Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit


In recent years, international climate policy has increasingly focused on limiting temperature rise, as opposed to achieving greenhouse-gas-concentration-related objectives. The agreements reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Cancun in 2010 recognize that countries should take urgent action to limit the increase in global average temperature to less than 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels1. If this is to be achieved, policymakers need robust information about the amounts of future greenhouse-gas emissions that are consistent with such temperature limits. This, in turn, requires an understanding of both the technical and economic implications of reducing emissions and the processes that link emissions to temperature. Here we consider both of these aspects by reanalysing a large set of published emission scenarios from integrated assessment models in a risk-based climate modelling framework. We find that in the set of scenarios with a ‘likely’ (greater than 66%) chance of staying below 2 °C, emissions peak between 2010 and 2020 and fall to a median level of 44 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2020 (compared with estimated median emissions across the scenario set of 48 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2010). Our analysis confirms that if the mechanisms needed to enable an early peak in global emissions followed by steep reductions are not put in place, there is a significant risk that the 2 °C target will not be achieved.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Emission ranges of published IAM scenarios, colour coded as a function of the likely (greater than 66% probability) avoided global average temperature increase.


  1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010 (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, United Nations, 2011); available at

  2. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Archer, D. et al. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 117–134 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Plattner, G. K. et al. Long-term climate commitments projected with climate & carbon cycle models. J. Clim. 21, 2721–2751 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lowe, J. A. et al. How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 014012 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. United Nations Environment Programme The Emissions Gap Report — Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2  ° C or 1.5 °C? (UNEP, 2010).

  9. Held, I. M. et al. Probing the fast and slow components of global warming by returning abruptly to preindustrial forcing. J. Clim. 23, 2418–2427 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Solomon, S. et al. Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18354–18359 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schewe, J., Levermann, A. & Meinshausen, M. Climate change under a scenario near 1.5 °C of global warming: Monsoon intensification, ocean warming and steric sea level rise. Earth Syst. Dynam. 2, 25–35 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S64–S81 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edenhofer, O. et al. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J. 31, 11–48 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. van Vuuren, D. & Riahi, K. The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets. Climatic Change 104, 793–801 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  16. Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B. & Wigley, T. M. L. Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 — Part 1: Model description and calibration. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417–1456 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. van Vuuren, D. et al. How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change? Climatic Change 104, 255–285 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., Loos, M. & Meyer, L.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  19. Azar, C. et al. The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Climatic Change 100, 195–202 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Barker, T. & Scrieciu, S. Modeling low climate stabilization with E3MG: Towards a ‘new economics’ approach to simulating energy–environment–economy system dynamics. Energy J. 31, 137–164 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loulou, R., Labriet, M. & Kanudia, A. Deterministic and stochastic analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energy Econ. 31, S131–S143 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Krey, V. & Riahi, K. Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets—Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Econ. 31, S94–S106 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Calvin, K. et al. 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ. 31, S107–S120 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wise, M. A. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Neill, B. C., Riahi, K. & Keppo, I. Mitigation implications of midcentury targets that preserve long-term climate policy options. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1011–1016 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tebaldi, C. & Knutti, R. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 2053–2075 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Luderer, G. et al. The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison. Climatic Change (2011).

  28. Rogelj, J., Hare, W., Chen, C. & Meinshausen, M. Discrepancies in historical emissions point to a wider 2020 gap between 2 °C benchmarks and aggregated national mitigation pledges. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 1–9 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change (2011).

  30. Granier, C. et al. Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period. Climatic Change (2011).

  31. van Vuuren, D. et al. RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 °C. Climatic Change (2011).

  32. Meinshausen, M., Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. C. B. Emulating atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 — Part 2: Applications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1457–1471 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  34. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors gratefully thank everyone involved in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report, and acknowledge the contributions of all modelling groups that provided data and information, all co-authors from the UNEP Emissions Gap Report and others who provided comments, in particular B. Knopf, G. Luderer, E. Sawin, B. O’Neill, B. Ward, N. Ranger, V. Bossetti and R. Knutti. J.R. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project 200021-135067). J.L. was supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and the AVOID programme (GA0215).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.R., W.H., J.L., K.R., B.M., M.M. and D.P.v.V. designed the research. M.M. developed the climate model set-up. J.R. carried out the research. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joeri Rogelj.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogelj, J., Hare, W., Lowe, J. et al. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nature Clim Change 1, 413–418 (2011).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing