2020, Liu, Zhu, Ciais, Philippe, Deng, Zhu, Lei, Ruixue, Davis, Steven J., Feng, Sha, Zheng, Bo, Cui, Duo, Dou, Xinyu, Zhu, Biqing, Guo, Rui, Ke, Piyu, Sun, Taochun, Lu, Chenxi, He, Pan, Wang, Yuan, Yue, Xu, Wang, Yilong, Lei, Yadong, Zhou, Hao, Cai, Zhaonan, Wu, Yuhui, Guo, Runtao, Han, Tingxuan, Xue, Jinjun, Boucher, Olivier, Boucher, Eulalie, Chevallier, Frédéric, Tanaka, Katsumasa, Wei, Yiming, Zhong, Haiwang, Kang, Chongqing, Zhang, Ning, Chen, Bin, Xi, Fengming, Liu, Miaomiao, Bréon, François-Marie, Lu, Yonglong, Zhang, Qiang, Guan, Dabo, Gong, Peng, Kammen, Daniel M., He, Kebin, Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim

The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting human activities, and in turn energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Here we present daily estimates of country-level CO2 emissions for different sectors based on near-real-time activity data. The key result is an abrupt 8.8% decrease in global CO2 emissions (−1551 Mt CO2) in the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The magnitude of this decrease is larger than during previous economic downturns or World War II. The timing of emissions decreases corresponds to lockdown measures in each country. By July 1st, the pandemic’s effects on global emissions diminished as lockdown restrictions relaxed and some economic activities restarted, especially in China and several European countries, but substantial differences persist between countries, with continuing emission declines in the U.S. where coronavirus cases are still increasing substantially.

2019, Luderer, Gunnar, Pehl, Michaja, Arvesen, Anders, Gibon, Thomas, Bodirsky, Benjamin L., de Boer, Harmen Sytze, Fricko, Oliver, Hejazi, Mohamad, Humpenöder, Florian, Iyer, Gokul, Mima, Silvana, Mouratiadou, Ioanna, Pietzcker, Robert C., Popp, Alexander, van den Berg, Maarten, van Vuuren, Detlef, Hertwich, Edgar G.

A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.

2022, Kemp, Luke, Xu, Chi, Depledge, Joanna, Ebi, Kristie L., Gibbins, Goodwin, Kohler, Timothy A., Rockström, Johan, Scheffer, Marten, Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, Steffen, Will, Lenton, Timothy M.