Introduction

The remaining carbon budget (RCB) is an estimate of the total net amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that can still be emitted while keeping global warming to below a specified temperature threshold1,2. Estimating these budgets requires the combination of a set of at least five influencing factors2,3,4 including: the current level of anthropogenic global warming; the expected warming per unit of CO2 emitted (known as the transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2, or TCRE); an estimate of how global warming evolves once global CO2 emissions are reduced to zero (known as the zero CO2 emissions commitment5, or ZEC); an adjustment for Earth system feedbacks that would otherwise not be captured; and finally, an estimate of how much non-CO2 emissions will contribute to warming in the future compared to today. The latter requires assumptions both about future non-CO2 emission levels and about their warming effect. Past studies have looked at the assumptions and impact of short-lived climate forcers6, carbon-cycle and other uncertainties7, climate policy choices8 and energy system transformations9 on the RCB10. Here, we uncover the broader non-CO2 emissions assumptions that underlie some of the most prominent RCB estimates that are currently available in the literature, and show how shortfalls in mitigation ambition for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) put achievement of the Paris Agreement targets out of reach.

The sixth assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents the latest authoritative assessment of the RCB3, with more recent studies updating this quantification using identical methods and more recent data11. These RCB estimates apply the framework established in the context of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C2,12 which requires the contributions of non-CO2 emissions to be explicitly estimated. They use internally consistent mitigation scenarios to extract relationships between peak warming and the additional warming caused by non-CO2 emissions, including from non-CO2 greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions. In particular, these estimates use community scenario databases that reflect the broader mitigation scenario literature and which have been compiled regularly over the past years as part of the IPCC assessment process13,14,15. The future warming contribution of non-CO2 emissions as a function of peak total anthropogenic warming is estimated with reduced-complexity climate models calibrated to the IPCC’s physical science assessment16,17. The difference between estimated future and current non-CO2 warming is then used to determine the remaining allowable warming for CO2 (and hence for the RCB) until a specified warming limit is reached.

This approach2,3,12 allows us to present RCB estimates that apply to CO2 only while being consistent with non-CO2 emissions evolutions in line with a global net-zero transition and achievement of the Paris Agreement goals. This co-dependence of RCB estimates on non-CO2 emissions should be an integral part of the communication of RCBs. For example, the IPCC highlights that RCB estimates in line with holding warming in the range of 1.5–2 °C can vary by 220 GtCO2 depending on the strength of concurrent non-CO2 reductions3. However, often lost in the communication of RCBs is the notion that all estimates assume stringent non-CO2 mitigation, and that the 220 GtCO2 variation represents the variation across different stringent non-CO2 mitigation futures in line with the Paris Agreement. Another approach explored in the literature is to express all non-CO2 emissions as CO2-forcing-equivalent emissions and consider them as part of a total CO2-forcing-equivalent budget18. The latter approach provides an alternative way forward, but does not allow us to easily understand the non-CO2 contributions in terms of reductions of other main greenhouse gases such as methane. To clarify the non-CO2 mitigation implied in RCB estimates, we here uncover the non-CO2 reductions and estimate the consequences of a shortfall in non-CO2 mitigation ambition.

Results

Starting from the latest IPCC compilation of internally consistent mitigation scenarios15 we estimate RCBs as in IPCC AR63,11 (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2) and present the accompanying non-CO2 assumptions. RCB estimates require deep reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases (Table 1). RCB estimates in line with limiting warming to 1.5 °C assume 1.5 °C-compatible CH4 reductions from 2020 to 2050 of 51% (47–60%, range between 25th and 75th quantile regressions at 1.5 °C of global warming across scenarios, see Fig. 1, panel a). These reductions change to 44% (39–53%) and 34% (27–43%) for RCBs in line with limiting warming to 1.7 °C and 2.0 °C, respectively. Global N2O emissions are also limited, with a reduction of 22% (7–35%) between 2020 and 2050 for 1.5 °C-compatible RCBs, and reductions of 18% (3–30%) and 11% (1% increase–23%) for 1.7 °C and 2 °C-compatible RCBs, respectively. In all cases, these CH4 and N2O reductions represent marked global emission reduction efforts. An illustration of the non-CO2 emission timeseries is provided in Supplementary Fig. S1. Compatible reductions by the years 2030 and 2040 are provided in Supplementary Tables S3 and S4, respectively.

Table 1 Non-CO2 emissions reductions in 2050 relative to 2020, and implied CO2-warming-equivalent emissions underpinning IPCC and other remaining carbon budget estimates.
Fig. 1: Global methane (CH4) emissions reductions and their CO2-warming-equivalent (CO2-we) contributions compatible with remaining carbon budget estimates (RCBs) limiting warming to specific peak temperature levels.
figure 1

a Change in global CH4 emissions between 2020 and 2050 as a function of the peak warming limit for which an RCB is estimated; b CO2-we emissions contribution of global CH4 emissions between 2020 and 2050 as assumed in RCB estimates, as a function of the peak warming limit for which an RCB is estimated. Each dot in both panels represent the characteristics of one emissions scenario as available in the IPCC AR6 scenario database15. Horizontal lines in panel (b) show values for stylized global CH4 emissions reductions between 2020 and 2050. Plots for other sectors or other non-CO2 species are included in Supplementary Figs. S210.

The agricultural sector, including dairy and cattle farming, is a key source of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions globally19. Because of the distinct mitigation potential profile for agriculture20, we also look at the specific non-CO2 greenhouse assumptions for this sector. Global N2O emissions are dominated by the agricultural sector19. Emissions reductions mentioned above for total N2O emissions are therefore also applicable to agricultural N2O emissions. For methane, the reduction percentages over the 2020–2050 period differ across sectors, because the CH4 mitigation potential in the agricultural is very different from the potential in the fossil-fuelled energy sector21. Agricultural CH4 emissions are assumed to reduce by 32% (16–43%) in the estimation of 1.5 °C-compatible RCBs, and by 27% (12–38%) and 21% (4–30%) for 1.7 °C and 2 °C-compatible RCBs, respectively. In the same way, this means that RCB-compatible CH4 reductions from the fossil-fuel sector have to be deeper than the global total CH4 emissions reductions. IPCC RCB estimates for 1.5 °C imply compatible fossil-fuel CH4 emissions reductions of 73% (67–80%) in 2050 relative to 2020, and 64% (58–71%) and 51% (44–58%) for being compatible with 1.7 °C and 2 °C, respectively.

Fluorinated gases are not only controlled by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change but also by the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Here, we look at the assumed reductions in aggregated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). IPCC RCB estimates for 1.5 °C imply compatible aggregated F-gas emissions reductions of 91% (47–98%) in 2050 relative to 2020, and 75% (33–85%) and 50% (12–66%) for being compatible with 1.7 °C and 2 °C, respectively.

A last set of non-CO2 emissions that is often overlooked are aerosol (and their precursors) such as black carbon (BC) or SO2 emissions, which are also air pollutants. These short-lived species are co-emitted with CO2 through combustion processes, and are therefore projected to strongly decrease in low-emission scenarios22. Air pollution control policies can drive additional reductions23. This large degree of co-control of key air pollutants through CO2 emission reductions is important as at present these short-lived air pollutants are estimated to cause a net cooling24,25. As their atmospheric abundance declines, the disappearance of this cooling effect and the unmasking of the underlying greenhouse gas warming must be accounted for in RCB estimates. Estimates by the IPCC do so by including internally consistent evolutions of these species in their calculations2,3,11,12. Table 1 shows how RCB estimates compatible with 1.5 °C already account for a reduction in global SO2 emissions of 78% (74–78%) between 2020 and 2050, with RCBs for 1.7 °C and 2 °C assuming reductions of 73% (68–76%) and 66% (59–72%), respectively. Assumed median BC reductions between 2020 and 2050 are similar across the various stringent levels of warming assessed here, at around 49–53%.

Discussion

With the non-CO2 emission reduction assumptions included in RCB estimates unveiled, we now turn to quantifying the impact of alternative assumptions, a lack of mitigation ambition, or mitigation failure of non-CO2 emissions. To this end, we estimate the CO2-warming-equivalent (CO2-we) emissions26 implied by the median non-CO2 greenhouse gas reductions assumed in RCB estimates. These CO2-we emissions represent the internally consistent non-CO2 changes that were included when estimating global RCBs. They also provide a direct way of quantifying the RCB impact of alternative assumptions.

Global CO2-we contributions to RCBs between 2020 and 2050 for CH4 are −275, −215, and −124 GtCO2-we for RCBs compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, 1.7 °C and 2.0 °C, respectively (Table 1). The interquartile range around these numbers is relatively stable across the warming levels assessed here at around ±50–75 GtCO2-we (Fig. 1b). These central estimates allow the direct estimation of the RCB impact of alternative CH4 evolutions over the next decade. Assuming global CH4 emissions do not decline but instead are kept constant at 2020 levels would reduce the RCB by 431, 370, and 280 GtCO2-we for RCBs compatible with 1.5 °C, 1.7 °C, and 2 °C, respectively. In other words, choosing not to reduce CH4 emissions and correctly adjusting for this decision in RCB estimates would cause 1.5 °C-compatible RCBs to be exhausted as of today (Fig. 1b, Table 1, Supplementary Tables S2, S5), in effect putting the 1.5 °C ambition of the Paris Agreement out of reach. Even a global 40% reduction between 2020 and 2040 would cause a 1.5 °C-compatible RCB reduction of about 60 GtCO2-we, highlighting the importance of deep reductions in CH4. Similar adjustments can be estimated for alternative reductions of the split-up agricultural and non-agricultural CH4 emissions and for N2O (Supplementary Table S5).

Conclusions

In conclusion, when global RCB estimates from the IPCC or more recent derivatives are used3,11 (see Supplementary Tables S1 and S2) the here reported median CO2-we emissions are to be considered as the internally consistent contributions from non-CO2 emissions. Any deviations from this median assumption for non-CO2 contributions will have to be taken into account by adequately adjusting the assumed RCB estimate. These adjustments can result in an important increase or decrease of the global RCB, depending on whether the median assumption is over- or underachieved. Importantly, a failure to reduce global agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions over the next decades will put the achievement of the Paris Agreement out of reach.

Methods

Remaining carbon budget (RCB) calculations follow the method described in refs. 2,3,12 and documented in ref. 27 with updates as described in ref. 11.

Non-CO2 contributions are based on and estimated from the ensemble of mitigation scenarios compiled in the context of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report15. Consistent with the scenario versions used in the IPCC RCB estimations, this analysis only uses emissions timeseries from scenarios if they were available in the native scenario submission. In other words, no infilled values28,29 have been considered because this would result in a narrowing of the percentile ranges for scenario uncertainties because for some species a large share of scenarios were infilled with central emission values. Scenarios that don’t have a valid AR6 temperature assessment28 are excluded from all calculations. Scenarios where reported F-gas totals in 2015 are outside the range 600–1800 Mt CO2-equiv are excluded from F-gas calculations. Emissions are defined as in the IAMC reporting template available from https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ar6-scenario-submission/#/about.

Non-CO2 emissions are harmonized in accordance with the AR6 scenario assessment protocol28. This uses a multiplicative ratio to correct the SSP2-45 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM data to historical trends in 2014 where available in the AR6 database, then harmonises other scenarios to that trend in 2015 with a ratio that trends to 1 in 2080 (ref. 30). Historical methane from AFOLU data is not available in the AR6 database, so this is estimated using the historical fraction of total methane from AFOLU found in the EDGAR database31 and used in the same way.

CO2-warming equivalent CO2-we emissions are calculated using the method described in ref. 26. A GWP100 equivalence value of 29.9 is used for non-AFOLU methane and 27.2 for AFOLU methane based on ref. 32. Total CO2-we emissions of methane are estimated by summing the two components.