Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Christoph Bertram; Elina Brutschin; Laurent Drouet; Gunnar Luderer; Bas van Ruijven; Lara Aleluia Reis; Luiz Bernardo Baptista; Harmen Sytze de Boer; Ryna Cui; Vassilis Daioglou; Florian Fosse; Dimitris Fragkiadakis; Oliver Fricko; Shinichiro Fujimori; Nate Hultman; Gokul Iyer; Kimon Keramidas; Volker Krey; Elmar Kriegler; Robin D. Lamboll; Rahel Mandaroux; Pedro Rochedo; Joeri Rogelj; Roberto Schaeffer; Diego Silva; Isabela Tagomori; Detlef van Vuuren; Zoi Vrontisi; Keywan Riahi

doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4

Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Christoph Bertram^*
, Elina Brutschin
, Laurent Drouet
, Gunnar Luderer
, Bas van Ruijven
, Lara Aleluia Reis
, Luiz Bernardo Baptista
, Harmen Sytze de Boer
, Ryna Cui
, Vassilis Daioglou
, Florian Fosse
, Dimitris Fragkiadakis
, Oliver Fricko
, Shinichiro Fujimori
, Nate Hultman
, Gokul Iyer
, Kimon Keramidas
, Volker Krey
, Elmar Kriegler
, Robin D. Lamboll

Rahel Mandaroux, Pedro Rochedo, Joeri Rogelj, Roberto Schaeffer, Diego Silva, Isabela Tagomori, Detlef van Vuuren, Zoi Vrontisi, Keywan Riahi

^*Corresponding author for this work

Environmental Sciences

University of Maryland, College Park
Leibniz Association
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg
Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change
Technical University of Berlin
IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Netherlands Assessment Agency (PBL)
European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute
E3Modelling
Kyoto University
National Institute for Environmental Studies of Japan
Université Grenoble Alpes
University of Potsdam
Imperial College London
Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Netherland’s Environmental Agency (PBL)
Graz University of Technology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO₂ emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	954-960
Number of pages	7
Journal	Nature Climate Change
Volume	14
Issue number	9
Early online date	12 Aug 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4
Publication status	Published - Sept 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024. corrected publication 2024.

Funding

This research received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 821471 (ENGAGE) (C.B., E.B., L.D., G.L., B.v.R., L.A.R., L.B.B., H.-S.d.B., R.C., V.D., F.F., D.F., O.F., S.F., N.H., G.I., K.K., V.K., E.K., R.D.L., R.M., P.R., J.R., R.S., D.S., I.T., D.v.V., Z.V., K.R.). We thank A. Cherp for permission to use Fig. 2, the entire modelling teams for the development of the used IAMs and participants of the IAMC 2023 conference for helpful feedback. S.F. and D.S. are supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20241001) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and JST ASPIRE project grant number JPMJAP2331.DAS:The underlying data are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11562539 (ref. 61). All scenarios are made accessible online also via the ENGAGE Scenario Portal at https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/engage.

Funders	Funder number
European Commission (EC)	821471
European Union	JPMEERF20241001
Environment Research and Technology Development Fund
Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan	JPMJAP2331
JST ASPIRE project

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy
SDG 13 Climate Action

Access to Document

10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4Licence: CC BY

s41558-024-02073-4Final published version, 1.49 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Bertram, C., Brutschin, E., Drouet, L., Luderer, G., van Ruijven, B., Aleluia Reis, L., Baptista, L. B., de Boer, H. S., Cui, R., Daioglou, V., Fosse, F., Fragkiadakis, D., Fricko, O., Fujimori, S., Hultman, N., Iyer, G., Keramidas, K., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., ... Riahi, K. (2024). Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 954-960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4

@article{d0345ccb1aeb456ea992b7385c10c92b,

title = "Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints",

abstract = "Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C ({\textquoteleft}low overshoot{\textquoteright}) with around 50\% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5{\textendash}45\%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.",

author = "Christoph Bertram and Elina Brutschin and Laurent Drouet and Gunnar Luderer and \{van Ruijven\}, Bas and \{Aleluia Reis\}, Lara and Baptista, \{Luiz Bernardo\} and \{de Boer\}, \{Harmen Sytze\} and Ryna Cui and Vassilis Daioglou and Florian Fosse and Dimitris Fragkiadakis and Oliver Fricko and Shinichiro Fujimori and Nate Hultman and Gokul Iyer and Kimon Keramidas and Volker Krey and Elmar Kriegler and Lamboll, \{Robin D.\} and Rahel Mandaroux and Pedro Rochedo and Joeri Rogelj and Roberto Schaeffer and Diego Silva and Isabela Tagomori and \{van Vuuren\}, Detlef and Zoi Vrontisi and Keywan Riahi",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024. corrected publication 2024.",

year = "2024",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4",

language = "English",

volume = "14",

pages = "954--960",

journal = "Nature Climate Change",

issn = "1758-678X",

publisher = "Nature Research",

number = "9",

}

Bertram, C, Brutschin, E, Drouet, L, Luderer, G, van Ruijven, B, Aleluia Reis, L, Baptista, LB, de Boer, HS, Cui, R, Daioglou, V, Fosse, F, Fragkiadakis, D, Fricko, O, Fujimori, S, Hultman, N, Iyer, G, Keramidas, K, Krey, V, Kriegler, E, Lamboll, RD, Mandaroux, R, Rochedo, P, Rogelj, J, Schaeffer, R, Silva, D, Tagomori, I, van Vuuren, D, Vrontisi, Z & Riahi, K 2024, 'Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints', Nature Climate Change, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 954-960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

AU - Bertram, Christoph

AU - Brutschin, Elina

AU - Drouet, Laurent

AU - Luderer, Gunnar

AU - van Ruijven, Bas

AU - Aleluia Reis, Lara

AU - Baptista, Luiz Bernardo

AU - de Boer, Harmen Sytze

AU - Cui, Ryna

AU - Daioglou, Vassilis

AU - Fosse, Florian

AU - Fragkiadakis, Dimitris

AU - Fricko, Oliver

AU - Fujimori, Shinichiro

AU - Hultman, Nate

AU - Iyer, Gokul

AU - Keramidas, Kimon

AU - Krey, Volker

AU - Kriegler, Elmar

AU - Lamboll, Robin D.

AU - Mandaroux, Rahel

AU - Rochedo, Pedro

AU - Rogelj, Joeri

AU - Schaeffer, Roberto

AU - Silva, Diego

AU - Tagomori, Isabela

AU - van Vuuren, Detlef

AU - Vrontisi, Zoi

AU - Riahi, Keywan

PY - 2024/9

Y1 - 2024/9

N2 - Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

AB - Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85201020951

U2 - 10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4

DO - 10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85201020951

SN - 1758-678X

VL - 14

SP - 954

EP - 960

JO - Nature Climate Change

JF - Nature Climate Change

IS - 9

ER -

Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Author Correction: Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints (Nature Climate Change, (2024), 10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4)

Cite this