The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 7 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways
Open accessAbstract
The bottom-up approach of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the Paris Agreement has led countries to self-determine their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The planned ‘ratcheting-up’ process, which aims to ensure that the NDCs comply with the overall goal of limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C or even 1.5 °C, will most likely include some evaluation of ‘fairness’ of these reduction targets. In the literature, fairness has been discussed around equity principles, for which many different effort-sharing approaches have been proposed. In this research, we analysed how country-level emission targets and carbon budgets can be derived based on such criteria. We apply novel methods directly based on the global carbon budget, and, for comparison, more commonly used methods using GHG mitigation pathways. For both, we studied the following approaches: equal cumulative per capita emissions, contraction and convergence, grandfathering, greenhouse development rights and ability to pay. As the results critically depend on parameter settings, we used the wide authorship from a range of countries included in this paper to determine default settings and sensitivity analyses. Results show that effort-sharing approaches that (i) calculate required reduction targets in carbon budgets (relative to baseline budgets) and/or (ii) take into account historical emissions when determining carbon budgets can lead to (large) negative remaining carbon budgets for developed countries. This is the case for the equal cumulative per capita approach and especially the greenhouse development rights approach. Furthermore, for developed countries, all effort-sharing approaches except grandfathering lead to more stringent budgets than cost-optimal budgets, indicating that cost-optimal approaches do not lead to outcomes that can be regarded as fair according to most effort-sharing approaches.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper compares effort-sharing approaches for allocating national carbon budgets and GHG emission pathways consistent with 1.5 °C and 2 °C goals. It finds that approaches accounting for historical emissions or allocating reductions relative to baseline budgets can produce negative remaining carbon budgets for developed countries, and that all approaches except grandfathering give developed countries more stringent budgets than cost-optimal allocation.
Key findings
- The greenhouse development rights (GDR*) approach is most extreme: with default settings (1850 start year, equal capability/responsibility weighting), it gives the largest budgets to China and India and the smallest to the USA, EU and Japan, even leading to negative budgets for these developed countries; China and India together are allocated more than 80% of the global budget.
- The equal cumulative per capita emissions (ECPC*) approach is next most extreme: it allocates negative budgets to the USA and Russia and roughly zero budgets to Japan and the EU, while India receives relatively large but smaller budgets than under GDR*.
- For developed countries, all effort-sharing approaches except grandfathering lead to more stringent carbon budgets than cost-optimal allocation, indicating that cost-optimal outcomes are not regarded as fair under most effort-sharing approaches.
- Sensitivity is large: under GDR*, the India–USA carbon budget difference is 820 GtCO₂ under a 1000 GtCO₂ global budget and 925 GtCO₂ under a 400 GtCO₂ global budget; changing the GDR* start year from 1850 to 1990 gives the EU and USA about 90–100 GtCO₂ more, Russia 33 GtCO₂ more, China 95 GtCO₂ less and India 35 GtCO₂ less.
Methods
- The paper applies six approaches—per capita convergence (PCC), equal cumulative per capita emissions (ECPC), ability to pay (AP), greenhouse development rights (GDR), grandfathering (GF), and cost-optimal (CO)—plus immediate per capita convergence (IEPC*) in the described framework.
- It introduces novel methods to derive national carbon budgets directly from a global carbon budget (marked with asterisks) and compares these with more conventional GHG emission pathway calculations; global budgets are about 1000 GtCO₂ for 2 °C with >66% likelihood and about 400 GtCO₂ for 1.5 °C with >66% likelihood over 2011–2100.
- Data come from the CD-LINKS dataset, PRIMAP historical GHG emissions until 2014 harmonised with IMAGE, IMAGE LULUCF CO₂ data, and Responsibility-Capacity Index values from Kemp-Benedict et al. (2017); default parameter settings were chosen via a questionnaire among the paper’s authors, with sensitivity ranges.
Limitations
- The paper states that calculating time-dependent abatement costs within time-independent carbon budgets is beyond scope, and that outcomes should not be regarded as top-down calculated targets or budgets; some outcomes are impossible to achieve by domestic emission reductions alone.
- The paper states that RCI data are only available until 2030, so RCI values were kept constant after 2030 in the budget approach, likely overestimating budget allocations for developing countries and underestimating them for developed countries; pathway calculations corrected for this by assuming linear convergence towards AP results.
- The paper notes that carbon budgets focus on CO₂ only while GHG emission pathways are time-dependent and include all GHG emissions including LULUCF, so budgets and pathways should not be compared on their absolute numbers; it also notes rare consensus on parameter settings, requiring sensitivity ranges.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 No basis given · 22 Own result · 19 Own interpretation · 6 Not checked yet · 4 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarise, the GDR* approach-as implemented in our study-leads to the most extreme outcomes, with large budgets or emission allowances allocated to developing countries compared to all other approaches.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under a GF* approach, a relatively large budget is also allocated, due to China's high current emissions.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, for developed countries, all effort-sharing approaches except grandfathering lead to more stringent budgets than cost-optimal budgets”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The parameterisation of the AP* and ECPC* approach is especially relevant for India.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of including or excluding LULUCF CO 2 emissions mainly has a significant effect on countries with relatively large LULUCF CO 2 emissions, notably Brazil and India.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For China, the budget would be 35 GtCO 2 higher.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the allocated budget is much smaller than their baseline cumulative emissions.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When only looking at 2030 targets, the results are slightly different.For developed countries, GDR still leads to the most extreme outcomes, but for India, IEPC leads by far to the largest emission allocation by 2030.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For ECPC*, the starting year is more important than the applied discount rate.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For AP*, the reason is that in terms of PPP, their income is much higher than in terms of MER.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though China also has a large population share (IEPC*), they receive a larger budget based on current emissions.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, under the GDR* approach, the difference in carbon budgets between India and the USA is 820 GtCO 2 (with India allocated the largest budget) under a global budget of 1000 GtCO 2 and 925 GtCO 2 under a global carbon budget of 400 GtCO 2 .”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, India and China are allocated about half of the total global carbon budget in this approach, which is much less than the GDR* approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PCC* approach is a combination of the IEPC* and GF* approaches, with results in the middle of these two approaches.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences between the approaches are very large for countries with very different GDP per capita or per capita emission levels compared to the world average (USA, EU, Japan, India), but are smaller for Brazil, China and Russia.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This still leads to GDR resulting in the most extreme results, but less extreme than under the budget approach”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, the GF* approach leads to relatively large budgets for countries with relatively high current emissions per capita, such as the USA and Russia, and it leads to the smallest budget for India.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For China, the AP* approach leads to the smallest budget, as their GDP per capita is already above the world average and projected to still increase strongly while having a low RCI.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In numbers, the EU and the USA are allocated about 90-100 GtCO 2 more and Russia 33 GtCO 2 more if the starting year is 1990 instead of 1850, while China would be allocated 95 GtCO 2 and India 35 GtCO 2 less.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Countries with low historical emissions per capita, notably India, are allocated relatively large budgets but still smaller than the GDR* approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presented relative to 2010 emission levels, the carbon budgets and emission targets relative to 2010 emissions are the same across countries, as current emission levels determine the budgets (Figs. 2 and 3).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ECPC* approach leads to the same trend in outcomes, but less extreme.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As there was rare consensus on the parameter settings, the sensitivity ranges of these parameter choices are presented in addition to the default values.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.1 Allocated carbon budgets and required reduction efforts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ECPC* has a comparable budget, and thus a larger budget compared to PCC* and GF*, due to China's high population share and low historical emissions.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Obviously, a more stringent global target leads to more stringent budgets or pathways for all countries.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the emission pathways, this is visible through the AP approach resulting in a steady decrease in emission allowances to reach negative emission allowances in 2070, while GDR allows for an increase in emission allowances towards a peaking of about 40% above 2010 levels.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, the USA (by 35 GtCO 2 ), the EU (by 48 GtCO 2 ) and Japan (by 15 GtCO 2 ) would be allocated smaller budgets if GDP were to be based on MER.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The IEPC* approach gives outcomes similar to, but much less extreme than, the GDR* approach, with negative budgets for the USA and Russia and about zero budgets for the EU, Japan and Brazil (only with the default setting of including land use CO 2 emissions).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The default values (i.e.1850 as starting year and capability and responsibility given equal weight) lead to the largest budgets of all approaches for China and India and the smallest budgets for the USA, EU and Japan-both for the budgets and for the pathways.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the first three countries, starting in 1850 leads to much smaller budgets than starting in 1990, while the opposite is the case for China.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is also the case for Brazil, where high LULUCF CO 2 emissions also play an important role.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ECPC* approach leads to the most extreme outcomes after GDR*: countries with relatively high historical per capita emissions (notably the USA and Russia) are allocated negative budgets, and Japan and the EU roughly zero budgets.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is the case for the equal cumulative per capita approach and especially the greenhouse development rights approach, the latter showing much larger budgets for India, and smaller budgets for EU, Japan and the USA compared to optimal budgets.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted, however, that for the GDR* approach, we kept RCI values constant after 2030, as no projection was available beyond this year.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, this comparison is useful for determining similarities or differences in trends, but budgets and pathways should not be compared on their absolute numbers.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.1 Allocated carbon budgets and required reduction efforts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method leads to similar costs as the share of GDP, and so to smaller differences between countries.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves used to allocate emission allowances based on mitigation potentials are appropriate.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given India's current low per capita emissions, in the short term, IEPC leads to larger allocations than projected baseline emissions, which is by definition not possible under the GDR approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Approximately 30% of CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere after 150 years, implying 0.8% removal per year (van Vuuren et al. 2011).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.4 Parameter settings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Vuuren et al. 2011
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As RCI values are likely to converge further after 2030, this leads to an overestimation of the budget allocations for developing countries and underestimation for developed countries.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.2 Results for default settings
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: RCI values are likely to converge further after 2030.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The outcomes of effort-sharing approaches critically depend on parameter choices and methods assumed to implement the approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.4 Parameter settings
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These six approaches span the range of different approaches, as most of them relate directly to one of the equity principles introduced earlier”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.1 Different effort-sharing approaches in this paper
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When comparing the results of the emission pathways and budgets, it should be noted that carbon budgets are independent of time and represent CO 2 only, while GHG emission pathways are time-dependent and include all GHG emissions (including LULUCF).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.1 Allocated carbon budgets and required reduction efforts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A larger global carbon budget, however, would not affect our results in terms of differences between countries and approaches, only the absolute values would change.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both approaches allocate reduction targets below a (budget or pathway) BAU, and because the global reductions are much larger than the global allowances, these approaches can lead to larger differences.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves used to allocate emission allowances based on mitigation potentials are appropriate.
“The allocation highly depends on the assumed marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves.”
The paper relies on this without support.
RCI values are likely to converge further after 2030.
“As RCI values are likely to converge further after 2030, this leads to an overestimation of the budget allocations for developing countries and underestimation for developed countries.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Effort-sharing approaches based on equity considerations tend to suggest larger reduction targets for high-income regions24.”
From Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Approximately 30% of CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere after 150 years, implying 0.8% removal per year (van Vuuren et al. 2011).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.4 Parameter settings
Reported 0.8 · recomputed 0.2
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
“For the GF* approach, this distinction has no effect by definition, because the only determinant to allocate budgets or emission allowances is population.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.3 Data collection
“Carbon budget: allocations of carbon budgets based on current emission shares”
Citations
Cites
Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., & Meinshausen, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18307 · Cited by 3,637 · cited 2×
“…allowances consistent with keeping global mean temperature below 1.5 °C by 2100 with > 66% likelihood (in line with about 400 GtCO2 global carbon budget for the period 2011–2100) and 2 °C with > 66% likelihood (in line with about 1000 GtCO2 for 2011–2100) (Rogelj et al. 2016b; IPCC 2014)3.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation18. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(1993) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110874815-048 · Cited by 2,378
Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm
van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D., Doelman, J., van den Berg, M., Harmsen, M. J. H. M., de Boer, H. S., Bouwman, L., Daioglou, V., Edelenbosch, O. Y., et al. (2016) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.008 · Cited by 909
Edenhofer, O. (2015) · Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change eBooks · Cited by 835
McCollum, D. L., Zhou, W., Bertram, C., de Boer, H. S., Bosetti, V., Busch, S., Després, J., Drouet, L., Emmerling, J., Fay, M., et al. (2018) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0179-z · Cited by 638
Self-citationEmission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C
Millar, R. J., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Friedlingstein, P., Rogelj, J., Grubb, M. J., Matthews, H. D., Skeie, R. B., Forster, P. M. D. F., Frame, D. J., & Allen, M. R. (2017) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo3031 · Cited by 589
Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions
Raupach, M., Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jotzo, F., van Vuuren, D. P., & Quéré, C. L. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2384 · Cited by 420
Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals
du Pont, Y. R., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Rogelj, J., Christoff, P., & Meinshausen, M. A. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3186 · Cited by 378
The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series
Gütschow, J., Jeffery, M. L., Gieseke, R., Gebel, R., Stevens, D., Krapp, M., & Rocha, M. (2016) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-8-571-2016 · Cited by 297
Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled
Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Friedlingstein, P., Gillett, N. P., van Vuuren, D. P., Riahi, K., Allen, M., & Knutti, R. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2868 · Cited by 288
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- IPCC (2014) In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland
- Stocker TF et al. (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 279
Absolute sustainability of New Zealand office buildings in the context of climate targets
Bullen, L., McLaren, S. J., Dowdell, D., & Chandrakumar, C. (2021) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108186 · Cited by 22
Li, M., Pelz, S., Lamboll, R., Wang, C., & Rogelj, J. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56397-6 · Cited by 21
Pathways to sustainable plastics
Hauschild, M. Z., & Bjørn, A. (2023) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01069-w · Cited by 23
Economic gains from global cooperation in fulfilling climate pledges
Thube, S., Delzeit, R., & Henning, C. H. C. A. (2021) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112673 · Cited by 20
Busch, T., Cho, C. H., Hoepner, A. G. F., Michelon, G., & Rogelj, J. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05288-7 · Cited by 24
India’s energy sector choices—options and implications of ambitious mitigation efforts
Mathur, R., & Shekhar, S. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02885-1 · Cited by 20
Self-citationPuig-Samper, G., Owsianiak, M., Clavreul, J., Jeandaux, C., Prieur‐Vernat, A., & Gondran, N. (2024) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.12.013 · Cited by 19
Observed carbon decoupling of subnational production insufficient for net-zero goal by 2050
Zioga, M., Kotz, M., & Levermann, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2411419121 · Cited by 18
Souza, C. D. O., Angelkorte, G. B., Rochedo, P., & Szklo, A. S. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03201-1 · Cited by 19
Implications of the consumption-based accounting for future national emissions budgets
Pan, X., Wang, H., Lu, X., Zheng, X., Wang, L., & Chen, W. (2022) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2022.2067113 · Cited by 19
Self-citationBlack, S., Château, J., Jaumotte, F., Parry, I. W. H., Schwerhoff, G., Thube, S., & Zhunussova, K. (2022) · IMF Staff Climate Notes · doi:10.5089/9798400223877.066 · Cited by 18
Pedersen, T. T., Andersen, M. S., Victoria, M., & Andresen, G. B. (2023) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106677 · Cited by 18
McMullin, B., Price, P., Jones, M. B., & McGeever, A. H. (2019) · Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · doi:10.1007/s11027-019-09881-6 · Cited by 23
Li, M., & Duan, M. (2020) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115864 · Cited by 17
Draeger, R., Cunha, B. S. L. D., Müller-Casseres, E., Rochedo, P., Szklo, A. S., & Schaeffer, R. (2022) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.124451 · Cited by 18
Self-citationMajority support for global redistributive and climate policiesPreprint
Fabre, A., Douenne, T., & Mattauch, L. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4448523 · Cited by 18
Doing burden-sharing right to deliver natural climate solutions for carbon dioxide removal
Yuwono, B., Yowargana, P., Fuss, S., Griscom, B. W., Smith, P., & Kraxner, F. (2022) · Nature-Based Solutions · doi:10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100048 · Cited by 17
Global inequality consequences of climate policies when accounting for avoided climate impacts
Emmerling, J., Andreoni, P., & Tavoni, M. (2023) · Cell Reports Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2023.100008 · Cited by 20
Self-citationSetting Better-Informed Climate Targets for New Zealand: The Influence of Value and Modeling Choices
Chandrakumar, C., Malik, A., McLaren, S. J., Owsianiak, M., Ramilan, T., Jayamaha, N. P., & Lenzen, M. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b06991 · Cited by 18
Vigier, M., Ouellet‐Plamondon, C., Spiliotopoulou, M., Moore, J., & Rees, W. E. (2023) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2023.104655 · Cited by 16
Chen, C., & Liu, W. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288661 · Cited by 16
den Elzen, M. G. J., Dafnomilis, I., Forsell, N., Fragkos, P. F., Fragkiadakis, K., Höhne, N., Kuramochi, T., Nascimento, L., Roelfsema, M., van Soest, H. L., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-954654/v1 · Cited by 16
Self-citationWang, H., Weng, Y., & Pan, X. (2022) · Advances in Climate Change Research · doi:10.1016/j.accre.2022.10.001 · Cited by 16
Potential side effects of climate change mitigation on poverty and countermeasures
Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Oshiro, K., Zhao, S.-Y., Sasaki, K., Takakura, J., & Takahashi, K. (2023) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-023-01369-2 · Cited by 12
Self-citationTilsted, J. P., & Bjørn, A. (2023) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-023-03583-4 · Cited by 18
Herran, D. S., & Fujimori, S. (2021) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00930-1 · Cited by 15
Self-citationExploring Global Climate Policy Futures and Their Representation in Integrated Assessment Models
Hickmann, T., Bertram, C., Biermann, F., Brutschin, E., Kriegler, E., Livingston, J. E., Pianta, S., Riahi, K., van Ruijven, B. J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2022) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.v10i3.5328 · Cited by 15
The Role of Remaining Carbon Budgets and Net-Zero CO2 Targets in Climate Mitigation Policy
Dickau, M., Matthews, H. D., & Tokarska, K. B. (2022) · Current Climate Change Reports · doi:10.1007/s40641-022-00184-8 · Cited by 20
Tempering and enabling ambition: how equity is considered in domestic processes preparing NDCs
Holz, C., Cunliffe, G., Mbeva, K., Pauw, P., & Winkler, H. (2023) · International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics · doi:10.1007/s10784-023-09599-6 · Cited by 14
Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits
Abildtrup, J., Jacobsen, J. B., Vedel, S. E., Mantau, U., Mavsar, R., Pettenella, D., Prokofieva, I., Schubert, F., Stenger, A., Varela, E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1080/21606544.2023.2223182 · Cited by 14
Application of Absolute Sustainability Assessment to New Zealand Residential Dwellings
McLaren, S. J., Chandrakumar, C., Dowdell, D., Bullen, L., & Jaques, R. (2020) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022064 · Cited by 14
Wang, H., Chen, W., Rauner, S., Bertram, C., Luderer, G., & Kriegler, E. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08326 · Cited by 14
Self-citationGlobal climate as a commons – Decision making on climate change in least developed countries
Havukainen, M., Mikkilä, M. H., & Kahiluoto, H. (2022) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.003 · Cited by 14
Mid-term policy considerations of the EU green deal
Ruíz, J., Martín-Moreno, J. M., & Pérez, R. (2023) · Energy Strategy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.esr.2023.101239 · Cited by 13
Kesternich, M., Löschel, A., & Ziegler, A. R. (2020) · Environmental Economics and Policy Studies · doi:10.1007/s10018-020-00289-0 · Cited by 13
van den Berg, N. J., Hof, A. F., van der Wijst, K.-I., Akenji, L., Daioglou, V., Edelenbosch, O. Y., van Sluisveld, M. A. E., Timmer, V. J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2021) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/abdd99 · Cited by 13
Self-citationA new perspective on decarbonising the global energy system
Ives, M. C., Righetti, L., Schiele, J. H., Meyer, K. D., Hubble-Rose, L., Teng, F., Kruitwagen, L., Tillmann-Morris, L., Wang, T., Way, R., et al. (2021) · Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · Cited by 13
Government Reform, Regulatory Change and Carbon Disclosure: Evidence from Australia
Mia, P., Rana, T., & Ferdous, L. T. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132313282 · Cited by 14
Hooijschuur, E., den Elzen, M. G. J., Dafnomilis, I., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2025) · Global Environmental Change Advances · doi:10.1016/j.gecadv.2025.100014 · Cited by 13
Buser, A. (2021) · German Law Journal · doi:10.1017/glj.2021.81 · Cited by 12
RICE50+: DICE model at country and regional level
Gazzotti, P. (2022) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · doi:10.18174/sesmo.18038 · Cited by 16
Climatic change: CD-Links special issue on national low-carbon development pathways
Schaeffer, R., Bosetti, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02890-4 · Cited by 12
Self-citationScience-policy: UNFCCC policymakers’ perspective of scientific scenarios and their policy relevance
Pedersen, J. S. T., Gomes, C., O’Rourke, P., van Vuuren, D. P., Gupta, J., Santos, F. D., & Swart, R. J. (2025) · npj Climate Action · doi:10.1038/s44168-025-00250-5 · Cited by 11
Economic models and frameworks to guide climate policy
Hepburn, C. J., Ives, M. C., Loni, S., Mealy, P., Barbrook-Johnson, P., Farmer, J. D., Stern, N. H., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2025) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/graf020 · Cited by 10
Dong, H., Feng, Z., Yang, Y., Li, P., You, Z., & Xiao, C. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151045 · Cited by 11
A new scenario framework for equitable and climate-compatible futures
Ranjan, A., Kanitkar, T., & Jayaraman, T. (2024) · Climate and Development · doi:10.1080/17565529.2024.2365939 · Cited by 15
Andersson, A., Brady, M., & Pohjola, J. (2021) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01580-4 · Cited by 11
Moral duties, compliance and polycentric climate governance
Sayegh, A. G. (2020) · International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics · doi:10.1007/s10784-020-09494-4 · Cited by 12
Lund, M. N., Schjerbeck, A. K., & Bjørn, A. (2025) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112985 · Cited by 10
Lim, J., & Kim, D. K. (2021) · Journal of Climate Change Research · doi:10.15531/ksccr.2021.12.3.255 · Cited by 10
Wu, Y., Lau, Y., & Wu, J. (2022) · World Electric Vehicle Journal · doi:10.3390/wevj13060096 · Cited by 10
Why Ambitious and Just Climate Mitigation Needs Political Science
Brutschin, E., & Andrijevic, M. (2022) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.v10i3.6156 · Cited by 10
Global climate policy with differentiated carbon price floors
Château, J., Jaumotte, F., & Schwerhoff, G. (2023) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2205376 · Cited by 10
Romanovskaya, A. A., & Federici, S. (2019) · Carbon Management · doi:10.1080/17583004.2019.1620037 · Cited by 9
Tang, Z., Tang, S., & Zou, J. (2025) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103560 · Cited by 9
Бородіна, О. А. (2022) · Journal of Innovations and Sustainability · doi:10.51599/is.2022.06.01.04 · Cited by 9
Influence of economic decoupling in assessing carbon budget quotas for the European Union
Perissi, I., & Jones, A. W. (2023) · Carbon Management · doi:10.1080/17583004.2023.2217423 · Cited by 9
An analysis of sub-sectoral level carbon budget allocation for India's iron and steel sector
Tripathy, P. P., Kalbar, P. P., & Modi, A. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138462 · Cited by 9
von Hirschhausen, C., Kemfert, C., & Präger, F. (2021) · Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy · doi:10.5547/2160-5890.10.2.chir · Cited by 9
Sarmiento, L., Emmerling, J., Pietzcker, R., Daioglou, V., Longa, F. D., Dekker, M., Drouet, L., Fattahi, A., Fragkos, P. F., Henke, H., et al. (2024) · Energy and Climate Change · doi:10.1016/j.egycc.2024.100144 · Cited by 8
Self-citationTao, B., Wu, F., Wang, J., Zhu, M., Zhang, J., & Xing, Z. (2025) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113387 · Cited by 8
Effect of discontinuous fair-share emissions allocations immediately based on equity
du Pont, Y. R., Dekker, M., van Vuuren, D. P., & Schaeffer, M. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-62947-9 · Cited by 8
Evaluating mitigation strategies for building stocks against absolute climate targets
Horup, L. H., Ohms, P. K., Hauschild, M. Z., Gummidi, S. R. B., Secher, A. Q., Thuesen, C., & Ryberg, M. W. (2024) · Buildings and Cities · doi:10.5334/bc.413 · Cited by 8
Yiakoumi, D., Taliotis, C., Zachariadis, T., & Griffiths, S. (2023) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2216178 · Cited by 7
Xing, Z., Ma, H., Luo, L., & Wang, H. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03478-4 · Cited by 7
Climate justice and a fair allocation of national greenhouse gas emissions
Azar, C., & Johansson, D. J. A. (2024) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2024.2415400 · Cited by 7
Applying equity principles leads to higher carbon removal obligations in Canada
Motlaghzadeh, K., Craik, N., Moreno‐Cruz, J., Schweizer, V. J., Fuhrman, J., & Hipel, K. W. (2025) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02080-z · Cited by 7
Analysing the pace of the energy transition under different cumulative CO2 budgets
Catania, M., Fattori, F., & Colbertaldo, P. (2025) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120663 · Cited by 7
Das, M., Mandal, A., Das, A., Inácio, M., & Pereira, P. A. D. S. (2023) · Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100344 · Cited by 7
Breton, C., Blanchet, P., Amor, B., & Pomponi, F. (2024) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112474 · Cited by 7
Fair carbon removal obligations under climate response uncertainty
Ganti, G., Pelz, S., Klönne, U., Gidden, M., Schleussner, C., & Nicholls, Z. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2481138 · Cited by 8
Applying fairness in subnational carbon budget allocations
Lackner, T., Meyer, L. H., Nabernegg, S., Steininger, K. W., & Williges, K. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66802-9 · Cited by 6
The climate limits of construction in over 1,000 cities
Rankin, K. H., Serrenho, A. C., Bachmann, C., Posen, I. D., & Saxe, S. (2026) · Nature Cities · doi:10.1038/s44284-025-00379-8 · Cited by 6
Advancing representations of equity and justice in climate mitigation futures
Pachauri, S., Brutschin, E., Gidden, M. J., Hasegawa, T., Hejazi, M. I., Jiang, K., Kikstra, J., Krey, V., Lamb, W. F., Mintz‐Woo, K., et al. (2026) · PLOS Climate · doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000763 · Cited by 8
Self-citationHuang, X., Zhao, X., Jiao, A., & Zheng, J. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16104116 · Cited by 6
Deriving global carbon budgets for the Swiss built environment
Priore, Y. D., Jusselme, T., & Habert, G. (2021) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012172 · Cited by 6
Lonergan, K. E., & Sansavini, G. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65526-0 · Cited by 5
Bjørn, A., Fantke, P., Hauschild, M. Z., Jolliet, O., Laurent, A., Owsianiak, M., Ryberg, M. W., & Vea, E. B. (2026) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ae3dfa · Cited by 7
Fujimori, S., Fan, L., Zhao, S., Asayama, S., Hasegawa, T., Nishiura, O., Shiraki, H., & Takahashi, K. (2026) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-026-03208-5 · Cited by 5
Self-citationChina's Carbon-Energy Policy and Asia's Energy Transition
Mori, A. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003190905 · Cited by 6
Aryanpur, V., Balyk, O., Glynn, J. D. M., Gaur, A. S., Guire, J. M., & Daly, H. (2024) · npj Climate Action · doi:10.1038/s44168-024-00181-7 · Cited by 8
From the Rainforest to the Fjords: examining equity in carbon capture and storage climate policy
Lefstad, L., & Rivadeneira, N. R. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2451644 · Cited by 5
Pedersen, J. S. T., Gomes, C., Gupta, J., van Vuuren, D. P., Santos, F. D., & Swart, R. J. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4073175 · Cited by 5
Climate change mitigation scenarios for financial sector target setting and alignment assessment
Noels, J., Pouille, C., Jachnik, R., & Rocha, M. R. (2023) · OECD environment working papers · doi:10.1787/bcd25b82-en · Cited by 7
Michaelowa, A., Michaelowa, K., Hermwille, L., & Espelage, A. (2022) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2022.2108366 · Cited by 4
The multi-faceted global poverty and income inequality landscape in a decarbonizing world
Zhao, S., Fujimori, S., Min, J., Kikstra, J., Hasegawa, T., Oshiro, K., & Vishwanathan, S. (2025) · Cell Reports Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100487 · Cited by 5
Self-citationBargaining powers in cooperative Carbon Dioxide Removal deployment
Schippers, E. J., Chiquier, S., Massol, O., Lowing, D., & Dowell, N. M. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2024.2445167 · Cited by 5
Klimaaktivismus als ziviler Ungehorsam
Kiesewetter, B. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Praktische Philosophie · doi:10.22613/zfpp/9.1.3 · Cited by 4
Akpan, J. S., & Olanrewaju, O. A. (2024) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos15020227 · Cited by 4
Equity principles, mitigation and climate impacts: balancing welfare and costs
van der Wijst, K.-I., Hof, A. F., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adeeaa · Cited by 3
Self-citationMuessel, J., Pietzcker, R., Hoppe, J., Verpoort, P. C., Klein, D., & Luderer, G. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adf23f · Cited by 3
Akpan, J. S., & Olanrewaju, O. A. (2023) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1003851 · Cited by 3
Marinkovic, C., & Vogt‐Schilb, A. (2024) · Energy and Climate Change · doi:10.1016/j.egycc.2024.100151 · Cited by 2
Radically sustainable consumption and lifestyles
Fuchs, D. A., Bodenheimer, M., & Dütschke, E. (2024) · Consumption and Society · doi:10.1332/27528499y2024d000000042 · Cited by 2
Adam, M., Kleinen, T., May, M. M., & Rehfeld, K. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ada971 · Cited by 2
Persistent carbon budget imbalance in Hunan, China: spatiotemporal trends and regional disparities
Zhong, Q., Liu, Y., Li, Z., Chen, L. Q., & Yuan, C. (2025) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-025-03003-2 · Cited by 2
van den Berg, N. J., Thu, L., Hof, A. F., Timmer, V. J., Akenji, L., Boyer, N.-A., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2025) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.104441 · Cited by 2
Self-citationWhether green finance contributes to carbon emissions equity - empirical evidence from China
Wang, J. (2026) · Finance research letters · doi:10.1016/j.frl.2026.109709 · Cited by 2
Fairness und Eigeninteresse im internationalen Klimaschutz
Flach, L., Pfeiffer, J., & Pittel, K. (2022) · Wirtschaftsdienst · doi:10.1007/s10273-022-3168-6 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Berg, N. J., van Soest, H. L., Hof, A. F., den Elzen, M. G. J., van Vuuren, D. P., Chen, W., Drouet, L., Emmerling, J., Fujimori, S., Höhne, N., Kõberle, A. C., McCollum, D., Schaeffer, R., Shekhar, S., Vishwanathan, S. S., Vrontisi, Z., & Blok, K.
- Affiliations
- Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (IT)
- National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
- NewClimate Institute (DE)
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
- Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
- Energy and Resources Institute (IN)
- Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IN)
- National Technical University of Athens (GR)
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Climatic Change
- Published
- 2019-02-14
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1805-1822
- ISSN
- 0165-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1480
- OpenAlex
- W2913966977
- Semantic Scholar
- bd4bb1b000194a44fe0db98e0d5972077ea0ea29
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 9
- FWCI
- 38.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Climatic Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Utrecht University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › International Environmental Law and Policies
- Keywords
- effort sharing, carbon balance, emission pathways, Nationally Determined Contributions, Paris Agreement, climate equity, contraction and convergence, grandfathering, ability to pay, historical emissions, developed countries, climate justice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
