Correcting course: the emission reduction potential of international cooperative initiatives
Lui, Swithin; Kuramochi, Takeshi; Smit, Sybrig; Roelfsema, Mark; Hsu, Angel; Weinfurter, Amy; Chan, Sander; Hale, Thomas; Fekete, Hanna; Luetkehermoeller, Katharina; Casas, Maria Jose de Villafranca; Nascimento, Leonardo; Sterl, Sebastian; Hoehne, Niklas
(2021) Climate Policy, volume 21, issue 2, pp. 232 - 250
(Article)
Abstract
This article quantifies the aggregate potential of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in 2030 from the assumed full implementation of major international cooperative initiatives (ICIs). To this end, a methodology is proposed to aggregate emission reduction goals of the most significant and potentially impactful global initiatives. We identified the extent
... read more
to which reductions are additional to national policies, assuming these actions do not displace climate actions elsewhere, and accounted for overlap ranges between the ICIs. The analysis was conducted for 17 initiatives, selected from an original list of over 300 with a series of testing criteria, across eight sectors and ten major emitting economies. These initiatives include cities, regions, businesses, and other subnational and non-state actors, cooperating with each other and sometimes working in partnership with national governments or other international organizations. Our analysis shows that the combined achievement of initiatives’ reduction goals could reduce global emissions in 2030 by 18–21 GtCO 2e/year in addition to current national policies (total of 60–63 GtCO 2e/year), down to 39–44 GtCO 2e/year. If delivered fully, reductions from these 17 initiatives would help move the global emissions trajectory within the range of a 2°C-consistent emission pathway by 2030, although a significant gap would remain to reduce emissions to a 1.5°C-consistent pathway. Key policy insights We propose a transparent and robust methodology to aggregate GHG mitigation potential of ICIs, accounting for overlaps between ICIs. If major initiatives meet their goals and do not change the course of other existing climate actions, they could make large contributions by 2030 towards global efforts to stay within the range of a below 2°C-consistent emission pathway by 2030. The full suite of existing initiatives beyond those in this analysis could further increase ambition towards achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals. Cities and regions, businesses and forestry initiatives account for significantly more than half of all possible emission reductions from ICIs; implementation of their goals should be a key policy focus.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: GHG reductions, Non-state actors, climate change mitigation, international cooperation, mitigation scenarios, Global and Planetary Change, Environmental Science (miscellaneous), Atmospheric Science, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
ISSN: 1469-3062
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Note: Funding Information: This work was supported by Horizon 2020 Framework Programme: [Grant Number 821471]; National University of Singapore: [Grant Number NUS_ECRA_FY18_P15]; Bundesministerium f?r Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung; ClimateWorks Foundation: [Grant Number 19-1383]; UNOPS: [Grant Number 972223/2016/03]. This work was funded by ClimateWorks Foundation (grant no.19-1383). S.L, T.K., M.R., and N.H. received additional support from the European Union?s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 821471 (ENGAGE). S.C. and T.H. received additional support from German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut f?r Entwicklungspolitik?s ?Klimalog? project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). A.H. and A.W. received support from the 2018 National University of Singapore Early Career Award awarded to A.H. This work draws on data provided by CDP, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, Global Covenant of Mayors (EU Secretariat), States and Regions Annual disclosure to CDP, in partnership with The Climate Group, and ICLEI carbonn? Climate Registry. It also draws on data from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Under2 Coalition (Secretariat: The Climate Group), the ClimateSouth project, United States Climate Alliance, United States Climate Mayors, and We Are Still In. We thank Andrew Clapper and Andres Chang (CDP) for their support on data preparation and the pre-analysis of the company-level actions and Nicklas Forsell (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) on the land-use sector data discussions. Data on output performance and the scope and scale of cooperative climate action was collected by the ?Strengthening non-state climate action in the Global South? project (ClimateSouth) which is generously supported by the Europe and Global Challenges Fund, a joint initiative of the Volkswagen Foundation, the Sveriges Riksbank, and the Wellcome Trust). We thank Malin G?tschow, Sara Posa, Miriam Lia Cangussu Tomaz Garcia, Eugene Tingwey and Benedetta Nimshani Khawe Thanthrige for their support on data gathering. Authors would like to thank experts in the UNFCCC Climate Action Methodologies Data and Analysis (CAMDA) community for their feedback in various stages of the analysis. Funding Information: This work was funded by ClimateWorks Foundation (grant no.19-1383). S.L, T.K., M.R., and N.H. received additional support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 821471 (ENGAGE). S.C. and T.H. received additional support from German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik’s “Klimalog” project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). A.H. and A.W. received support from the 2018 National University of Singapore Early Career Award awarded to A.H. This work draws on data provided by CDP, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, Global Covenant of Mayors (EU Secretariat), States and Regions Annual disclosure to CDP, in partnership with The Climate Group, and ICLEI carbonn® Climate Registry. It also draws on data from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Under2 Coalition (Secretariat: The Climate Group), the ClimateSouth project, United States Climate Alliance, United States Climate Mayors, and We Are Still In. We thank Andrew Clapper and Andres Chang (CDP) for their support on data preparation and the pre-analysis of the company-level actions and Nicklas Forsell (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) on the land-use sector data discussions. Data on output performance and the scope and scale of cooperative climate action was collected by the “Strengthening non-state climate action in the Global South” project (ClimateSouth) which is generously supported by the Europe and Global Challenges Fund, a joint initiative of the Volkswagen Foundation, the Sveriges Riksbank, and the Wellcome Trust). We thank Malin Gütschow, Sara Posa, Miriam Lia Cangussu Tomaz Garcia, Eugene Tingwey and Benedetta Nimshani Khawe Thanthrige for their support on data gathering. Authors would like to thank experts in the UNFCCC Climate Action Methodologies Data and Analysis (CAMDA) community for their feedback in various stages of the analysis. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
(Peer reviewed)