Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Abstract Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO 2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Climate Change
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4
Citations
37
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
41.78

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Christoph Bertram, Ryna Cui, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer et al.
37 citations
Nature Climate Change
Climate Change Policy and Economics
41.78
article

Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Christoph Bertram, Ryna Cui, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer, Isabela Schmidt Tagomori, Elina Brutschin, Shinichiro Fujimori, Pedro Rochedo, Joeri Rogelj, Vassilis Daioglou, Luiz Bernardo Baptista, Elmar Kriegler, Diego Silva Herran, Roberto Schaeffer, Keywan Riahi, Zoi Vrontisi, Rahel Mandaroux, Oliver Fricko, Dimitris Fragkiadakis, Lara Aleluia Reis, Laurent Drouet, Gokul Iyer, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Kimon Keramidas, Robin Lamboll, Bas van Ruijven, Detlef Peter van Vuuren, Florian Fosse, Nate Hultman
article en
37 citations

Abstract

Abstract Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO 2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

Nature Climate ChangeVol. 14(9)
Joint Global Change Research Institute (US), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US), University of Potsdam (DE), Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE), Utrecht University (NL), National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP), Kyoto University (JP), Leibniz Association (DE), Graz University of Technology (AT), Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble (FR), RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (IT), Institute For European Environmental Policy (GB), CMCC Foundation - Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (IT), Joint Research Center (ES), Technische Universität Berlin (DE), Imperial College London (GB), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), University of Maryland, College Park (US), Université Grenoble Alpes (FR)
Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, European Commission
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
41.78
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.