Advertisement

Abstract

Current international climate negotiations seek to catalyze global emissions reductions through a system of nationally determined country-level emissions reduction targets that would be regularly updated. These “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) would constitute the core of mitigation commitments under any agreement struck at the upcoming Paris Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1). With INDCs now reported from more than 150 countries and covering around 90% of global emissions, we can begin to assess the role of this round of INDCs in facilitating or frustrating achievement of longer-term climate goals. In this context, it is important to understand what these INDCs collectively deliver in terms of two objectives. First, how much do they reduce the probability of the highest levels of global mean surface temperature change? Second, how much do they improve the odds of achieving the international goal of limiting temperature change to under 2°C relative to preindustrial levels (2)? Although much discussion has focused on the latter objective (35), the former is equally important when viewing climate mitigation from a risk-management perspective.
Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Already a Subscriber?

Supplementary Material

File (aad5761_fawcett-sm.pdf)

References and Notes

1
UNFCCC, INDCs as communicated by Parties (UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, 2015); http://bit.ly/INDCsubmissions.
2
UNFCCC, in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 18th session, Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its 18th session, Doha, Qatar, from 26 November to 8 December 2012 (FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, 2012), pp. 1–37.
3
UNFCCC, Synthesis Report on the Aggregate Effect of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, 2015); http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf.
4
Climate Action Tracker, How close are INDCs to 2° and 1.5°C pathways? (CAT, 2015); http://bit.ly/EmissionsGap.
6
Collins M., et al., in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013), pp. 1029–1136.
7
IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, Geneva, 2014).
8
Waldhoff S. T., Fawcett A. A., Clim. Change 107, 635 (2011).
9
GCAM Wiki documentation (2015); https://wiki.umd.edu/gcam/index.php/Main_Page.
10
Meinshausen M., Raper S. C. B., Wigley T. M. L., Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417 (2011).
11
Rogelj J., et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 031003 (2014).
12
IPCC, AR5 Scenario Database (IPCC, Geneva, 2015); http://bit.ly/Ar5Scenario.
13
Iyer G., et al., Technol. For. Soc. Change 90 (PA), 103 (2015).
14
Clarke L., et al., in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, , Edenhofer O., et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014), pp. 413–510.
15
Riahi K., et al., Technol. For. Soc. Change 90 (PA), 8 (2015).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 350 | Issue 6265
4 December 2015

Article versions

You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

Submission history

Published in print: 4 December 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Acknowledgments

G.C.I., L.E.C., J.A.E., H.C.M, M.J., and A.M. and were partially supported by the Global Technology Strategy Program, a research program at JGCRI. N.E.H. was supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Analysis of mitigation potential and levels of national mitigation action related to the conclusions of this paper was supported by the U.S. Department of State (IAA 19318814Y0012) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (IAA DW.8992406301). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government, the Department of State, the EPA, or CEQ, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Authors

Affiliations

Allen A. Fawcett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Gokul C. Iyer [email protected]
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Leon E. Clarke
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
James A. Edmonds
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Nathan E. Hultman*
School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Haewon C. McJeon
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Joeri Rogelj
Energy Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria.
Reed Schuler
U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, USA.
Jameel Alsalam
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Ghassem R. Asrar
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Jared Creason
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Minji Jeong
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
James McFarland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
Anupriya Mundra
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.
Wenjing Shi
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA.

Notes

†Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
*
On temporary assignment at the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Washington, DC 20506, USA.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage
Altmetrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by
  1. Sustainable process integration of electrification technologies with industrial energy systems, Energy, 239, (122060), (2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122060
    Crossref
  2. Limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C from 2 °C: An energy-system-based multi-model analysis for China, Energy Economics, 100, (105355), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105355
    Crossref
  3. Improving reduced complexity model assessment and usability, Nature Climate Change, 11, 1, (1-3), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00973-9
    Crossref
  4. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world, Nature Communications, 12, 1, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0
    Crossref
  5. HOW MUCH COULD ARTICLE 6 ENHANCE NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION AMBITION TOWARD PARIS AGREEMENT GOALS THROUGH ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY?, Climate Change Economics, 12, 02, (2150007), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1142/S201000782150007X
    Crossref
  6. The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy, Scientific Reports, 11, 1, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82042-5
    Crossref
  7. Models for integrating climate objectives in forest policy: Towards adaptation-first?, Land Use Policy, 104, (105357), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105357
    Crossref
  8. Assessing the effects of labor market dynamics on CO2 emissions in global value chains, Science of The Total Environment, 768, (144486), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144486
    Crossref
  9. Mechanistic insights into carbon dioxide utilization by superoxide ion generated electrochemically in ionic liquid electrolyte, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 23, 2, (1114-1126), (2021).https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP04903D
    Crossref
  10. Beyond RCP8.5: Marginal mitigation using quasi-representative concentration pathways, Journal of Econometrics, (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.06.007
    Crossref
  11. See more
Loading...

View Options

Get Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS Log in

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options

Purchase digital access to this article

Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media