Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement
    ([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2020) Roelfsema, Mark; van Soest, Heleen L.; Harmsen, Mathijs; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Bertram, Christoph; den Elzen, Michel; Höhne, Niklas; Iacobuta, Gabriela; Krey, Volker; Kriegler, Elmar; Luderer, Gunnar; Riahi, Keywan; Ueckerdt, Falko; Després, Jacques; Drouet, Laurent; Emmerling, Johannes; Frank, Stefan; Fricko, Oliver; Gidden, Matthew; Humpenöder, Florian; Huppmann, Daniel; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Fragkiadakis, Kostas; Gi, Keii; Keramidas, Kimon; Köberle, Alexandre C.; Aleluia Reis, Lara; Rochedo, Pedro; Schaeffer, Roberto; Oshiro, Ken; Vrontisi, Zoi; Chen, Wenying; Iyer, Gokul C.; Edmonds, Jae; Kannavou, Maria; Jiang, Kejun; Mathur, Ritu; Safonov, George; Vishwanathan, Saritha Sudharmma
    Many countries have implemented national climate policies to accomplish pledged Nationally Determined Contributions and to contribute to the temperature objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change. In 2023, the global stocktake will assess the combined effort of countries. Here, based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, we show that implementation of current policies leaves a median emission gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C Paris goals. If Nationally Determined Contributions would be fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Interestingly, the countries evaluated were found to not achieve their pledged contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or to have an ambition gap with optimal pathways towards well below 2 °C. This shows that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while efficiency improvements are especially important in emerging countries and fossil-fuel-dependent countries.
  • Item
    Corrigendum: Air quality and health implications of 1.5 °C–2 °C climate pathways under considerations of ageing population: a multi-model scenario analysis (2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 045005)
    (Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021) Rafaj, Peter; Kiesewetter, Gregor; Krey, Volker; Schoepp, Wolfgang; Bertram, Christoph; Drouet, Laurent; Fricko, Oliver; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Harmsen, Mathijs; Hilaire, Jérôme; Huppmann, Daniel; Klimont, Zbigniew; Kolp, Peter; Aleluia Reis, Lara; van Vuuren, Detlef
    We have identified an error in the text of section 3.3 where the health co-benefits of 1.5 °C + MFR scenario in the whole of Asia are compared to the reference. In the last paragraph of the section 3.3 (page 11), the manuscript states that 'Across the Asia domain, this reduction is approximately 2.5-3 million cases or 40%-51% depending on the IAM used'. Unfortunately, the numbers quoted here were accidentally taken from a sensitivity analysis using different integrated exposure-response curves (GBD-2010, obtained from Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network 2013), which have not been used in the results shown in the paper-our results are based on the GBD-2013 version, reported by Forouzanfar et al (2015). The correct statement is: 'Across the Asia domain, this reduction is approximately 1.2-1.5 million cases or 33%-42% depending on the IAM used'. The same correction applies to the statement in the Conclusions section 5 (4th paragraph, page 14), which should read: 'The 1.5 °C + MFR scenario decreases premature deaths by 33%-42% across Asia, compared to NPi'.