根据体制限制实现最高气温目标的可行性

IF 29.6 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Nature Climate Change Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4
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
{"title":"根据体制限制实现最高气温目标的可行性","authors":"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","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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. The Paris Agreement requires reaching net-zero carbon emissions, but a debate exists on how fast this can be achieved. This study establishes scenarios with different feasibility constraints and finds that the institutional dimension plays a key role for determining the feasible peak temperature.","PeriodicalId":18974,"journal":{"name":"Nature Climate Change","volume":"14 9","pages":"954-960"},"PeriodicalIF":29.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02073-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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. The Paris Agreement requires reaching net-zero carbon emissions, but a debate exists on how fast this can be achieved. This study establishes scenarios with different feasibility constraints and finds that the institutional dimension plays a key role for determining the feasible peak temperature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Climate Change\",\"volume\":\"14 9\",\"pages\":\"954-960\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":29.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02073-4.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Climate Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02073-4\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Climate Change","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02073-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管清洁能源技术部署的进展快于预期,但从 2020 年到 2023 年,全球二氧化碳年排放量仍在增加。因此,将升温限制在 1.5 ° C 的可行性受到质疑。在此,我们介绍了一项模型相互比较研究,该研究考虑了 2023 年之前的排放趋势,并将具有成本效益的情景与具有制度、地球物理和技术可行性限制的替代情景进行了比较。我们的结果表明,根据最新的气候信息,最雄心勃勃的减缓轨迹仍能将峰值升温限制在 1.6 ℃ 以下("低超调"),可能性约为 50%。然而,可行性制约因素,尤其是制度方面的制约因素,将这一最大可能性大大降低至 5-45%。加快能源需求转型可以降低将升温控制在 2 °C 以下的成本,但对进一步提高将升温控制在 1.6 °C 的可能性影响有限。我们的研究有助于建立一个新的减缓情景基准,它超越了主流的成本效益情景设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints
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. The Paris Agreement requires reaching net-zero carbon emissions, but a debate exists on how fast this can be achieved. This study establishes scenarios with different feasibility constraints and finds that the institutional dimension plays a key role for determining the feasible peak temperature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Climate Change
Nature Climate Change ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
CiteScore
40.30
自引率
1.60%
发文量
267
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Nature Climate Change is dedicated to addressing the scientific challenge of understanding Earth's changing climate and its societal implications. As a monthly journal, it publishes significant and cutting-edge research on the nature, causes, and impacts of global climate change, as well as its implications for the economy, policy, and the world at large. The journal publishes original research spanning the natural and social sciences, synthesizing interdisciplinary research to provide a comprehensive understanding of climate change. It upholds the high standards set by all Nature-branded journals, ensuring top-tier original research through a fair and rigorous review process, broad readership access, high standards of copy editing and production, rapid publication, and independence from academic societies and other vested interests. Nature Climate Change serves as a platform for discussion among experts, publishing opinion, analysis, and review articles. It also features Research Highlights to highlight important developments in the field and original reporting from renowned science journalists in the form of feature articles. Topics covered in the journal include adaptation, atmospheric science, ecology, economics, energy, impacts and vulnerability, mitigation, oceanography, policy, sociology, and sustainability, among others.
期刊最新文献
Pathways for urgent action towards climate resilient development Projections of multiple climate-related coastal hazards for the US Southeast Atlantic ‘Arctic Niño’ might emerge in an ice-free world When fire and ice meet Publisher Correction: Internet image search outputs propagate climate change sentiment and impact policy support
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1