Impact of short-lived non-CO 2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming

Abstract

Limiting global warming to any level requires limiting the total amount of CO 2 emissions, or staying within a CO 2 budget. Here we assess how emissions from short-lived non-CO 2 species like methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black-carbon, and sulphates influence these CO 2 budgets. Our default case, which assumes mitigation in all sectors and of all gases, results in a CO 2 budget between 2011–2100 of 340 PgC for a >66% chance of staying below 2°C, consistent with the assessment of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Extreme variations of air-pollutant emissions from black-carbon and sulphates influence this budget by about ±5%. In the hypothetical case of no methane or HFCs mitigation—which is unlikely when CO 2 is stringently reduced—the budgets would be much smaller (40% or up to 60%, respectively). However, assuming very stringent CH 4 mitigation as a sensitivity case, CO 2 budgets could be 25% higher. A limit on cumulative CO 2 emissions remains critical for temperature targets. Even a 25% higher CO 2 budget still means peaking global emissions in the next two decades, and achieving net zero CO 2 emissions during the third quarter of the 21st century. The leverage we have to affect the CO 2 budget by targeting non-CO 2 diminishes strongly along with CO 2 mitigation, because these are partly linked through economic and technological factors.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 91 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.