Abstract
Carbon budgets are quantifications of the total amount of carbon dioxide that can ever be emitted while keeping global warming below specific temperature limits. However, estimates of these budgets for limiting warming to 1.5 °C and well-below 2 °C include assumptions about how much warming can be expected from non-CO2 emissions. Here, we uncover the non-CO2 emissions assumptions that underlie the latest remaining carbon budget estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and quantify the implication of the world pursuing alternative higher or lower emissions. We consider contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases, and aerosols and show how pursuing inadequate methane emission reductions causes remaining carbon budgets compatible with the Paris Agreement temperature limits to be exhausted today, effectively putting achievement of the Paris Agreement out of reach.
Similar content being viewed by others
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.
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.
Code availability
Code required to estimate remaining carbon budgets is available at ref. 27. Code to carry out the analysis in this study is available at ref. 35 and https://github.com/Rlamboll/NonCO2BudgetImplications.
Change history
14 February 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01254-5
References
IPCC. Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J. B. R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J. S., Fuglestvedt, V., Masson-Delmotte, C., Méndez, S. & Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2215–2256 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.022 (2021).
Rogelj, J., Forster, P. M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C. J. & Séférian, R. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571, 335–342 (2019).
Canadell, J. G. et al. Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Matthews, D. H. et al. An integrated approach to quantifying uncertainties in the remaining carbon budget. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 1–11 (2021).
MacDougall, A. H. et al. Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the zero emission commitment from CO2. Biogeosci. Discuss. 2020, 1–45 (2020).
Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Schaeffer, M., Knutti, R. & Riahi, K. Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075001 (2015).
Mengis, N., Partanen, A.-I., Jalbert, J. & Matthews, H. D. 1.5 °C carbon budget dependent on carbon cycle uncertainty and future non-CO2 forcing. Sci. Rep. 8, 5831 (2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. Mitigation choices impact carbon budget size compatible with low temperature goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075003 (2015).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Carbon budgets and energy transition pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 075002 (2016).
Matthews, H. D. et al. Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat. Geosci. 13, 769–779 (2020).
Forster, P. M. et al. Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 2295–2327 (2023).
Rogelj, J. et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 °C in the context of sustainable development. in Global Warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds. Flato, G. et al.) 93–174 (IPCC/WMO, 2018).
Huppmann, D., Rogelj, J., Kriegler, E., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. A new scenario resource for integrated 1.5 °C research. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1027–1030 (2018).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C Scenario Explorer and Data hosted by IIASA. (Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2018). https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429.
Byers, E. et al. AR6 Scenarios Database. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5886912 (2022).
Nicholls, Z. et al. Cross-Chapter Box 7.1: Physical emulation of Earth System Models for scenario classification and knowledge integration in AR6. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Guivarch, C. et al. IPCC, 2022: Annex III: Scenarios and modelling methods. in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Jenkins, S. et al. Quantifying non-CO2 contributions to remaining carbon budgets. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 4, 1–10 (2021).
Dhakal, S. et al. Emissions Trends and Drivers. in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004.
Nabuurs, G.-J. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
Harmsen, M. et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Clim. Change 163, 1409–1425 (2020).
Rogelj, J. et al. Air-pollution emission ranges consistent with the representative concentration pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 446–450 (2014).
Rao, S. et al. Future air pollution in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Global Environ. Change 42, 346–358 (2017).
IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 3−32 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001 (2021).
Szopa, S. et al. Short-Lived Climate Forcers. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 817–922 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.008 (2021).
Smith, M. A., Cain, M. & Allen, M. R. Further improvement of warming-equivalent emissions calculation. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 4, 1–3 (2021).
Lamboll, R. D. & Rogelj, J. Code for estimation of remaining carbon budget in IPCC AR6 WGI. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6373365 (2022).
Kikstra, J. S. et al. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WGIII climate assessment of mitigation pathways: from emissions to global temperatures. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 9075–9109 (2022).
Lamboll, R. D., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Kikstra, J. S., Meinshausen, M. & Rogelj, J. Silicone v1.0.0: an open-source Python package for inferring missing emissions data for climate change research. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5259–5275 (2020).
Gidden, M. J. et al. A methodology and implementation of automated emissions harmonization for use in Integrated Assessment Models. Environ. Model. Softw. 105, 187–200 (2018).
Joint Research Centre (European Commission) et al. CO2 emissions of all world countries: JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).
Forster, P. et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Gütschow, J., Jeffery, L. & Gieseke, R. The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series (1850-2016). V. 2.0. (GFZ Data Services, 2019). https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2019.001.
JRC/PBL. Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.3.1. (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016).
Rogelj, J. & Lamboll, R. Non-CO2 emissions reductions implied by IPCC estimates of the Remaining Carbon Budget. https://www.researchsquare.com 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3326772/v1 (2023).
Acknowledgements
J.R. and R.D.L. acknowledge support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme’s CONSTRAIN (grant number: 820829), ESM2025 (grant number: 101003536), and PROVIDE (grant number: 101003687) projects which contributed to the research underpinning this analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.R. initiated and designed the research, wrote the first draft, and led the review. R.D.L. wrote the analysis code, carried out the calculations, created the figures, and provided comments and feedback on the text.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Earth & Environment thanks Yang Ou, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Heike Langenberg and Martina Grecequet. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rogelj, J., Lamboll, R.D. Substantial reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions reductions implied by IPCC estimates of the remaining carbon budget. Commun Earth Environ 5, 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01168-8
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.