Cited by 79Climate Change Policy and EconomicsEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthClimate Change and Geoengineering

Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment

Open access
Vrontisi, Zoi, Luderer, Gunnar, Saveyn, Bert, Keramidas, Kimon, Lara, Aleluia Reis, Baumstark, Lavinia, Bertram, Christoph, de Boer, Harmen Sytze +11 more·2018·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

The Paris Agreement is a milestone in international climate policy as it establishes a global mitigation framework towards 2030 and sets the ground for a potential 1.5 °C climate stabilization. To provide useful insights for the 2018 UNFCCC Talanoa facilitative dialogue, we use eight state-of-the-art climate-energy-economy models to assess the effectiveness of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in meeting high probability 1.5 and 2 °C stabilization goals. We estimate that the implementation of conditional INDCs in 2030 leaves an emissions gap from least cost 2 °C and 1.5 °C pathways for year 2030 equal to 15.6 (9.0–20.3) and 24.6 (18.5–29.0) GtCO 2 eq respectively. The immediate transition to a more efficient and low-carbon energy system is key to achieving the Paris goals. The decarbonization of the power supply sector delivers half of total CO 2 emission reductions in all scenarios, primarily through high penetration of renewables and energy efficiency improvements. In combination with an increased electrification of final energy demand, low-carbon power supply is the main short-term abatement option. We find that the global macroeconomic cost of mitigation efforts does not reduce the 2020–2030 annual GDP growth rates in any model more than 0.1 percentage points in the INDC or 0.3 and 0.5 in the 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios respectively even without accounting for potential co-benefits and avoided climate damages. Accordingly, the median GDP reductions across all models in 2030 are 0.4%, 1.2% and 3.3% of reference GDP for each respective scenario. Costs go up with increasing mitigation efforts but a fragmented action, as implied by the INDCs, results in higher costs per unit of abated emissions. On a regional level, the cost distribution is different across scenarios while fossil fuel exporters see the highest GDP reductions in all INDC, 2 °C and 1.5 °C scenarios.

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 · 10.1088/1748-9326/aab53e

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • 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.”

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

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vrontisi, Z., Luderer, G., Saveyn, B., Keramidas, K., Lara, A. R., Baumstark, L., Bertram, C., de Boer, H. S., Drouet, L., Fragkiadakis, K., Fricko, O., Fujimori, S., Guivarch, C., Kitous, A., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Broin, E. Ó., Paroussos, L., & van Vuuren, D.
Affiliations
  • Joint Research Center (ES)
  • Leibniz Association (DE)
  • CMCC Foundation - Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (IT)
  • National Technical University of Athens (GR)
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP)
  • École nationale des ponts et chaussées (FR)
Corresponding author
Saveyn, Bert
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2018-04-01
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
044039
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2799893478
Cited by
79
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
13.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
FP7 Environment (no. 308329 (ADVANCE))
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
Keywords
Paris Agreement, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, emissions gap, climate policy ambition, low-carbon transition, renewable energy, energy efficiency, GDP growth, 2030 scenarios

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