Land implications of the first climate actions without negative net global emissions

Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. Nature 573, 357-363 (2019).

Google Scholar CAS

Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The problem with negative emissions. Science 354, 182-183 (2016).

Google Scholar

Peters, GP & Geden, O. Catalyzing policy change from low carbon to negative carbon. Nat. Clim. Switch 7, 619-621 (2017).

Google Scholar

Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: overview of international EMF scenarios 22. Energy saving. 31, S64 – S81 (2009).

Google Scholar

Kriegler, E. et al. The role of technology in achieving climate policy goals: an overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim. Switch 123, 353-367 (2014).

Google Scholar

Clarke, LKJ et al. in Climate change 2014: climate change mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 413-510 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

World Energy Outlook 2015 (IEA, 2015).

van Vuuren, D. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: matrix scenario architecture. Clim. Switch 122, 373-386 (2014).

Google Scholar

Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions targets to limit global warming to 2 ° C. Nature 458, 1158-1162 (2009).

Google Scholar CAS

Matthews, HD, Gillett, NP, Stott, PA & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829-832 (2009).

Google Scholar CAS

Fuss, S. et al. Focus on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Switch 4, 850-853 (2014).

Google Scholar CAS

Shue, H. Climate dream: negative emissions, risk transfer and irreversibility. J. Hum. Rights Approx. 8, 203-216 (2017).

Google Scholar

Williamson, P. Emissions Reduction: Taking a Look at CO₂ removal methods. Nature 530, 153-155 (2016).

Google Scholar CAS

Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO₂ emissions. Nat. Clim. Switch 6, 42-50 (2016).

Google Scholar CAS

Popp, A. et al. The future of land use in shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. About. Switch 42, 331-345 (2017).

Google Scholar

Field, CB & Mach, KJ Resizing Carbon Dioxide Removal. Science 356, 706-707 (2017).

Google Scholar CAS

Boysen, LR et al. The limits of the mitigation of global warming through the elimination of terrestrial carbon. The future of the Earth 5, 463-474 (2017).

Google Scholar CAS

Morrow, D. & Svoboda, T. Geoengineering and non-ideal theory. Aff. Public Q. 30, 83-102 (2016).

Google Scholar

Fujimori, S., Rogelj, J., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. A new generation of emissions scenarios should cover blind spots in the carbon budget space. Nat. Clim. Switch 9, 798-800 (2019).

Google Scholar CAS

Fuss, S. et al. Negative Emissions — Part 2: Costs, Potentials and Side Effects. About. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).

Google Scholar

Bauer, N. et al. Global Energy Sector Emissions Reductions and Bioenergy Use: An Overview of the Bioenergy Demand Phase of the EMF-33 Model Comparison. Clim. Switch 163, 1553-1568 (2018).

Google Scholar

Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the terrestrial sector to a world at 1.5 ° C. Nat. Clim. Switch 9, 817-828 (2019).

Google Scholar

Hanssen, SV et al. The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Switch ten, 1023-1029 (2020).

Google Scholar CAS

Hasegawa, T. et al. Food security in the context of a strong demand for bioenergy towards long-term climate objectives. Clim. Switch 163, 1587-1601 (2020).

Google Scholar

Ohashi, H. et al. Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite the negative side effects of terrestrial mitigation. Nat. Common. ten, 5240 (2019).

Google Scholar

Riahi, K. et al. Locked in the Copenhagen Commitments – Implications of Short-Term Emissions Targets for the Cost and Feasibility of Long-Term Climate Targets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Switch 90, 8-23 (2015).

Google Scholar

Rogelj, J. et al. to the IPCC Special report on global warming of 1.5 ° C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 93-174 (OMM, 2018).

Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO₂ emissions in the tracks from 1.5 to 2 ° C. Nat. Clim. Switch 8, 626-633 (2018).

Google Scholar CAS

McCollum, DL et al. Energy investment needs to fulfill the Paris Agreement and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589-599 (2018).

Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

Thompson, SG & Higgins, JPT How should meta-regression analyzes be undertaken and interpreted? Stat. Med. 21, 1559-1573 (2002).

Google Scholar

Fujimori, S. et al. Inclusive policy for climate change mitigation and food security under the climate target of 1.5 ° C. About. Res. Lett. 13, 074033 (2018).

Google Scholar

Fuhrman, J., McJeon, H., Doney, SC, Shobe, W. & Clarens, AF From zero to hero? Why integrated assessment modeling of negative emissions technologies is difficult and how we can do better. Before. Clim. 1, 11 (2019).

Google Scholar

Nemet, GF et al. Negative Emissions — Part 3: Innovation and Scaling Up. About. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).

Google Scholar

Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in in-depth mitigation pathways. Nat. Common. ten, 3277 (2019).

Google Scholar CAS

Beerling, DJ et al. Agriculture with crops and rocks to combat global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 4, 138-147 (2018).

Google Scholar

High-level review of a wide range of marine geoengineering techniques on offer (GESAMP, 2019).

Fujimori, S. et al. SSP3: implementation of the AIM of shared socio-economic paths. Glob. About. Switch 42, 268-283 (2017).

Google Scholar

Fujimori, S., Masui, T. & Matsuoka, Y. AIM / CGE [Basic] Manual (Tsukuba Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, NIES, 2012).

Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Ito, A., Takahashi, K. & Masui, T. Comprehensive land-use model linked to an integrated valuation model. Sci. About. 580, 787-796 (2017).

Google Scholar CAS

Frank, S. et al. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? About. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).

Google Scholar

Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of Shared Socio-economic Path 2: an intermediate scenario for the 21st century. Glob. About. Switch 42, 251-267 (2017).

Google Scholar

Havlik, P. et al. Mitigation of climate change through transitions of livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. United States 111, 3709-3714 (2014).

Google Scholar

Keramidas, K., Kitous, A., Després, J. & Schmitz, A. POLES-JRC model documentation (CCR, 2017).

Popp, A. et al. Protection of land use for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Switch 4, 1095-1098 (2014).

Google Scholar CAS

Bodirsky, BL et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and nitrogen pollution mitigation potential. Nat. Common. 5, 3858 (2014).

Google Scholar CAS

Emmerling, J. et al. The WITCH 2016 model – Documentation and implementation of shared socio-economic pathways (FEEM Working Document n ° 42, 2016).

Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity as part of a strict global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Switch 8, 699-703 (2018).

Google Scholar

Fujimori, S. et al. A multi-model assessment of the food security implications of climate change mitigation. Nat. To support. 2, 386-396 (2019).

Google Scholar