Guidance on emissions metrics for nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15545335 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Steve Denison (0000-0002-3201-1375, University of Leeds, corresponding author), Piers Forster (0000-0002-6078-0171, University of Leeds), Piers M Forster, Christopher J Smith (0000-0001-6417-0824), Chris Smith (0000-0002-1348-189X, University of Leeds) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 12 |
| Pages | 124002-124002 |
| Publication date | 2019-10-15 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Research Letters (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1748-9326 • E-ISSN: 1748-9326 |
| Publisher | IOP Publishing (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4df4 |
| OpenAlex | W2980393020 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 26 |
Many nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement follow the established practice of specifying emissions levels in tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the emissions metric used most often to aggregate contributions from different greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, the climate impact of pathways expressed in this way is known to be ambiguous. For this reason, alternatives have been proposed but the ambiguity has not been quantified in the context of the Paris Agreement. Here we assess the variation in temperature using pathways consistent with the ambition of limiting temperature increases to well below 2 °C. These are taken from the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15). The CO 2 emission levels are adjusted so that the pathways all have the same total CO 2 equivalent emissions for a given emissions metric but have different proportions of short-lived and long-lived pollutants. We show that this difference affects projections by up to 0.17 °C when GWP 100 is used. Options of reducing this ambiguity include using a different emissions metric or adding supplementary information in NDCs about the emissions levels of individual GHGs. We suggest the latter on the grounds of simplicity and because it does not require agreement on the use of a different emissions metric
Ambiguity · Atmospheric sciences · Climate change · Context (archaeology · Econometrics · Economics · Geography · Global temperature · Global warming · Global-warming potential · Greenhouse gas · Limiting · Metric (unit · Physics · Pollutant · Tonne · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols · Chemistry · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Computer Science · Engineering · Environmental Science · Mathematics
GWP*is a model, not a metric
A critical review of green growth indicators in G7 economies from 1990 to 2019
Modeling the non-CO2 contribution to climate change
Global temperature goals should determine the time horizons for greenhouse gas emission metrics
Global methane pledge versus carbon dioxide emission reduction
Alternatives to the Global Warming Potential for Comparing Climate Impacts of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis
Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, Magicc6 – Part 1
Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C
Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization
A unifying framework for metrics for aggregating the climate effect of different emissions
| Citations per year | 1.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2023 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |