TY - JOUR
T1 - Institutional decarbonization scenarios evaluated against the Paris Agreement 1.5 °C goal
AU - Brecha, Robert J.
AU - Ganti, Gaurav
AU - Lamboll, Robin D.
AU - Nicholls, Zebedee
AU - Hare, Bill
AU - Lewis, Jared
AU - Meinshausen, Malte
AU - Schaeffer, Michiel
AU - Smith, Christopher J.
AU - Gidden, Matthew J.
N1 - Funding Information:
R.J.B. acknowledges support from the EU Horizon 2020 Marie-Curie Fellowship Program (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018, proposal number 838667—INTERACTION). G.G., M.G., M.S., B.H. acknowledge support German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (grant no. 16_II_148_Global_A_IMPACT). RDL acknowledges support from funding from the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 820829 (CONSTRAIN). C.J.S. was supported by a NERC/IIASA Collaborative Research Fellowship (NE/T009381/1). We would like to thank Daniel Huppmann for developing the SR1.5 python notebooks, Yann Robiou du Pont for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript, and Shivika Mittal for discussions on transparency and data issues in IEA scenarios.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/8/16
Y1 - 2022/8/16
N2 - Scientifically rigorous guidance to policy makers on mitigation options for meeting the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal requires an evaluation of long-term global-warming implications of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Here we employ a uniform and transparent methodology to evaluate Paris Agreement compatibility of influential institutional emission scenarios from the grey literature, including those from Shell, BP, and the International Energy Agency. We compare a selection of these scenarios analysed with this methodology to the Integrated Assessment Model scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We harmonize emissions to a consistent base-year and account for all greenhouse gases and aerosol precursor emissions, ensuring a self-consistent comparison of climate variables. An evaluation of peak and end-of-century temperatures is made, with both being relevant to the Paris Agreement goal. Of the scenarios assessed, we find that only the IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario is aligned with the criteria for Paris Agreement consistency employed here. We investigate root causes for misalignment with these criteria based on the underlying energy system transformation.
AB - Scientifically rigorous guidance to policy makers on mitigation options for meeting the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal requires an evaluation of long-term global-warming implications of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Here we employ a uniform and transparent methodology to evaluate Paris Agreement compatibility of influential institutional emission scenarios from the grey literature, including those from Shell, BP, and the International Energy Agency. We compare a selection of these scenarios analysed with this methodology to the Integrated Assessment Model scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We harmonize emissions to a consistent base-year and account for all greenhouse gases and aerosol precursor emissions, ensuring a self-consistent comparison of climate variables. An evaluation of peak and end-of-century temperatures is made, with both being relevant to the Paris Agreement goal. Of the scenarios assessed, we find that only the IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario is aligned with the criteria for Paris Agreement consistency employed here. We investigate root causes for misalignment with these criteria based on the underlying energy system transformation.
UR - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31734-1
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136008456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41467-022-31734-1
DO - 10.1038/s41467-022-31734-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 35973995
SN - 2041-1723
VL - 13
JO - Nature communications
JF - Nature communications
IS - 1
M1 - 4304
ER -