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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 01 February 2017

This article has been updated


Benchmarks to guide countries in ratcheting-up ambition, climate finance, and support in an equitable manner are critical but not yet determined in the context of the Paris Agreement1. We identify global cost-optimal mitigation scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement goals and allocate their emissions dynamically to countries according to five equity approaches. At the national level, China's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is weaker than any of the five equity approaches, India's and the USA's NDC are aligned with two, and the EU's with three. Most developing countries’ conditional (Intended) NDCs (INDCs) are more ambitious than the average of the five equity approaches under the 2 °C goal. If the G8 and China adopt the average of the five approaches, the gap between conditional INDCs and 2 °C-consistent pathways could be closed. For an equitable, cost-optimal achievement of the 1.5 °C target, emissions in 2030 are 21% lower (relative to 2010) than for 2 °C for the G8 and China combined, and 39% lower for remaining countries. Equitably limiting warming to 1.5 °C rather than 2 °C requires that individual countries achieve mitigation milestones, such as peaking or reaching net-zero emissions, around a decade earlier.

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

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Global, national and regional emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement and five equity principles compared with current pledges.
Figure 2: Comparisons of national emissions change under different global goals.
Figure 3: Gaps between equitable mitigation allocations and conditional (I)NDCs in 2030.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 01 February 2017

    In Fig. 1c of the original version of this Letter, the 2030 assessment of the NDC for the USA was misplotted. This changed the number of equity approaches that the USA's NDC was in line with. The figure and text that referred to the findings of that figure have been updated.


  1. Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015);

  2. Synthesis Report on the Aggregate Effect of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions FCCC/CP (UNFCCC, 2015).

  3. Meinshausen, M. & Alexander, R. INDC Factsheets. Australian-German Climate and Energy College (2015);

  4. Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change FCCC/INFORMAL/84 (UNFCCC, 1992);

  6. Averchenkova, A., Stern, N. & Zenghelis, D. Taming the Beasts of ‘Burden-Sharing’: An Analysis of Equitable Mitigation Actions and Approaches to 2030 Mitigation Pledges (Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mace, M. J. Mitigation commitments under the Paris Agreement and the way forward. Clim. Law 6, 21–39 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Voigt, C. & Ferreira, F. Differentiation in the Paris Agreement. Clim. Law 6, 58–74 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Impact Assessment: Document Accompanying the Package of Implementation Measures for the EU’s Objectives on Climate Change and Renewable Energy for 2020 Proposals (Commission of the European Communities, 2008).

  10. Information, Views and Proposals on Matters Related to the Work of Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) Workstream 1 (Submission by Japan, 2014).

  11. Nepal on Behalf of the Least Developed Countries Group Views and Proposals on the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) (2014).

  12. BASIC experts, Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Contribution to the Body of Scientific Knowledge (BASIC Expert Group, 2011).

  13. Submitted INDCs (UNFCCC, accessed 5 February 2016);

  14. Baer, P., Fieldman, G., Athanasiou, T. & Kartha, S. Greenhouse Development Rights: towards an equitable framework for global climate policy. Camb. Rev. Int. Aff. 21, 649–669 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. den Elzen, M., Höhne, N. & Moltmann, S. The Triptych approach revisited: a staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation. Energy Policy 36, 1107–1124 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacoby, H. D., Babiker, M. H., Paltsev, S. & Reilly, J. M. Sharing the Burden of GHG Reductions (MIT, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nabel, J. E. M. S. et al. Decision support for international climate policy - The PRIMAP emission module. Environ. Model. Softw. 26, 1419–1433 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Höhne, N., den Elzen, M. & Escalante, D. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 14, 122–147 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tavoni, M. et al. Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 119–126 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 873–879 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pan, X., Teng, F., Tian, Y. & Wang, G. Countries’ emission allowances towards the low-carbon world: a consistent study. Appl. Energy 155, 218–228 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Meinshausen, M. et al. National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1098–1106 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Solomon, S. & Friedlingstein, P. Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 105004 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Christoff, P. & Meinshausen, M. National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 054005 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 456–462 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Caney, S. Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. J. Glob. Ethics 5, 125–146 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Geden, O. An actionable climate target. Nat. Geosci. 9, 340–342 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 6, 2447–2505 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Harmsen, M. et al. How well do integrated assessment models represent non-CO2 radiative forcing? Climatic Change 565–582 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bernie, D. & Lowe, J. Analysis of Climate Projections from the IPCC Working Group 3 Scenario Database (AVOID2, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rogelj, J. et al. Air-pollution emission ranges consistent with the representative concentration pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 446–450 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. The Emission Gap Report 2015 A UNEP Synthesis Report (UNEP, 2015).

  37. Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change 109, 213–241 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Owen, B., Lee, D. S. & Lim, L. Flying into the future: aviation emissions scenarios to 2050. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 2255–2260 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  40. Cames, M., Graichen, J., Siemons, A. & Cook, V. Emission Reduction Targets for International Aviation and Shipping (European Parliament - Policy Department, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Anderson, K. & Bows, A. Executing a Scharnow turn: reconciling shipping emissions with international commitments on climate change. Carbon Manag. 3, 615–628 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Samir, K. C. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change (2014).

  43. Crespo Cuaresma, J. Income projections for climate change research: a framework based on human capital dynamics. Glob. Environ. Change (2015).

Download references


We gratefully acknowledge the work of modellers behind the IPCC-AR5 emissions scenarios. M. Meinshausen is supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship (grant number FT130100809). Deep thanks to A. Talberg for her comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed to discussing the results and writing the manuscript. Y.R.d.P. led the study and performed the calculations. M.L.J. modelled the GDR approach. J.G. downscaled to the national-level global RCP8.5 emissions scenarios using SSP data. Y.R.d.P. and M.M. suggested the study. J.G., M.L.J. and M.M. updated and managed the composite PRIMAP database.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Robiou du Pont.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2420 kb)

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (XLSX 121 kb)

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (XLSX 119 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M., Gütschow, J. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nature Clim Change 7, 38–43 (2017).

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