CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 467Climate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth

Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement

Open access
Roelfsema, Mark, van Soest, Heleen L., Harmsen, Mathijs, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Bertram, Christoph, den Elzen, Michel, Höhne, Niklas, Iacobuta, Gabriela +31 more·2020·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6PMC PMC7190619
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO 2 eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using a policy inventory and multi-model scenario analysis, current national climate policies leave a median 2030 emissions gap of 22.4 GtCO2eq with well-below-2 °C pathways and 28.2 GtCO2eq with 1.5 °C pathways. Full implementation of conditional NDCs would reduce the 2 °C gap by a third but still leave a significant ambition gap.

Key findings

  • Global greenhouse gas emissions under the National policies scenario reach 59.3 GtCO2eq (58.4–63.7) by 2030, a 5.3% (3.8%–7.9%) reduction relative to No new policies; this covers 15.4% (10.8%–19.0%) of the gap to the 2 °C pathway and 11% (7.6%–15.9%) to the 1.5 °C pathway.
  • The total 2030 emissions gap between National policies and cost-optimal pathways is 22.4 GtCO2eq (13.6–29.6) for 2 °C and 28.2 GtCO2eq (19.8–42.2) for 1.5 °C. Full conditional NDCs give 51.9 GtCO2eq (50.4–57.4) in 2030, leaving an implementation gap of 7.7 GtCO2eq (5.3–9.7); the 2 °C gap is reduced by a third, leaving a median ambition gap of 16.5 GtCO2eq (6.4–21.0) for 2 °C and 21.2 GtCO2eq (12.2–31.6) for 1.5 °C.
  • For seven large economies, policy implementation reduces national emissions by 0% to 9% (median) relative to No new policies. Implementation gaps with NDCs range from 3% (3–7%) for the Russian Federation to 28% (22–37%) for the United States; China, India, Japan, and the Russian Federation are projected to come close to their NDC targets, while Brazil, the European Union, and the United States are further removed.
  • Closing the global gap by 2030 requires increasing the low-carbon share of final energy by 6.9 pp (4.0%–12.3%) and improving energy intensity by 9.6% (4.8%–24.7%) for 2 °C; for 1.5 °C, these values are 13.0% (7.2%–24.0%) and 17.5% (12.5%–26.8%).

Methods

  • Multi-model scenario analysis using nine global integrated assessment models and ten national models, starting from SSP2, with five scenarios: No new policies, National policies, NDCs, 2 °C, and 1.5 °C.
  • National policies were selected from an open-access policy database, based on high-impact policies for G20 economies, with a cut-off date of 31 December 2016; results are presented globally and for Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the United States.
  • Results use medians and 10th–90th percentile ranges across models; gaps are decomposed using Kaya identity indicators, and 2 °C/1.5 °C scenarios use carbon budgets of 1000 GtCO2 and 400 GtCO2 for 2011–2100, respectively.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the analysis is limited to national policies and NDCs for G20 economies representing 75% of total 2010 greenhouse gas emissions; countries with high-impact policies but not included represent around 5% of global 2010 emissions.
  • The paper states that the policy inventory covers implemented and planned national policies up to 2017, with a cut-off date of 31 December 2016, so very recent policy updates or planned policies in the pipeline were not included.
  • The paper states that IAMs differ in aggregation and policy representation, often assume one central planner, and have limited ability to reflect social and economic dynamics of developing and transition economies; cost-optimal 2 °C/1.5 °C pathways may imply higher costs in low-income regions unless complemented by financial transfers. Evident from the text: NDC targets for China and India could not be translated into one specific absolute greenhouse gas emission level, and AFOLU emission estimates are inherently uncertain.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 21 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Current national policies leave a median global total emissions gap by 2030 of 28.2 GtCO2eq with a 1.5 °C pathway.

    “and 28.2 GtCO2eq with a 1.5 °C pathway.”
    • Also stated in: § Global emissions gap and for seven large G20 countries · plain
      “and 28.2 GtCO2eq (19.8–42.2) for the 1.5 °C limit”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.
  • Findingown data

    Under the No new policies scenario, global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to reach 63.9 GtCO2eq (61.0-69.1) by 2030.

    “Under the No new policies scenario, the models project an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions to 63.9 GtCO2eq (61.0–69.1; median and 10th to 90th percentile range over all model results) by 2030.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Countries with high-impact policies but not included in the assessment represent around 5% of global 2010 emissions.

    “It is estimated that the countries with high-impact policies, but not included in our assessment, represent around 5% of global 2010 emissions (see Supplementary Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    Full implementation of conditional NDCs leaves a median ambition gap of 16.5 GtCO2eq with 2 °C pathways.

    “leaving a median ambition gap of 16.5 GtCO2eq (6.4–21.0) with 2 °C pathways”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.
  • Findingown data

    China, India, Japan and the Russian Federation are close to achieving their NDC with national policies, leaving a small implementation gap.

    “This leaves a small implementation gap for China, India, Japan, Russian Federation as they are close to achieving their NDC”
    • Also stated in: § Impact of national policies for seven large G20 economies · hedged
      “China, India, Japan and Russian Federation are projected to come close to achieving their NDC targets with national policies by 2030.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • May combine two claims. 27

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    NDC targets for G20 economies are generally defined for the year 2030, but the US NDC target is defined for the year 2025.

    “In general, NDC targets for G20 economies are defined for the year 2030, but the US NDC target is defined for the year 2025.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the seven individual G20 countries, greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would need to decrease compared to the national policies scenario by 25 to 41% (median) to stay on track to keep temperature below 2 °C, and by 33 to 54% (median) under the 1.5 °C scenario.

    “For the seven individual G20 countries, greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would need to decrease compared to the national policies scenario by 25 to 41% (median) to stay on track to keep temperature below 2 °C, while this is 33 to 54% (median) under the 1.5 °C scenario (see Table 2 and Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Effort-sharing approaches based on equity principles would lead to lower allowance of cumulative emissions in the EU, Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States, and to higher allowances for India, resulting in an opposite impact on the gap between national policies and these allowances.

    “In contrast, effort-sharing approaches based on equity principles would lead to lower allowance of cumulative emissions in the EU, Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States, and to higher allowances for India (see Supplementary Fig. 3), resulting in an opposite impact on the gap between national policies and these allowances.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For national policies, greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would be somewhat higher, and for well below 2 °C scenarios lower, than earlier studies indicated.

    “The results from this study show that, for national policies, greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 would be somewhat higher and for well below 2 °C scenarios lower than earlier studies indicated2,4,42”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Vandyck, T., Keramidas, K., Saveyn, B., Kitous, A. & Vrontisi, Z. A global stocktake of the Paris pledges: Implications for energy systems and economy. Glob. Environ. Change 41, 46–63 (2016). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] van Soest, H. L. et al. Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change energy systems. Clim. Change 144, 165–179 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Projections for final energy intensity show that the difference between the National policies scenario and the 2 °C scenarios is small for the European Union, Japan and the United States, somewhat larger and more uncertain for Brazil, and largest for China, India and the Russian Federation.

    “Projections for final energy intensity give a different picture, where the difference between the National policies scenario and the 2 °C scenarios are small for the European Union, Japan and the United States, somewhat larger (and more uncertain) for Brazil, and largest for China, India and the Russian Federation (See Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Global annual mitigation costs per GDP by 2030 under the national policies scenario are small, and increase to 0.9% (0.3%-2.2%) under the 2 °C scenario and to 1.3% (1.0%-4.0%) under the 1.5 °C scenario.

    “Global annual mitigation costs per GDP by 2030, under the national policies scenario, are small, and increase to 0.9% (0.3%–2.2%) under the 2 °C scenario, and to 1.3% (1.0%–4.0%) under the 1.5 °C scenario (see Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Between 42 and 94% of the high-impact policies from the seven G20 economies were implemented in the nine IAMs considered in this paper, and these are estimated to represent 50 to 100% of possible greenhouse gas reductions.

    “Between 42 and 94% of the high-impact policies from the seven G20 economies were implemented in the nine IAMs considered in this paper, and are estimated to represent 50 to 100% of possible greenhouse gas reductions (see Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: If a policy instrument would end before the policy target year, the instrument is assumed to continue until the target year of the aspirational goal.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Where a G20 country is part of a larger model region, the policy indicator is aggregated by assuming business-as-usual for those countries without policies and implementation of the policy for countries with policies.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Equivalent effort after 2030 is assumed, defined as a constant percentage reduction relative to the No new policies scenario or similar forms of continued ambition.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    To close the 2 °C gap by 2030 relative to the National policies scenario, global emissions need to be reduced by 36% (23-49%), and to close the 1.5 °C gap, by 45% (33-65%).

    “This is respectively a global reduction of 36% (23–49%) and 45% (33–65%) by 2030 relative to the national policies scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Current national climate policy implementation is weak and includes significant gaps, for example in industry and freight transport policies.

    “The current policy implementation is weak and includes significant gaps (e.g., industry, freight transport policies).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the total impact on emission growth under the National policies scenario, the policy impact is around one third, and a somewhat larger part is real uncertainty.

    “Of the total impact, the policy impact is around one third, and a somewhat larger part is real uncertainty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the 1.5 °C case, the non-fossil share would need to increase by 13.0% (7.2%-24.0%) and energy intensity would need to improve by 17.5% (12.5%-26.8%).

    “These numbers are 13.0% (7.2%–24.0%) and 17.5% (12.5%–26.8%) for the 1.5 °C case (see Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The gaps for the seven countries can be closed by increasing the low-carbon share of final energy by 5.4 pp for the European Union to 8.5 pp for China to stay below 2 °C, and between 5.4 pp in the European Union to 20.2 pp in China for the 1.5 °C case.

    “These gaps can be closed by strongly increasing the low-carbon share of final energy by 5.4 pp for the European Union to 8.5 pp for China to stay below 2 °C, and between 5.4 pp in the European Union to 20.2 pp in China for the 1.5 °C case.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Assumptions on socio-economic factors explain the largest part of the ranges in the results for 2030, while differences in policy impact explain about one third of them.

    “Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that assumptions on socio-economic factors explain the largest part of the ranges in the results for 2030; while the differences in policy impact explain about 1/3 of them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The impact of historical calibration on the projected global growth in emissions between 2015 and 2030 is small; this growth is much more dependent on socio-economic factors such as GDP and population growth.

    “This shows that the impact of historical calibration on the projected global growth in emissions between 2015 and 2030 is small; this growth is much more dependent on socio-economic factors such as GDP and population growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    To close the 2 °C gap by 2030, the non-fossil share would need to increase by 6.9 pp (4.0%-12.3%) and energy intensity would need to improve by 9.6% (4.8%-24.7%).

    “To close the gap by 2030 with the National policies scenario, the non-fossil share would need to increase by 6.9 pp (4.0%–12.3%) (energy mix gap), and the energy-intensity needs to improve by 9.6% (4.8%–24.7%)) (efficiency improvement gap).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The European Union, United States and Brazil do not achieve their NDC with national policies, but their ambition gap is smaller because their NDCs are close to the cost-optimal 2 °C pathways.

    “while this is not the case for the European Union, United States and Brazil, but their ambition gap is smaller as NDCs are close to the cost-optimal 2 °C pathways.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Paris Agreement objective is to hold average global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.

    “The objective of the Paris Climate Agreement is to hold average global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] UNFCCC. Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21 (UNFCCC, 2015).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To evaluate coherence of national pathways, the aggregated results of the integrated assessment models were compared with similar runs of national models for the same countries.

    “To evaluate the coherence of the national pathways, we compared the aggregated results of the integrated assessment models with similar runs of national models for the same countries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Full implementation of conditional NDCs would close the global implementation gap but would still leave a significant ambition gap.

    “which would close the global implementation gap, but would still leave a significant ambition gap.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have shown that taken together, NDCs and national policies fall significantly short of the overall ambition of the Paris Agreement.

    “Previous studies have highlighted that taken together, the NDCs and national policies fall significantly short of the overall ambition of the Paris Agreement2–4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Vrontisi, Z. et al. Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 44039 (2018). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Vandyck, T., Keramidas, K., Saveyn, B., Kitous, A. & Vrontisi, Z. A global stocktake of the Paris pledges: Implications for energy systems and economy. Glob. Environ. Change 41, 46–63 (2016). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The nine integrated assessment models used in this study have all submitted data for the 1.5 °C scenarios to the IPCC 1.5 °C report.

    “The nine integrated assessment models (see Methods) used in this study have all submitted data for the 1.5 °C scenarios to the IPCC 1.5 °C report9.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] IPCC. Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 °C in the Context of Sustainable Development (IPCC, 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    A multi-model approach using a range of model types adds to the robustness of the assessment.

    “Such a multi-model approach using a range of model types (simulation/optimisation, general or partial equilibrium) adds to the robustness of the assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The range of outcomes across integrated assessment models is a result of differences in historical emissions, different assumptions about socio-economic growth rates, different impact of policy implementation in models, and real uncertainty from structural model differences.

    “This range is a result of the differences in historical emissions21, different assumptions about socio-economic growth rates, different impact of policy implementation in models, and finally real uncertainty as a result of structural model differences (see Methods).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] Rogelj, J. et al. Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nat. Commun. 8, 15748 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Cost-optimal implementation results in measures being implemented in countries where this is cheapest, but this does not imply that the implementing country would need to face all the costs.

    “The result is implementation of measures in countries where this is cheapest, but this does not imply that the implementing country would need to face all the costs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Mitigation costs can be shared, and thus financed by other countries.

    “These costs can be shared, and thus financed by other countries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    MAC cost measures tend to exclude existing distortions in the economy.

    “MAC cost measures tend to exclude existing distortions in the economy42.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] van Soest, H. L. et al. Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change energy systems. Clim. Change 144, 165–179 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If less cooperation between countries is assumed, a different allocation would increase total costs of implementation.

    “If less cooperation between countries is assumed, a different allocation would increase total costs of implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways in this study are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation, but this might not be the most realistic approach to deriving national reduction targets, as it would typically lead to relatively high costs in low-income countries.

    “In all, 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways in this study are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation, but it might not be the most realistic approach to deriving national reduction targets, as it would typically lead to relatively high costs in low-income countries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If cost-effective climate policy would be adopted, emission trading or transnational climate financing could still ensure a cost-optimal implementation.

    “If cost-effective climate policy would be adopted, emission trading or transnational climate financing could still ensure a cost-optimal implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    To maintain the window to well below 2 °C or 1.5 °C, all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries (China, India, Brazil) and fossil-fuel-dependent countries (Russian Federation).

    “In order to do so, all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries (China, India, Brazil) and fossil-fuel-dependent countries (Russian Federation).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Comparison of global model results with national model outcomes confirms the above trends, although absolute levels differ in a few cases.

    “We have compared the results of the global models also to the outcomes of the same scenarios from national models from each individual country. These results confirm the above trends, although the absolute levels differ in a few cases (Figs. 1 and 2)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous literature has shown that inadequate near-term reduction efforts imply a substantially higher rate of transformation to comply with the 2 °C limit, stranded assets, substantially higher mitigation costs in the long term, and reduced techno-economic mitigation potential due to carbon lock-in.

    “Previous literature has shown that inadequate near-term reduction efforts imply that a substantially higher rate of transformation will be needed to comply with the 2 °C limit11, stranded assets25 and substantially higher mitigation costs in the long term, and reduced techno-economic mitigation potential due to carbon lock-in26.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] Riahi, K. et al. Locked into Copenhagen pledges—implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 8–23 (2015). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Mercure, J. F. et al. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 588–593 (2018). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Davis, S. J., Caldeira, K. & Matthews, H. D. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329, 1330–1333 (2010). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Unless governments increase ambition, the collective effort of current national policies significantly stays short of the objectives of the Paris Agreement and even fails to meet the joint ambition secured in NDCs.

    “Unless governments increase ambition, the collective effort of current national policies significantly stays short of the objectives of the Paris Agreement and even fails to meet the joint ambition secured in NDCs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Very recent policy updates since 2017, or planned policies in the pipeline to be implemented, were not included in the analysis.

    “Note that very recent policy updates since 2017, or planned policies in the pipeline to be implemented were not included.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Integrated assessment models describe key processes in the interaction of human development and the natural environment and are designed to assess the implications of achieving climate objectives.

    “Integrated assessment models (IAMs) describe key processes in the interaction of human development and natural environment and are designed to assess the implications of achieving climate objectives2,34.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] UNEP. The Emissions Gap report 2016 (UNEP, 2016).

      Not checked in the free run.

35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The success of the Paris Agreement critically depends on the implementation of climate policies at the national level.

    “While this objective is formulated at the global level, the success of the agreement critically depends on the implementation of climate policies at the national level.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Countries pursue the same national efforts between 2030 and 2050 under the National policies scenario by keeping total percentage emission reductions relative to the No new policies scenario constant.

    “and in addition assume countries pursue the same national efforts between 2030 and 2050 under the National policies scenario by keeping total percentage emission reductions relative to the No new policies scenario constant.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation.

    “In all, 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways in this study are calculated assuming cost-optimal implementation”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    If a policy instrument would end before the policy target year, the instrument is assumed to continue until the target year of the aspirational goal.

    “If the policy instrument would end before the policy target year, we assumed continuation of this instrument until the target year of the aspirational goal.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Where a G20 country is part of a larger model region, the policy indicator is aggregated by assuming business-as-usual for those countries without policies and implementation of the policy for countries with policies.

    “In case a G20 country is part of a larger model region, the policy (indicator) is aggregated by assuming business-as-usual for those countries without policies, and implementation of the policy for countries with policies32.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Equivalent effort after 2030 is assumed, defined as a constant percentage reduction relative to the No new policies scenario or similar forms of continued ambition.

    “The national policies were implemented for the period from 2010 to 2030, and equivalent effort was assumed after 2030.”
6 of 6

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?

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.

  • US policy-reduction estimate differs from Table 2

    Major

    The text reports a US reduction of 10% (4-12%), but Table 2 reports 6% (4-13%). The text also presents the US as the upper end of the country range, whereas Table 2 gives the European Union a higher median reduction of 9%.

  • US implementation-gap estimate differs from Table 2

    Major

    The text gives the US implementation gap as 28% (22-37%), while Table 2 gives 31% (22-38%).

  • Table 3 mislabels three emissions-gap columns

    Minor

    Table 3 labels its second results column as an absolute 2 °C gap, its third as a percentage 1.5 °C gap, and its fourth as a percentage 2 °C gap. The results text identifies the corresponding world values as 36% for 2 °C, 28.2 GtCO2eq for 1.5 °C, and 45% for 1.5 °C.

  • Russian implementation-gap range omits negative values shown in Table 2

    Minor

    The text reports a Russian Federation implementation-gap range of 3-7%, but Table 2 reports −3-7%.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. IPCC. Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 °C in the Context of Sustainable Development (IPCC, 2018).
  2. Blanco, G. et al. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014).
  3. Kitous, A., Keramidas, K., Vandyck, T. & Saveyn, B. GECO 2016. Global Energy and Climate Outlook. Road from Paris. Impact of Climate Policies on Global Energy Markets in the Context of the UNFCCC Paris Agreement. JRC Science for policy report. https://doi.org/10.2791/662470 (2016). · DOI
  4. FAOSTAT. Food and agriculture data, http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E. Vol. 2017 FAOSTAT provides free access to food and agriculture (FAOSTAT, 2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
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., Luderer, G., Riahi, K., Ueckerdt, F., Després, J., Drouet, L., Emmerling, J., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Gidden, M., Humpenöder, F., Huppmann, D., Fujimori, S., Fragkiadakis, K., Gi, K., Keramidas, K., Köberle, A. C., Aleluia Reis, L., Rochedo, P., Schaeffer, R., Oshiro, K., Vrontisi, Z., Chen, W., Iyer, G. C., Edmonds, J., Kannavou, M., Jiang, K., Mathur, R., Safonov, G., & Vishwanathan, S. S.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL)
  • Leibniz Association (DE)
  • NewClimate Institute (DE)
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
  • European Commission (BE)
  • RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (IT)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • National Technical University of Athens (GR)
  • Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (JP)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Joint Global Change Research Institute (US)
  • National Development and Reform Commission (CN)
  • Energy and Resources Institute (IN)
  • Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IN)
Corresponding author
Roelfsema, Mark
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-04-29
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
2096-2096
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6
PMC
PMC7190619
OpenAlex
W3021969666
Semantic Scholar
5293b34dc2aedce731eedcf7271965fa168c0753
Cited by
467
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 1
FWCI
54.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kyoto University Research Information Repository (Kyoto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RENATE (cc-by)
Funders
  • Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (2-1702, 2-1908)
  • European Commission (21020701/2017/770447/SER/CLIMA.C.1 EuropeAid/138417/DH/SER/MulitOC, HORIZON2020, 642147, 821471)
  • Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
  • Tsinghua University
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • National Development and Reform Commission
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
  • Institut Teknologi Bandung
  • National Cancer Institute
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
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
Keywords
Paris Agreement, Nationally Determined Contributions, climate policy implementation, emissions gap, Global Stocktake, 2°C target, 1.5°C target, renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency, emerging markets, climate change mitigation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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