Non-CO2 forcing changes will likely decrease the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 °C

Abstract

One key contribution to the wide range of 1.5°C carbon budgets among recent studies is the non-CO 2 climate forcing scenario uncertainty. Based on a partitioning of historical non-CO 2 forcing, we show that currently there is a net negative non-CO 2 forcing from fossil fuel combustion (FFC), and a net positive non-CO 2 climate forcing from land-use change (LUC) and agricultural activities. We perform a set of future simulations in which we prescribed a 1.5°C temperature stabilisation trajectory, and diagnosed the resulting 1.5°C carbon budgets. Using the historical partitioning, we then prescribed adjusted non-CO 2 forcing scenarios consistent with our model's simulated decrease in FFC CO 2 emissions. We compared the diagnosed carbon budgets from these adjusted scenarios to those resulting from the default RCP scenario's non-CO 2 forcing, and to a scenario in which proportionality between future CO 2 and non-CO 2 forcing is assumed. We find a wide range of carbon budget estimates across scenarios, with the largest budget emerging from the scenario with assumed proportionality of CO 2 and non-CO 2 forcing. Furthermore, our adjusted-RCP scenarios produce carbon budgets that are smaller than the corresponding default RCP scenarios. Our results suggest that ambitious mitigation scenarios will likely be characterised by an increasing contribution of non-CO 2 forcing, and that an assumption of continued proportionality between CO 2 and non-CO 2 forcing would lead to an overestimate of the remaining carbon budget. Maintaining such proportionality under ambitious fossil fuel mitigation would require mitigation of non-CO 2 emissions at a rate that is substantially faster than found in the standard RCP scenarios.

Digitalization and AI in European Agriculture: A Strategy for Achieving Climate and Biodiversity Targets?

“…Both international, legally binding agreements require comprehensive changes in all sectors, including the agricultural sector. In particular, they require zero emissions within a maximum of two decades and a significant reduction in animal husbandry [28,30,35,37,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. In addition, environmental quality objectives are set at the EU level.…”

“…However, the question arises of whether digitalization can achieve not only selective improvements, but also a more sustainable agriculture as a whole, which is in accordance with globally binding climate and biodiversity targets, reduces further environmental threats, and can feed the growing world population simultaneously. As indicated, this implies (i.a., in the interest of zero emissions, which may include offsetting residual emissions to a limited extent [69]) the phasing out of fossil fuels, a strong reduction of animal husbandry, an efficient use of resources, and the promotion of a circular economy including closed nutrient cycles and the prevention of local nutrient surpluses, as well as the abandonment of environmentally harmful pesticides [28,30,35,37,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. It is also questionable to what extent the existing control instruments at the EU level can sufficiently guide digitalization in the direction of supporting more sustainable agriculture in line with the requirements mentioned above, and what challenges and obstacles exist.…”

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

“…All of this implies that very ambitious climate protection is required. A drastic reduction in GHG emissions including largely underestimated non-CO 2 emissions [50,153] is necessary alongside the enhancement of natural sinks by sustainable land-use management regarding agriculture, forestry, and wetlands. These mitigation measures-without overshoot-are the option that (a) is more certain than large-scale technological geoengineering in meeting the obligatory climate targets and (b) poses fewer open questions with regard to side effects, which in turn, endanger the respective human rights to the elementary preconditions of freedom, such as life, health, and subsistence [154].…”

Economic Evaluation of Carbon Capture and Utilization Applying the Technology of Mineral Carbonation at Coal-Fired Power Plant

“…Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions in the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities continue to grow worldwide [1][2][3], as CO 2 emissions in the period 2010 to 2014 grew about 31.9 to 35.5 GtCO 2 per year, an average rate of 2.75% per year [4], escalating global warming. Various studies have been made to mitigate carbon emission to hold average global warming below 2 • C above pre-industrial levels [5,6]. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) are evaluated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) as two of the most cost-effective methods for climate change mitigation among various technologies [7].…”