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 budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C

An Author Correction to this article was published on 14 May 2018


The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Warming as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions in the CMIP5 ensemble.
Figure 2: Emissions, forcing and temperature response associated with various mitigation scenarios.
Figure 3: Temperature trajectories and associated emissions consistent with 1.5 °C warming in 2100 for a range of climate responses under an adaptive mitigation regime.


  1. 1

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

  2. 2

    Otto, F. E. L., Frame, D. J., Otto, A. & Allen, M. R. Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 917–920 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A. & Jones, P. D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    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 

  5. 5

    Sanderson, B. M., O’Neill, B. C. & Tebaldi, C. What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7133–7142 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Fawcett, A. A. et al. Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350, 1168–1169 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16129–16134 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  12. 12

    Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2015. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 7, 349–396 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Rogelj, J. et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 245–252 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  17. 17

    Richardson, M., Cowtan, K., Hawkins, E. & Stolpe, M. B. Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 931–935 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Hawkins, E. et al. Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. (2017).

  19. 19

    MacDougall, A. H., Zickfeld, K., Knutti, R. & Matthews, H. D. Sensitivity of carbon budgets to permafrost carbon feedbacks and non-CO2 forcings. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125003 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Myhre, G. et al. Multi-model simulations of aerosol and ozone radiative forcing due to anthropogenic emission changes during the period 1990–2015. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 2709–2720 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    van Vuuren, D. et al. RCP 2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 °C. Climatic Change 109, 95–116 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5-A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109, 33–57 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  24. 24

    Clarke, L. E. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 413–510 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Shindell, D. T. Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 18–21 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Kummer, J. R. R. & Dessler, A. E. E. The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3565–3568 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J. & Taylor, K. E. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 659–740 (IPCC, Cambirdge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Millar, R. J., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P. & Allen, M. R. A modified impulse-response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7213–7228 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Weaver, A. J. et al. The UVic Earth System Climate Model: model description, climatology, and applications to past, present and future climates. Atmos.-Ocean 39, 361–428 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Eby, M. et al. Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity. Clim. Past 9, 1111–1140 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Zickfeld, K. et al. Long-term climate change commitment and reversibility: an EMIC intercomparison. J. Clim. 26, 5782–5809 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Millar, R., Allen, M., Rogelj, J. & Friedlingstein, P. The cumulative carbon budget and its implications. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 32, 323–342 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Jarvis, A. J., Leedal, D. T. & Hewitt, C. N. Climate-society feedbacks and the avoidance of dangerous climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 668–671 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Stevens, B. Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing. J. Clim. 28, 4794–4819 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J. & Shine, K. P. Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: a significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614–12623 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Emission Gap Report 2015 (UNEP, 2015).

  38. 38

    Rogelj, J. et al. Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nat. Commun. 8, 15748 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Fuglestvedt, J. S., Berntsen, T. K., Godal, O. & Skodvin, T. Climate implications of GWP-based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 409–412 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Pierrehumbert, R. T. Short-lived climate pollution. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 42, 341–379 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Allen, M. R. et al. New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 773–776 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Bowerman, N. H. A. et al. The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 8–11 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Pfeiffer, A., Millar, R., Hepburn, C. & Beinhocker, E. The ‘2 °C capital stock’ for electricity generation: committed cumulative carbon emissions from the electricity generation sector and the transition to a green economy. Appl. Energy 179, 1395–1408 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Riahi, K. et al. Locked into Copenhagen pledges—implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 8–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 4–50 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Jackson, R. B. et al. Reaching peak emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 7–10 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Grubb, M. et al. A review of Chinese CO2 emission projections to 2030: the role of economic structure and policy. Clim. Policy 15, S7–S39 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Green, F. & Stern, N. China’s changing economy: implications for its carbon dioxide emissions. Clim. Policy 17, 423–442 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Kirtman, B. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 95–1028 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Pueyo, S. Solution to the paradox of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change 113, 163–179 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Armour, K. C. Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 331–335 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Millar, R. J. et al. Model structure in observational constraints on transient climate response. Climatic Change 131, 199–211 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    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  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Stocker, T. F. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 33–115 (IPCC, Cambirdge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank E. Hawkins, R. Pierrehumbert, G. Peters, R. Knutti, D. van Vuuren, K. Riahi and E. Kriegler for useful discussions and/or comments on an earlier draft. R.J.M. and P.F. acknowledge support from the Natural Environment Research Council project NE/P014844/1; R.J.M. and M.R.A. from the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon Investment Initiative (co-I Cameron Hepburn); M.R.A. from the Oxford Martin Programme on Resource Stewardship; and J.S.F. and R.B.S. from the Research Council of Norway through projects 235548 and 261728. H.D.M. acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. D.J.F. acknowledges support from the Deep South National Science Challenge and an internal grant from Victoria University of Wellington.

Author information




R.J.M. conducted the analysis and produced Figs 2 and 3. J.R. conducted the CMIP5 analysis and produced Fig. 1. H.D.M. conducted the integrations with the UVic ESCM. R.J.M. produced an initial draft of the manuscript along with J.S.F., M.G., P.F. and M.R.A. All authors contributed to the experimental design, interpretation and revisions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Millar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 12317 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millar, R., Fuglestvedt, J., Friedlingstein, P. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nature Geosci 10, 741–747 (2017).

Download citation

Further reading


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