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 201–279 of 279
Sufficiency as a Criterion for Sustainability Assessment
Hock, A., Jäger, J., & Rietz, A. (2022) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012033 · Cited by 2
Global Energy System Transitions
Edmonds, J., Fujimori, S., Iyer, G. C., McJeon, H. C., O’Rourke, P., Pedersen, J. S. T., van Vuuren, D. P., & Yu, S. (2024) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1086/728206 · Cited by 2
Self-citationAlfakihuddin, M. L. B., Rahmat, A., Poa, T. K. E., & Praditha, O. (2024) · Springer proceedings in physics · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-0740-9_70 · Cited by 2
Closing the ambition gap: Germany's energy transition in line with a 1.5ˆC carbon budget
Jürgens, P., Kaiser, M., Senkpiel, C., Thelen, C., Kost, C., & Henning, H. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2506610 · Cited by 2
Feng, Y., Zheng, Y., Chen, C., Cao, W., Sun, Y., Liu, W., He, J., Miao, N., Lei, Y., & Yan, G. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126498 · Cited by 2
Burden sharing for CDR: balancing fair liability with feasibility
JONES, C. D. (2023) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwad211 · Cited by 2
Allocation of national renewable expansion and sectoral demand reduction targets to municipal level
Schneider, S., Parada, E. V., Sengl, D., Baptista, J., & Oliveira, P. M. (2024) · Frontiers in Sustainable Cities · doi:10.3389/frsc.2023.1294361 · Cited by 2
Scherz, M., Rossegger, C., Kreiner, H., & Passer, A. (2024) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1363/1/012020 · Cited by 2
Céline Guivarch, A. (2020) · Comptes Rendus Géoscience · doi:10.5802/crgeos.23 · Cited by 2
Climate change research and implications of the use of near-term carbon budgets in public policy
Dierickx, F., & Diemer, A. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823500-3.00019-4 · Cited by 1
Lei, A., Zhang, T., & Yang, L. (2023) · African and Asian Studies · doi:10.1163/15692108-12341614 · Cited by 1
The Power of Peers: a spatial analysis of nationally determined contributions
Coppenolle, H. V. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2489738 · Cited by 1
Kendall, S. S., Dillman, K. J., Davíðsdóttir, B., & Heinonen, J. T. (2025) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.70235 · Cited by 1
Interpreting climate performance indices: implications for equitable and effective policy
Dhara, C., Gupta, A., Bagri, I., Block, S., & Murari, K. K. (2025) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2574858 · Cited by 1
Aligning differentiated mitigation capacity with the Paris agreement goals
Brutschin, E., Bertram, C., Baptista, L. B., Bosetti, V., Daioglou, V., de Boer, H. S., Drouet, L., Fosse, F., Fragkiadakis, D., Fragkiadakis, K., et al. (2025) · Environmental Research Climate · doi:10.1088/2752-5295/ae0ea5 · Cited by 3
Self-citationHighlighting the impact of uncertainties on top-down carbon budget calculations for buildings
Priore, Y. D., Jusselme, T., & Habert, G. (2025) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1554/1/012112 · Cited by 1
A top-down approach in developing embodied carbon caps: Case study of the Irish residential sector
Ge, S., Styles, D., O’Ceallaigh, C., & McGetrick, P. J. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.117026 · Cited by 1
Viskari, T., Quaife, T. L., Fahl, F., Zhang, Y., & Lugato, E. (2026) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-19-6079-2026
Craft, W., Oldfield, P., Robati, M., & Illankoon, I. M. C. S. (2026) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2026.115089 · Cited by 1
Türkiye’nin Küresel Karbon Bütçesindeki Payı: Öngörü Senaryoları ile Bir Değerlendirme
Çetinkaya, G., & Akar, S. (2022) · Maliye Çalışmaları Dergisi / Journal of Public Finance Studies · doi:10.26650/mcd2022-1131846 · Cited by 1
Бородіна, О. А. (2022) · Economic Herald of the Donbas · doi:10.12958/1817-3772-2022-2(68)-174-186 · Cited by 1
Wynne‐Jones, S., Dandy, N., Bodner, T., & Healey, J. R. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003200208-7 · Cited by 2
Schwanitz, V. J., Wierling, A. H., Paudler, H. A., Getabecha, M., Currás, T. A., Lovell, A. M., Green, R. J., Kuriakose, J., Jones, C., Mackay, B., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3627480/v1 · Cited by 1
A justice-based framework to determine countries’ fair warming contributions to Paris AgreementPreprint
Rogelj, J., Li, M., Pelz, S., Lamboll, R., & Wang, C. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4129114/v1 · Cited by 1
Assessing the Compatibility of Transition Plans with Equity PrinciplesPreprint
Rekker, S. A. C., Hofmann-Riem, H., Kampmann, D., Rose, A., & Shrimali, G. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5427235 · Cited by 1
Spring, Ú. O. (2021) · The anthropocene: Politik - economics - society - science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62316-6_7
Evaluating China’s role in achieving the 1.5°C target of the Paris AgreementPreprint
Xiong, W., Tanaka, K., Ciais, P., & Yan, L. (2022) · doi:10.1002/essoar.10510329.1
Vigier, M., Ouellet‐Plamondon, C., Spiliotopoulou, M., Moore, J., & Rees, W. E. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4075713
An OLG Approach to Model the GHG Mitigation Mechanism of the Paris AgreementPreprint
Yang, Z. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1284091/v1
How to Identify Cities on the Path Towards Real Sustainability?
Vigier, M., Moore, J., & Ouellet‐Plamondon, C. (2022) · Lecture notes in civil engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-1061-6_33
Gupta, S., Mitra, A., Uppal, S., Misri, A., Malyan, A., Natarajan, R., Kumar, P., Batra, H., Keswani, S., Basu, B., et al. (2023) · doi:10.46830/wrirpt.21.00095
Towards the inclusion of equity principles in corporate climate aligned transitions.Preprint
Rao, R., Rekker, S. A. C., Humphrey, J., & Greig, C. R. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3396847/v1
Which transformations for climate change mitigation? From global to French emissions pathways
Céline Guivarch, A. (2023) · Comptes Rendus Géoscience · doi:10.5802/crgeos.23-en
Initial Allocation of Emissions Trading Among Sub-regions in China
Ju, Y., & Fujikawa, K. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-5957-0_7
Defining a ‘Paris Test’ of national contribution to global climate mitigation: the Irish exemplar
McMullin, B., Price, P., & O’Dochartaigh, A. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad3660 · Cited by 1
Distributing the Dutch Reduction Targets
Vries, A. D., Werner, G. D. A., Wijlhuizen, E., Toom, V., Bovens, M., & Hulscher, S. J. M. H. (2024) · Research for policy · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59427-4_3
Wulff, N., Meurer, A., Gils, H. C., & Jochem, P. E. P. (2024) · International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM) · doi:10.1109/eem60825.2024.10608929
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0012
Futures in Environmental Politics
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0004
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0011
The Drama of Environmental Politics
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0003 · Cited by 1
A Cultural Politics of the Environment
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0009
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0001
Ecological Modernization’s Last Stand: Geoengineering
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0007
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0006
Lexicon of Concepts and Definitions
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0013
Hajer, M. A., & Oomen, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198955382.003.0010
Wang, C. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5251514
The climate limits of construction in over 1000 citiesPreprint
Rankin, K. H., Serrenho, A. C., Bachmann, C., Posen, I. D., & Saxe, S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5251970
The Activity-Based Carbon Budgets Method for Setting Corporate Climate TargetsPreprint
Halter, W. E., Hofmann-Riem, H., Wilhelm, I., & Bjørn, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5261634
The impacts of CO2-based fuels for the Brazilian freight transport sector on planetary boundaries
Santos, M. F., Bresciani, A. E., Alves, R. M. B., Kulay, L., Jiménez, L., & Pozo, C. (2025) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146211
Regional energy eco-innovation sector as a driver of post-war development of Ukraine's economy
Бородіна, О. А. (2022) · Economic Herald of SHEI USUCT · doi:10.32434/2415-3974-2022-15-1-8-19
Hasan, S. T., Wood, M. O., Rus, H. A., Singh, S. J., & Wu, T. (2025) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/adf8ad
Making climate change mitigation policy less regressive in the residential sectorPreprint
Kulkarni, S., Hof, A. F., Daioglou, V., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7271981/v1
Self-citationKulkarni, S., Hof, A. F., Ambrósio, G., Daioglou, V., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2025) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ae1c04
Self-citationNo new oil frontiers may increase African countries’ economic lossesPreprint
Draeger, R., Paletta, J., Baptista, L. B., Mortágua, H. D., Rochedo, P., Schaeffer, R., & Szklo, A. S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5900276
Self-citationRao, R., Rekker, S. A. C., Humphrey, J., & Greig, C. R. (2025) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101550
Gavard, C., & Diethelm, L. (2025) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-025-01038-1
Yerlikaya, M. A., Yıldız, K., Keskin, B. N., & Çinar, A. (2026) · Natural Resources Forum · doi:10.1111/1477-8947.70048
Modeling justice without deciding it
George, M. (2026) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2026.104956
Transient reliance on carbon removal and storage in long-term energy system transitionsPreprint
Fujimori, S., Sukuman, T., MORI, S., Nishiura, O., Hasegawa, T., Zhao, S., Oshiro, K., Asayama, S., Shiraki, H., Takahashi, K., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8393021/v1
Self-citationDraeger, R., Paletta, J., Baptista, L. B., Mortágua, H. D., Rochedo, P., Schaeffer, R., & Szklo, A. S. (2026) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115163
Self-citationTracking country-level mitigation progress using NGHGI-consistent carbon budgets
Weber, K., Brunner, C., & Knutti, R. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-69078-9 · Cited by 1
Work and production in the sustainability transition—Four pathways to a low-carbon society
Malmaeus, M., Brolin, L., Hagbert, P., Nyblom, Å., Särnbratt, M., & Rootzén, J. (2026) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2026.104638
How to include justice in energy modeling? A review of indicators and methods
Hoffmann, M. M., Hanto, J., Cordroch, L., & Krumm, A. (2026) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115227
Commonalities and differences in national pathways toward net-zero emissionsPreprint
Pathak, A., Vishwanathan, S. S., Fujimori, S., Schaeffer, R., Abdullah, A., Agarwal, V., Ahn, J., Almeida, D., Amezcua, T. H., Angelkorte, G. B., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8802998/v1
Self-citationCarbon Prices and Cooking Fires: How Decarbonization Pathway Design Shapes Household Energy BurdensPreprint
George, M., Clarke, L., Min, J., Pachauri, S., Patwardhan, A., Rao, N. D., & McJeon, H. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9442656/v1
The Paradox of Climate Justice
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2026) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.70060
Bister, M. D., & Färber, A. (2026) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2026.103858
Assessing fair effort-sharing of Paris-compliant mitigation futures in transport
Sturgess, D., Ferguson, N. S., & Dixon, J. (2026) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ae7987
Mitigation implications of remaining carbon budget allocation rules for Mediterranean countries
Román, M. V., Vicedo-Choques, E., Usubiaga‐Liaño, A., de Ven, D.-J. V., González‐Eguino, M., Sampedro, J., & Arto, I. (2026) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.24364.1
ITMO regulations to ratchet up ambition
Fabre, A. (2026) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2026.103217
China's carbon quotas and surplus: A research framework coupling resources and rights
Yang, J., Feng, X., Zhong, Y., Tian, D., Zhang, Z., & Li, Y. (2026) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2026.115354
National Carbon Budgets and Net-Zero Targets under Dual Emissions AccountingPreprint
Morfeldt, J., Johansson, D. J. A., & Azar, C. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11009726/v1
Wang, Y., Bai, Y., Deng, X., Hu, Y., Sikka, G., & Cui, M. (2026) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2026.10.010
Kagimu, S. M., Crawford, R. H., Helal, J., & Oraee, M. (2026) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.149768
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
