The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series

Gütschow, Johannes; Jeffery, M. Louise; Gieseke, Robert; Gebel, Ronja; Stevens, David King; Krapp, Mario; Rocha, Marcia

doi:10.5194/essd-2016-12

Cited by 70 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historical emissions are taken from national greenhouse gas inventories and national reports under the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2018c) or the NDCs (accessed January 2019). If none of these are available (16 out of the 62 countries, covering~40% of net emissions and~1% of net removals), we use the freely available global data set from the "Emissions -Land use" domain of FAOSTAT (FAO, 2017) and PRIMAP-hist (Gütschow et al, 2016(Gütschow et al, , 2018; see section S2, Tables S5 and S7, and Figure S2). FAOSTAT emissions data are not directly comparable with UNFCCC data, largely because of different definitions and data coverage , but they are calculated using IPCC methodologies and country-reported data.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many thanks to M. J. Mace for review and invaluable insights into the LULUCF negotiations under the UNFCCC. The authors also thank the providers and funders of the publicly available emissions databases used in this study (Climate and Energy College, U. of M, 2016; FAO, 2017;Gütschow et al, 2016Gütschow et al, , 2018. Compiled data used for the analysis can be found in the supporting information.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambiguity in the Land Use Component of Mitigation Contributions Toward the Paris Agreement Goals

Fyson

Jeffery

2019

Earth's Future

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities, including deforestation and forest restoration, will play an important role in addressing climate change. Countries have stated their contributions to reducing emissions and enhancing sinks in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs); in 2023, the Global Stocktake will assess the collective impact of these NDCs. Clarity in the contribution of LULUCF to NDC targets is necessary to prevent high LULUCF uncertainties from undermining the strength and clarity of mitigation in other sectors. We assess and categorize all 167 NDCs and find wide variation in how they incorporate LULUCF; many lack the clear information necessary to understand what land-based mitigation is anticipated. The land sector is included in 121 NDCs, but only 11 provide a LULUCF target that can be fully quantified using information presented or referenced in the NDC. By developing alternative scenarios from a subset of 62 NDCs (89 countries), we estimate that ambiguity in LULUCF contributions causes an uncertainty range in the anticipated LULUCF sink in 2030 of magnitude 2.9 GtCO2eq/year-larger in size than our best estimate for the LULUCF sink of −2 GtCO2eq/year. Clearer communication of data sources and assumptions underlying the contribution of land use to mitigation efforts is therefore important for ensuring a robust Global Stocktake and ambitious emissions reductions. We find that guidance under the Paris Agreement may improve the clarity of future NDCs but is not sufficient to eliminate ambiguities. We therefore recommend that LULUCF targets should be presented and accounted for separately from other sectors.Plain Language Summary Land-based activities, including reducing deforestation and planting forests, play an important role in addressing climate change. Under the Paris Agreement, 195 countries agreed to produce national climate change action plans for reducing their emissions. Many of these plans already include land-based activities, but there is currently no common rule set for how to do so in a scientifically robust way. Our study shows that most national climate action plans are ambiguous in how land-based activities will contribute to reducing emissions. This makes it difficult to track the role of land-based activities in global efforts to address climate change and leaves the door open for countries to use uncertain land-based mitigation to offset emissions from burning fossil fuels. We estimate that this ambiguity causes an uncertainty of~3 GtCO2/year in 2030; this is larger than our estimate of the total human-made land use sink in 2030 (-2 GtCO2/year). Recently, countries agreed a set of guidance for how to describe their climate change action plans. This guidance will help to reduce some ambiguity in the role of land-based mitigation, but it is not sufficient to eliminate ambiguity. We recommend that countries should keep their land-based mitigation plans separate from targets in other sectors.

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity in the Land Use Component of Mitigation Contributions Toward the Paris Agreement Goals

Fyson

Jeffery

2019

Earth's Future

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This leads to improvement rates of CO 2 intensity of GDP that are historically unprecedented. Based on the historical emissions and GDP data in C-ROADS [66][67][68][69][70], global decadal averages for carbon intensity improvements have historically never exceeded 2.7% (a value reached only in the context of the Great Depression in the 1930s), but have consistently been between 1.5% and 2% since the mid-1970s. In contrast, the modelled scenarios typically require rates well in excess of 5%.…”

Section: Net Vs Gross Reduction Rates; Non-co 2 Ghgs and Energy Efficmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C – trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal

Holz

Siegel²,

Johnston³

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mitigation scenarios to limit global warming to 1.5 • C or less in 2100 often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which carry significant potential social, environmental, political and economic risks. A precautionary approach to scenario creation is therefore indicated. This letter presents the results of such a precautionary modelling exercise in which the models C-ROADS and En-ROADS were used to generate a series of 1.5 • C mitigation scenarios that apply increasingly stringent constraints on the scale and type of CDR available. This allows us to explore the trade-offs between near-term stringency of emission reductions and assumptions about future availability of CDR. In particular, we find that regardless of CDR assumptions, near-term ambition increase ('ratcheting') is required for any 1.5 • C pathway, making this letter timely for the facilitative, or Talanoa, dialogue to be conducted by the UNFCCC in 2018. By highlighting the difference between net and gross reduction rates, often obscured in scenarios, we find that mid-term gross CO 2 emission reduction rates in scenarios with CDR constraints increase to levels without historical precedence. This in turn highlights, in addition to the need to substantially increase CO 2 reduction rates, the need to improve emission reductions for non-CO 2 greenhouse gases. Further, scenarios in which all or part of the CDR is implemented as non-permanent storage exhibit storage loss emissions, which partly offset CDR, highlighting the importance of differentiating between net and gross CDR in scenarios. We find in some scenarios storage loss trending to similar values as gross CDR, indicating that gross CDR would have to be maintained simply to offset the storage losses of CO 2 sequestered earlier, without any additional net climate benefit.

show abstract

“…harmonization and creation of the 2030 pathways. Historical data for national emissions is taken from PRIMAP-hist v1.1 (Gütschow et al, 2016(Gütschow et al, , 2017, and international transport CO 2 data are taken from CDIAC 2017 (Boden et al, 2017).…”

Section: Cumulative Emissions Under Different Extension Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For national emissions we use the PRIMAP-hist time series version 1.1 (Gütschow et al, 2016(Gütschow et al, , 2017. We sum the national time series to the RC5 regions and complement with CO 2 from international transport from the CDIAC 2017 release (Boden et al, 2017).…”

Section: Historical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending Near‐Term Emissions Scenarios to Assess Warming Implications of Paris Agreement NDCs

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Paris Agreement countries have agreed to act together to hold global warming well below 2°C over preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. To assess if the world is on track to meet this long‐term temperature goal, countries' pledged emissions reductions (Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs) need to be analyzed for their implied warming. Several research groups and nongovernmental organizations have estimated this warming and arrived at very different results but have invariably concluded that the current pledges are inadequate to hold warming below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. In this paper we analyze different methods to estimate 2100 global mean temperature rise implied by countries' NDCs, which often only specify commitments until 2030. We present different methods to extend near‐term emissions pathways that have been developed by the authors or used by different research groups and nongovernmental organizations to estimate 21st century warming consequences of Paris Agreement commitments. The abilities of these methods to project both low and high warming scenarios in line with the scenario literature is assessed. We find that the simpler methods are not suitable for temperature projections while more complex methods can produce results consistent with the energy and economic scenario literature. We further find that some methods can have a strong high or low temperature bias depending on parameter choices. The choice of methods to evaluate the consistency of aggregated NDC commitments is very important for reviewing progress toward the Paris Agreement's long‐term temperature goal.

show abstract

The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series

Cited by 70 publications

References 26 publications

Ambiguity in the Land Use Component of Mitigation Contributions Toward the Paris Agreement Goals

Ambiguity in the Land Use Component of Mitigation Contributions Toward the Paris Agreement Goals

Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C – trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal

Extending Near‐Term Emissions Scenarios to Assess Warming Implications of Paris Agreement NDCs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About