. We also find that economic factors, such as the costs and benefits of controlling emissions, are statistically unimportant in explaining the credibility of national pledges to cooperate.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Three Models of Global Climate Governance: From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond

David Held,Charles Roger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12617

2018-11-01

Global Policy

Abstract:Abstract The Paris Agreement has emerged as one of the world's most important international treaties. Many believe that it offers a new approach to the problem of climate change, can contribute significantly to the goal of reducing emissions, and may hold lessons for how to govern other cross‐border issues. As a result, it has been the focus of considerable debate among scholars and policy makers. But how precisely does Paris seek to govern global warming and is it likely to work in practice? We address this question by contrasting the Paris ‘model’ of climate governance with earlier ones associated with the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord. These models have taken different approaches to the problem of governing climate change, each with attendant advantages and limitations. The Paris model advances upon earlier efforts in certain respects, but also blends elements from earlier models. We then lay out the central axes of the debate that has emerged about the future of the Paris model, and discuss research illuminating how it may operate in practice. The agreement's success will depend on how the agreement is implemented, and on how the UNFCCC process interacts with the complementary approaches to climate governance appearing beyond it. In many countries across the world, political leaders are now promising that by putting their nation first and ending intrusive international agreements and regimes, they can establish a new era of national greatness. Such forces may, in the future, constitute one of the most significant threats to the success of the Paris model, as well as other areas of international cooperation.

political science,international relations

Why the timing of climate assessments matters

Timing Is Everything: How Economists Can Better Address the Urgency of Stronger Climate Policy

The Paris Agreement: Destined to Succeed or Doomed to Fail?

Evaluation and performance prospect analysis of Paris Agreement by foreign academic circles

Points of No Return to Respect the Paris Agreement

Exploring Global Climate Policy Futures and Their Representation in Integrated Assessment Models

Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement

Lessons from past mitigation efforts

A well-timed switch from local to global agreements accelerates climate change mitigation

Extending Near‐Term Emissions Scenarios to Assess Warming Implications of Paris Agreement NDCs

Do you manage what you measure? Investor views on the question of climate actions with empirical results from the Swiss pension fund and insurance sector

Ten new insights in climate science 2023

Global temperature goals should determine the time horizons for greenhouse gas emission metrics

Ten New Insights in Climate Science 2023/2024

From science to policy: how can research community contribute to the reporting and verification needs under the Paris Agreement?

Uncertain Pathways to a Future Safe Climate

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement

Determining the credibility of commitments in international climate policy

Three Models of Global Climate Governance: From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond