Cited by 364Climate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceClimate Change and Geoengineering

Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals

Open access
Riahi, Keywan, Kriegler, Elmar, Johnson, Nils, Bertram, Christoph, den Elzen, Michel, Eom, Jiyong, Schaeffer, Michiel, Edmonds, Jae +16 more·2015·Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the AMPERE modeling comparison project with focus on the implications of near-term policies for the costs and attainability of long-term climate objectives. Nine modeling teams participated in the project to explore the consequences of global emissions following the proposed policy stringency of the national pledges from the Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements to 2030. Specific features compared to earlier assessments are the explicit consideration of near-term 2030 emission targets as well as the systematic sensitivity analysis for the availability and potential of mitigation technologies. Our estimates show that a 2030 mitigation effort comparable to the pledges would result in a further “lock-in” of the energy system into fossil fuels and thus impede the required energy transformation to reach low greenhouse-gas stabilization levels (450 ppm CO2e). Major implications include significant increases in mitigation costs, increased risk that low stabilization targets become unattainable, and reduced chances of staying below the proposed temperature change target of 2 °C in case of overshoot. With respect to technologies, we find that following the pledge pathways to 2030 would narrow policy choices, and increases the risks that some currently optional technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or the large-scale deployment of bioenergy, will become “a must” by 2030.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These historical reductions were all achieved for non-climate reasons, with a focus on energy security and not on emissions reductions.

    “These historical reductions were all achieved for non-climate reasons, with a focus on energy security and not on emissions reductions.”

    From Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C (2016) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 4 attributes some historical emissions reductions to non-climate factors: Sweden’s response to the 1973 oil crisis and economic recessions in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. But it attributes France’s reductions to public support for nuclear power and also mentions the greening of Sweden’s energy system. It does not establish that all the reductions focused on energy security rather than emissions reductions. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All historical analogues for reductions were achieved in highly developed countries, such as France, Sweden and Denmark.

    “This becomes even clearer when appreciating that all historical analogues for reductions were achieved in highly developed countries, such as France, Sweden and Denmark.”

    From Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C (2016) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 4 names France, Sweden and Denmark as historical examples of emission declines. But it does not say all historical analogues came from highly developed countries: it also reports higher historical reduction rates in Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries, primarily during economic recessions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Not all scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP may be equally attainable.

    “Results from major international IAM comparison projects (Clarke et al., 2009;Kriegler et al., 2014b;Riahi et al., 2015) indicate that not all scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP may be equally attainable.”

    From The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 (2016) · cites this paper as Riahi et al., 2015

    Section 5, “Mitigation costs and feasibility,” reports that some modeled pathways were infeasible and that feasibility varied with near-term emissions and technology assumptions. This supports the general point that scenarios may differ in attainability, but the paper studies AMPERE pathways, not the scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The overall challenge can be minimized by additional GHG reductions in the near-term.

    “However, the overall challenge can be minimized by additional GHG reductions in the near-term 16,40,41 .”
  • Historically, countries have been able to achieve reductions in CO2 generation at rates of about 2%-3% per year as a result of dedicated (energy-security) policies.

    “Historically, countries have been able to achieve reductions in CO2 generation at rates of about 2%-3% per year as a result of dedicated (energy-security) policies 40 (Fig. 2c; Supplementary Text 4).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. F. von Hippel, M. Bunn, A. Diakov, M. Ding, R. Goldston, T. Katsuta, M.V. Ramana, T. Suzuki, Y. Suyuan, Chapter 14 -nuclear energy, Global K. Riahi et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 90 (2015) 8-23
  2. Energy Assessment -Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 1069-1130, (the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria).
  3. B. Fisher, K. Alfsen, J. Corfee Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.C. Hourcade, K. Jiang, M. Kainuma, E. La Rovere, A. Matysek, A. Rana, K. Riahi, R. Richels, S. Rose, D.P. van Vuuren, R. Warren, Chapter 3: issues related to mitigation in the long-term context, in: B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of WGIII to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCCCambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, pp. 169-250.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riahi, K., Kriegler, E., Johnson, N., Bertram, C., den Elzen, M., Eom, J., Schaeffer, M., Edmonds, J., Isaac, M., Krey, V., Longden, T., Luderer, G., Méjean, A., McCollum, D. L., Mima, S., Turton, H., van Vuuren, D. P., Wada, K., Bosetti, V., Capros, P., Criqui, P., Hamdi-Cherif, M., Kainuma, M., & Edenhofer, O.
Affiliations
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
  • Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
  • Joint Global Change Research Institute (US)
  • Climate Analytics (DE)
  • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL)
  • Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (IT)
  • CIRED (FR)
  • Paul Scherrer Institute (CH)
  • Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (JP)
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
  • Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (DE)
Corresponding author
Riahi, Keywan
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
90
Pages
8-23
ISSN
0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2266015486
Cited by
360
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 9
FWCI
77.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Technological Forecasting and Social Change (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DORA PSI (Paul Scherrer Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • RENATE
Funders
European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) (265139)
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 › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
Keywords
Cancun Agreements, 2030 emission targets, climate change mitigation costs, greenhouse gas stabilization, 2°C target, overshoot, fossil fuel lock-in, energy system transformation, carbon capture and storage, bioenergy, climate policy stringency

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.

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