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.
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 the USA, the EU, Japan and Russia, the opposite is the case: IEPC immediately leads to much lower allowances than current emission levels given their current high per capita emission 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.
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
“Combined, China and India are allocated more than 80% of the global budget in this approach.”
§ 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: 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 AP* approach-while sharing some characteristics with the GDR* approach-shows much smaller differences between countries.”
§ 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: 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 most countries, the cost-optimal reductions are between the GF* and PCC* allocations.”
§ 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: passes — 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
“However, the amount to which national budgets decrease depends on the approach.”
§ 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.
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 USA, for instance, the allocated budget ranges from less than -300 GtCO 2 to 160 GtCO 2 (about 30 times their current CO 2 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: 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 the pathways, emissions allowance allocations are negative by or soon after 2030.”
§ 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: 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
“A weighting towards capability, for instance, leads to much smaller budgets for especially the EU and Japan, both of which have relatively low emissions per capita given their GDP per capita level.”
§ 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.
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
“Of those two parameters, the weighting factor has the largest effect on the results, especially for those countries with relatively high or low emissions per capita compared to their GDP per capita.”
§ 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.
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 the EU, Japan and India, the differences between the approaches are even larger.”
§ 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.
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 approach even leads to negative budgets for these 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.
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 all countries except India, the GDR* approach is the most sensitive to the different parametrisations applied here.”
§ 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
“negative remaining carbon budgets for developed countries.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Conclusions · plain
“In general, 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.”
§ 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.
- Also stated in: § 4 Conclusions · plain
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 the IEPC approach implies immediate equal per capita emission allowances for the emission pathways, India is allocated more allowances than baseline emissions until about 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: 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
“As can be observed in the emission pathways, China's emission allowances are projected to rise significantly more under the GF approach compared to the IEPC approach, for the same reasons.”
§ 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.
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 effect of the start year is especially important for the EU, the USA, Russia and 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: 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
“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
“The most salient results are the extreme outcomes of the GDR* approach relative to all other approaches.”
§ 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.
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 USA, EU and Japan, all approaches except GF* lead to more stringent budgets compared to cost-optimal allocation-suggesting that a uniform global carbon price only leads to an equitable outcome based on the principle of acquired rights.”
§ 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
“In practice, this means that a country with a GDP per capita income that is twice as high as the global average GDP per capita, the country's relative reduction target is 26% larger (so if the average global reduction is 10%, the country needs to reduce 12.6%).”
§ 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.
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
“However, for most of the other approaches, a more stringent budget leads to smaller absolute differences in budget allocations between countries.”
§ 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.
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 implied carbon budget for the USA would be -150 GtCO 2 under the pathways approach instead of -300 GtCO 2 under the budget approach (Fig. 4).”
§ 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.
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 Russia, the opposite is the case: a weighting towards responsibility leads to a much smaller budget given their relatively high emissions per capita and low GDP per capita.”
§ 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.
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
“PCC* lies in between these values.”
§ 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.
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 the ECPC* approach, the budget of Brazil is much more stringent with, than without, land use CO 2 , as including their historical land use CO 2 emissions significantly increase their historical per capita emission levels.”
§ 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
“This is the case for the equal cumulative per capita approach and especially the greenhouse development rights approach.”
§ 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
“For China, the carbon budgets are smaller than for India, given the (much) higher GDP per capita levels and higher 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: 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
“This results in a larger budget (by 40 GtCO 2 ) if the ability to pay would 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.
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
“Under the ECPC* approach, the budget of Brazil is much more stringent with, than without, land use CO 2 , as including their historical land use CO 2 emissions significantly increase their historical per capita emission levels.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Apart from grandfathering, all effort-sharing approaches considered here lead to smaller, and sometimes much smaller, carbon budgets for developed countries than the cost-optimal budget.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McCollum et al. 2018
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
“Furthermore, the variation in historical start year (i.e.1850, 1970 or 1990) created significant differences in equal cumulative per capita* (ECPC*) carbon budgets, in addition to the discount rate.”
§ 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.
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
“Most notably, AP and AP*, in which we considered the choice of GDP (MER or PPP) and the inclusion or exclusion of a participation threshold, showed a large range of outcomes, which was largely due to MER or PPP.”
§ 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.
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
“Still, results were also very sensitive to the parameters chosen within a single approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
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.
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
“Similar reasoning as for GDR* holds here, with an especially larger budget for India and China for a starting year in 1850 compared to 1990 (the difference being 60 GtCO 2 for both countries).”
§ 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.
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
“We introduced novel methods to directly calculate national carbon budgets from effort-sharing approaches, and showed how for some methods, value judgments on parameter settings play an important role in the results.”
§ 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.
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
“Carbon budget and emission pathway calculations differ mostly as a function of the different effort-sharing approaches.”
§ 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.
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
“Yet, the historical start year did not influence the outcomes of GDR* as significantly, most likely due to the relatively lower weighting towards historical emissions within the RCI compared to ECPC* that focuses on responsibility entirely.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“For the USA, EU and Japan, all approaches except GF* lead to more stringent budgets compared to cost-optimal allocation-suggesting that a uniform global carbon price only leads to an equitable outcome based on the principle of acquired rights.”
§ 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.
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
“indicating that cost-optimal approaches do not lead to outcomes that can be regarded as fair according to most effort-sharing approaches.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Conclusions · hedged
“This indicates that cost-optimal approaches do not lead to outcomes that can be regarded as fair according to most effort-sharing approaches.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > Abstract
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.
- Also stated in: § 4 Conclusions · hedged
In the paper
“At the global scale, the carbon budget approach is based on the strong linear relationship between long-term temperature change and cumulative CO 2 emissions, because of the long lifetime of CO 2 and the main contribution of CO 2 to anthropogenic warming (Stocker et al. 2013).”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stocker et al. 2013
boostedcorrelational- 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.
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
“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 > 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
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.
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 choice of coverage of GHG emissions also matters, as including all Kyoto GHG emissions including land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) emissions or only energy (and industrial processes)-related CO 2 emissions, could lead to significantly different outcomes.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 2.4 Parameter 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“As such, the GDR* approach leads to even more extreme outcomes under more stringent global budgets.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and 2 °C with > 66% likelihood (in line with about 1000 GtCO 2 for 2011-2100) (Rogelj et al. 2016b;IPCC 2014)”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogelj et al. 2016b
- Not checked yetcites IPCC 2014
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.
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 a result, it is possible to derive global targets for cumulative CO 2 emissions tolerable over a certain period.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 1 Introduction
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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Differences between these indirect and direct carbon budgets can be explained by the variation in calculation methodologies between carbon budgets and emission 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“keeping global mean temperature below 1.5 °C by 2100 with > 66% likelihood (in line with about 400 GtCO 2 global carbon budget for the period 2011-2100)”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogelj et al. 2016b
- Not checked yetcites IPCC 2014
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.
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
“For approaches that rely on projected BAU emissions, the results can be ambiguous, as excluding LULUCF CO 2 emissions not only affects historical emissions (important for GDR*) but BAU emissions as well.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The literature has shown that outcomes of effort-sharing approaches depend significantly on the parameter settings within each approach.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 1 Introduction
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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“This is a result of a combination of relatively high historical emissions and high GDP per capita for the latter group of countries-resulting in high RCIs.”
§ 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.
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
“Note that for the pathways' approach, GDR gradually moves to AP outcomes as RCI data was not available from 2031 onwards, which explains the change in trend for the GDR pathways in Fig. S.1.”
§ 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.
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
“Yet, the historical start year did not influence the outcomes of GDR* as significantly, most likely due to the relatively lower weighting towards historical emissions within the RCI compared to ECPC* that focuses on responsibility entirely.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
hedgedconditional- 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.
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
“Some approaches lead to extreme outcomes, which is a consequence of our staying as closely as possible to the equity principle underlying the effort-sharing approach.”
§ 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.
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
“Furthermore, they can lead to the allocation of negative emissions allowances or budgets, something which approaches that allocate budgets or emission allowances by definition cannot.”
§ 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.
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
“The results presented in this research illustrate the importance of parameter choices and calculation methodologies in order to represent effortsharing approaches, which accurately depict the underlying equity principles.”
§ 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.
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
“Although this represents a full range of outcomes, it means that some of the outcomes are clearly impossible to achieve by domestic emission reductions alone.”
§ Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways > 4 Conclusions
boosted- 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
Net-zero emission targets for major emitting countries consistent with the Paris Agreement
van Soest, H. L., den Elzen, M. G. J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22294-x · Cited by 568
Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement
Roelfsema, M., van Soest, H. L., Harmsen, M., van Vuuren, D. P., Bertram, C., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Iacobuta, G., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6 · Cited by 467
Self-citationImpacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions
Bruckner, B., Hubacek, K., Shan, Y., Zhong, H., & Feng, K. (2022) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00842-z · Cited by 356
Fragkos, P. F., van Soest, H. L., Schaeffer, R., Reedman, L., Köberle, A. C., Macaluso, N., Evangelopoulou, S., Vita, A. D., Sha, F., Chai, Q., et al. (2020) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.119385 · Cited by 255
Self-citationAssessing the size and uncertainty of remaining carbon budgets
Lamboll, R., Nicholls, Z., Smith, C. J., Kikstra, J., Byers, E., & Rogelj, J. (2023) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01848-5 · Cited by 210
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
