Climate change mitigation

This article is about limiting climate change itself. For ways of adjusting to current and future climate change, see climate change adaptation. For actions focusing on politics and society, see climate movement.

Climate change mitigation is action to limit climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or removing those gases from the atmosphere.^[1]: 2239 The recent rise in global average temperature is mostly caused by emissions from fossil fuels burning (coal, oil, and natural gas). Mitigation can reduce emissions by transitioning to sustainable energy sources, conserving energy, and increasing efficiency. In addition, CO₂ can be removed from the atmosphere by enlarging forests, restoring wetlands and using other natural and technical processes, which are grouped together under the term of carbon sequestration.^{[2]: 12 [3]}

Various aspects of climate change mitigation. Clockwise from top left: Renewable energy – solar and wind power – in England, electrified public transport in France, an example of a plant-based meal, and a reforestation project in Haiti to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Solar energy and wind power have the highest climate change mitigation potential at lowest cost compared to a range of other options.^[4] Variable availability of sunshine and wind is addressed by energy storage and improved electrical grids, including long-distance electricity transmission, demand management and diversification of renewables. As low-carbon power is more widely available, transportation and heating can increasingly rely on these sources.^[5]: 1 Energy efficiency is improved using heat pumps and electric vehicles. If industrial processes must create carbon dioxide, carbon capture and storage can reduce net emissions.^[6]

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture include methane as well as nitrous oxide. Emissions from agriculture can be mitigated by reducing food waste, switching to a more plant-based diet, by protecting ecosystems and by improving farming processes.^[7]: XXV

Climate change mitigation policies include: carbon pricing by carbon taxes and carbon emission trading, easing regulations for renewable energy deployment, reductions of fossil fuel subsidies, and divestment from fossil fuels, and subsidies for clean energy.^[8] Current policies are estimated to produce global warming of about 2.7 °C by 2100.^[9] This warming is significantly above the 2015 Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C and preferably to 1.5 °C.^[10][11] Globally, limiting warming to 2 °C may result in higher benefits than costs.^[12]

Definitions and scope

The overall aim of climate change mitigation—to sustain ecosystems so that human civilisation can be maintained—requires that greenhouse gas emissions be cut drastically.^{[13]: 1–64} Accordingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines mitigation (of climate change) as "a human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases".^[1]: 2239

Some publications describe solar radiation management (SRM)—solar geoengineering—as a climate mitigation technology.^{[14][better source needed]} Unrelated to greenhouse gas mitigation,^[15] SRM would work by changing the way Earth receives solar radiation.^{[16]: 14–56} Examples include reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, reducing optical thickness and cloud lifetime, and changing surface reflectivity.^[17] The IPCC describes SRM as a "climate risk reduction strategy" or "supplementary option" but not as a climate mitigation option.^{[16]: 14–56}

Mitigation measures can be approached in parallel, as there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 °C.^[18]: 109 Such measures can be categorized as follows:

1. Sustainable energy and sustainable transport
2. Energy conservation (this includes efficient energy use)
3. For agricultural production and industrial processes: sustainable agriculture and green industrial policy
4. Enhancing carbon sinks: Carbon dioxide removal (this includes carbon sequestration)

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined as "Anthropogenic activities removing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical CO₂ sinks and direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS), but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human activities."^[1]

The terminology in this area is still evolving. The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM (solar radiation management), if the techniques are used at a global scale.^{[13]: 6–11} The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.^[1]

Co-benefits and risks

Co-benefits

Main article: Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

There are also co-benefits of climate change mitigation. For example, in the transport sector, possible co-benefits of mitigation strategies include: air quality improvements, health benefits,^[19] equitable access to transportation services, reduced traffic congestion, and reduced material demand.^{[4]: SPM-41} The increased use of green and blue infrastructure can reduce the urban heat island effect and heat stress on people, which will improve the mental and physical health of urban dwellers.^{[20]: TS-66} Climate change mitigation might also lead to less inequality and poverty.^[21]

Mitigation measures may have many health co-benefits – potential measures can not only mitigate future health impacts from climate change but also improve health directly.^[22] Globally the cost of limiting warming to 2 °C is less than the value of the extra years of life due to cleaner air - and in India and China much less.^[23] Air quality improvement is a near-term benefit among the many societal benefits from climate change mitigation, including substantial health benefits. Studies suggest that demand-side climate change mitigation solutions have largely beneficial effects on 18 constituents of well-being.^[24][25]

Some mitigation measures have co-benefits in the area of climate change adaptation.^{[26]: 8–63} This is for example the case for many nature-based solutions.^{[27]: 4–94 [28]: 6} Examples in the urban context include urban green and blue infrastructure which provide mitigation as well as adaptation benefits. This can be in the form of urban forests and street trees, green roofs and walls, urban agriculture and so forth. The mitigation is achieved through the conservation and expansion of carbon sinks and reduced energy use of buildings. Adaptation benefits are provided for example through reduced heat stress and flooding risk.^{[26]: 8–64}

Risks

Mitigation measures can also have negative side effects. This is highly context-specific and can also depend on the scale of the intervention.^{[20]: TS-133} In agriculture and forestry, mitigation measures can affect biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.^{[20]: TS-87} In the area of renewable energies, mining for metals and minerals can increase mining threats to conservation areas.^[29] To address one of these issues, there is research into ways to recycle solar panels and electronic waste in order to create a source for materials that would otherwise need to be mined.^[30][31]

Discussions about risks and negative side effects of mitigation measures can "lead to deadlock or a sense that there are intractable obstacles to taking action".^[31]

Emission trends and pledges

Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions

 

2020 Worldwide CO₂ emissions (by region, per capita); variwide diagram

Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities strengthen the greenhouse effect, contributing to climate change. Most is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. Human-caused emissions have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 50% over pre-industrial levels. Emissions in the 2010s averaged 56 billion tons a year, higher than ever before.^[32] In 2016, energy (electricity, heat and transport) was responsible for 73.2% of GHG emissions, direct industrial processes for 5.2%, waste for 3.2% and agriculture, forestry and land use for 18.4%.^[3]

Electricity generation and transport are major emitters: the largest single source is coal-fired power stations with 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.^[33] Deforestation and other changes in land use also emit carbon dioxide and methane. The largest sources of anthropogenic methane emissions are agriculture, and gas venting and fugitive emissions from the fossil-fuel industry. The largest agricultural methane source is livestock. Agricultural soils emit nitrous oxide, partly due to fertilizers.^[34] The problem of fluorinated gases from refrigerants has been politically solved now so many countries have ratified the Kigali Amendment.^[35]

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the dominant emitted greenhouse gas, while methane (CH₄) emissions almost have the same short-term impact.^[36] Nitrous oxide (N₂O) and fluorinated gases (F-Gases) play a minor role. Livestock and manure produce 5.8% of all greenhouse gas emissions,^[3] although this depends on the time horizon used for the global warming potential of the respective gas.^[37][38]

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are measured in CO₂ equivalents determined by their global warming potential (GWP), which depends on their lifetime in the atmosphere. There are widely-used greenhouse gas accounting methods that convert volumes of methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide equivalents. Estimations largely depend on the ability of oceans and land sinks to absorb these gases. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) including methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), tropospheric ozone and black carbon persist in the atmosphere for a period ranging from days to 15 years, whereas carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for millennia.^[39]

Satellites are increasingly being used for locating and measuring greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Earlier, scientists largely relied on or calculated estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and governments' self-reported data.^[40][41]

Needed emissions cuts

 

Global greenhouse gas emission scenarios, based on policies and pledges as of 11/21

The annual "Emissions Gap Report" by UNEP stated in 2022: "To get on track for limiting global warming to 1.5°C, global annual GHG emissions must be reduced by 45 per cent compared with emissions projections under policies currently in place in just eight years, and they must continue to decline rapidly after 2030, to avoid exhausting the limited remaining atmospheric carbon budget."^[7]: xvi The report also commented that the world should focus on "broad-based economy-wide transformations" instead of focusing on incremental change.^[7]: xvi

In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report on climate change, warning that greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030, in order to likely limit global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).^[42][43] Secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres, clarified that for this "Main emitters must drastically cut emissions starting this year".^[44]

Pledges

Climate Action Tracker described the situation on 9 November 2021 as follows: the global temperature will rise by 2.7 °C by the end of the century with current policies and by 2.9 °C with nationally adopted policies. The temperature will rise by 2.4 °C if only the pledges for 2030 are implemented, by 2.1 °C if the long-term targets are also achieved. If all the announced targets are fully achieved the rise in global temperature will peak at 1.9 °C and go down to 1.8 °C by the year 2100.^[45] All the information about all climate pledges is sent to the Global Climate Action Portal - Nazca. The scientific community is checking their fulfillment.^[46]

While the status of most goals set for 2020 have not been evaluated in a definitive and detailed way or reported on by the media, the world failed to meet most or all international goals set for that year.^[47][48]

As the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference occurred in Glasgow, the group of researchers running the Climate Action Tracker reported that of countries responsible for 85% of greenhouse gas emissions, only four polities (responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions) – EU, UK, Chile and Costa Rica – have published a detailed official policy‑plan that describes the steps and ways by which 2030 mitigation targets could be realized.^[49]

Emissions and economic growth

Some have said that economic growth is a key driver of CO₂ emissions.^{[50]: 707 [better source needed][51][contradictory][52][53]} However later (in late 2022) others have said that economic growth no longer means higher emissions.^[54] As the economy expands, demand for energy and energy-intensive goods increases, pushing up CO₂ emissions. On the other hand, economic growth may drive technological change and increase energy efficiency. Economic growth may be associated with specialization in certain economic sectors. If specialization is in energy-intensive sectors, specifically carbon energy sources, then there will be a strong link between economic growth and emissions growth. If specialization is in less energy-intensive sectors, e.g. the services sector, then there might be a weak link between economic growth and emissions growth.

Much of the literature focuses on the "environmental Kuznets curve" (EKC) hypothesis, which posits that at early stages of development, pollution per capita and GDP per capita move in the same direction. Beyond a certain income level, emissions per capita will decrease as GDP per capita increase, thus generating an inverted-U shaped relationship between GDP per capita and pollution. However, the econometrics literature did not support either an optimistic interpretation of the EKC hypothesis – i.e., that the problem of emissions growth will solve itself – or a pessimistic interpretation – i.e., that economic growth is irrevocably linked to emissions growth.^[50] Instead, it was suggested that there was some degree of flexibility between economic growth and emissions growth.^[55]

Low-carbon power

Main articles: Low-carbon power and Energy transition

 

Coal, oil, and natural gas remain the primary global energy sources even as renewables have begun rapidly increasing.^[56]

The energy system, which includes the delivery and use of energy, is the main emitter of CO₂.^{[57]: 6–6} Rapid and deep reductions in the CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector are needed to limit global warming to well below 2 °C.^{[57]: 6–3} Measures recommended by the IPCC include: "reduced fossil fuel consumption, increased production from low- and zero carbon energy sources, and increased use of electricity and alternative energy carriers".^{[57]: 6–3}

Most scenarios and strategies expect to see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures.^{[58]: xxiii} The deployment of renewable energy would have to be accelerated six-fold^{[clarification needed]}though to keep global warming under 2 °C.^[59]

 

Wind and solar power are outcompeting coal, oil and gas in energy production

The competitiveness of renewable energy is a key to a rapid deployment. In 2020, onshore wind and solar photovoltaics were the cheapest source for new bulk electricity generation in many regions.^[60] Although renewables may have higher storage costs non-renewables may have higher cleanup costs.^[61] A carbon price can increase the competitiveness of renewable energy.^[62]

Solar and wind energy

Main articles: Solar energy and Wind power

 

The 150 MW Andasol solar power station is a commercial parabolic trough solar thermal power plant, located in Spain. The Andasol plant uses tanks of molten salt to store solar energy so that it can continue generating electricity for 7.5 hours after the sun has stopped shining.^[63]

Wind and sun can be sources for large amounts of low-carbon energy at competitive production costs.^[64] The IPCC estimates that these two mitigation options have the largest emission reduction potential before 2030 at low cost.^[4]: 43 Solar photovoltaics (PV) has become the cheapest way to generate electricity in many regions of the world.^[65] The growth of photovoltaics has been close to exponential and has about doubled every three years since the 1990s.^[66][67] A different technology is concentrated solar power (CSP) using mirrors or lenses to concentrate a large area of sunlight onto a receiver. With CSP, the energy can be stored for a few hours, providing supply in the evening. Solar water heating doubled between 2010 and 2019.^[68]

 

The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is an 845 megawatt (MW) nameplate capacity, wind farm in the US state of Oregon, each turbine is a nameplate 2 or 2.5 MW electricity generator.

Regions in the higher northern and southern latitudes have the highest potential for wind power.^[69] Offshore wind farms are more expensive but the units deliver more energy per installed capacity with less fluctuations.^[70] In most regions, wind power generation is higher in the winter when PV output is low; for this reason, combinations of wind and solar power lead to better-balanced systems.^[71]

Other renewables

 

The 22,500 MW nameplate capacity Three Gorges Dam in the People's Republic of China, the largest hydroelectric power station in the world

Other well-established renewable energy forms include hydropower, bioenergy and geothermal energy:

• Hydroelectricity is electricity generated by hydropower and plays a leading role in countries like Brazil, Norway and China.^[72] but there are geographical limits and environmental issues.^[73] Tidal power can be used in coastal regions.
• Bioenergy can provide energy for electricity, heat and transport. Bioenergy, in particular biogas, can provide dispatchable electricity generation.^[74] While burning plant-derived biomass releases CO₂, the plants withdraw CO₂ from the atmosphere while they grow. How a fuel is produced, transported and processed has a significant impact on lifecycle emissions.^[75] Renewable biofuels are starting to be used in aviation.^[76]
• Geothermal power is electrical power generated from geothermal energy. Geothermal electricity generation is currently used in 26 countries,^[77][78] while geothermal heating is in use in 70 countries.^[79]

Integrating variable renewable energy

Further information: energy storage

Wind and solar power production does not consistently match demand.^[80][81] To deliver reliable electricity from variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, electrical power systems require flexibility.^[82] Most electrical grids were constructed for non-intermittent energy sources such as coal-fired power plants.^[83] As larger amounts of solar and wind energy are integrated into the grid, changes have to be made to the energy system to ensure that the supply of electricity is matched to demand.^[84]

There are various ways to make the electricity system more flexible. In many places, wind and solar generation are complementary on a daily and a seasonal scale: there is more wind during the night and in winter when solar energy production is low.^[84] Linking different geographical regions through long-distance transmission lines allows for further cancelling out of variability.^[85] Energy demand can be shifted in time through energy demand management and the use of smart grids, matching the times when variable energy production is highest.^[84] Further flexibility could be provided from sector coupling, that is coupling the electricity sector to the heat and mobility sector via power-to-heat-systems and electric vehicles.^[86]

Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help ensure that enough electricity is produced even during poor weather. In optimal weather, energy generation may have to be curtailed if excess electricity cannot be used or stored.^[87]

 

Battery storage facility

Energy storage helps overcome barriers to intermittent renewable energy.^[88] The most commonly used and available storage method is pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which requires locations with large differences in height and access to water.^[88] Batteries, especially lithium-ion batteries, are also deployed widely.^[89] Batteries typically store electricity for short periods.^[90] The cost and low energy density of batteries makes them impractical for the large energy storage needed to balance inter-seasonal variations in energy production.^[91] Pumped hydro storage with capacity for multi-month usage has been implemented in some locations.^[92]

Nuclear power

Further information: Sustainable energy § Nuclear power, Nuclear power § Carbon emissions, and Nuclear power § Comparison with renewable energy

Nuclear power could complement renewables for electricity.^[93] On the other hand, environmental and security risks could outweigh the benefits.^[94][95][96]

The construction of new nuclear reactors currently takes about 10 years, substantially longer than scaling up the deployment of wind and solar,^[97]: 335 and there are credit risks.^[98] However they are thought to be much cheaper in China, and the country is building a significant number of new power plants.^[98] As of 2019^[update] the cost of extending nuclear power plant lifetimes is competitive with other electricity generation technologies, including new solar and wind projects.^[99]

Replacing coal by natural gas

This section is an excerpt from Sustainable energy § Fossil fuel switching and mitigation.[edit]

Switching from coal to natural gas has advantages in terms of sustainability. For a given unit of energy produced, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of natural gas are around 40 times the emissions of wind or nuclear energy but are much less than coal. Natural gas produces around half the emissions of coal when used to generate electricity and around two-thirds the emissions of coal when used to produce heat. Reducing methane leaks in the process of extracting and transporting natural gas could further decrease its climate impact.^[100] Natural gas produces less air pollution than coal.^[101]

Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term and thus contributes to climate change mitigation. However, in the long term it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions. Developing natural gas infrastructure risks carbon lock-in and stranded assets, where new fossil infrastructure either commits to decades of carbon emissions, or has to be written off before it makes a profit.^[102][103]

Mitigation by sector

See also: Greenhouse gas emissions § Emissions by sector

Buildings

Main articles: Energy-efficient buildings, Sustainable architecture, and Green building

See also: Renewable heat and Passive cooling

The buildings sector accounts for 23% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions.^[18]: 141 About half of the energy is used for space and water heating.^[104] Building insulation can reduce the primary energy demand significantly. Heat pump loads may also provide a flexible resource that can participate in demand response to integrate variable renewable resources into the grid. Solar water heating uses the thermal energy directly. Sufficiency measures include moving to smaller houses when the needs of households change, mixed use of spaces and the collective use of devices.^[20]: 71 New buildings can be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques.In addition, it is possible to design buildings that are more energy-efficient to cool by using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas.

 

Outside unit of an air source heat pump

Heat pumps efficiently heat buildings, and cool them by air conditioning. A modern heat pump typically transports around three to five times more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed, depending on the coefficient of performance and the outside temperature.^[105]

Refrigeration and air conditioning account for about 10% of global CO₂ emissions caused by fossil fuel-based energy production and the use of fluorinated gases. Alternative cooling systems, such as passive cooling building design and installing passive daytime radiative cooling surfaces, can reduce air conditioning use. Suburbs and cities in hot and arid climates can significantly reduce energy consumption from cooling with daytime radiative cooling.^[106]

The energy consumption for cooling is expected to rise significantly due to increasing heat and availability of devices in poorer countries. Of the 2.8 billion people living in the hottest parts of the world, only 8% currently have air conditioners, compared with 90% of people in the US and Japan.^[107] By combining energy efficiency improvements with the transition away from super-polluting refrigerants, the world could avoid cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of up to 210–460 GtCO₂e over the next four decades. ^[108] A shift to renewable energy in the cooling sector comes with two advantages: Solar energy production with mid-day peaks corresponds with the load required for cooling. Additionally, cooling has a large potential for load management in the electric grid.

Transport

Main articles: Sustainable transport and Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles

 

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) indicate a trend away from gas-powered vehicles that generate greenhouse gases.^[109]

Transportation emissions account for 15% of emissions worldwide.^[110] Increasing the use of public transport, low-carbon freight transport and cycling are important components of transport decarbonization.^[111][112]

Electric vehicles and environmentally friendly rail help to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. In most cases, electric trains are more efficient than air transport and truck transport.^[113] Other efficiency means include improved public transport, smart mobility, carsharing and electric hybrids. Fossil-fuel for passenger cars can be included in emissions trading.^[114] Furthermore, moving away from a car-dominated transport system towards low-carbon advanced public transport system is important.^[115]

Heavyweight, large personal vehicles (such as cars) require a lot of energy to move and take up much urban space.^[116][117] Several alternatives modes of transport are available to replace these. The European Union has made smart mobility part of its European Green Deal^[118] and in smart cities, smart mobility is also important.^[119]

 

Battery electric bus in Montreal

The World Bank is supporting lower income countries to buy electric buses, as although their purchase price is higher than diesel buses this can be offset through lower running costs, and health improvements due to cleaner air in cities.^[120]

Between a quarter and three-quarters of cars on the road by 2050 are forecast to be electric vehicles.^[121] Hydrogen may be a solution for long-distance heavy freight trucks, if batteries alone are too heavy.^[122]

Shipping

Further information: Environmental effects of shipping § Greenhouse gas pollutants

In the shipping industry, the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine bunker fuel is driven by emissions regulations. Ship operators have to switch from heavy fuel oil to more expensive oil-based fuels, implement costly flue gas treatment technologies or switch to LNG engines.^[123] Methane slip, when gas leaks unburned through the engine, lowers the advantages of LNG. Maersk, the largest container shipping line and vessel operator in the world, warns of stranded assets when investing into transitional fuels like LNG.^[124] The company lists green ammonia as one of the preferred fuel types of the future and has announced the first carbon-neutral vessel on the water by 2023, running on carbon-neutral methanol.^[125] Partially hydrogen-powered ships are being trialled for cruises.^[126]

Hybrid and all electric ferries are suitable for short distances. Norway's goal is an all electric fleet by 2025.^[127]

Air transport

Further information: environmental impact of aviation

 

Between 1940 and 2018, aviation CO₂ emissions grew from 0.7% to 2.65% of all CO₂ emissions.^[128]

Jet airliners contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide (CO₂), the best understood greenhouse gas, and, with less scientific understanding, nitrogen oxides, contrails and particulates. Their radiative forcing is estimated at 1.3–1.4 that of CO₂ alone, excluding induced cirrus cloud with a very low level of scientific understanding. In 2018, global commercial operations generated 2.4% of all CO₂ emissions.^[129]

While the aviation industry has become more fuel efficient, overall emissions have risen as the volume of air travel has increased. By 2020, aviation emissions were 70% higher than in 2005 and they could grow by 300% by 2050.^[130]

Aviation's environmental footprint can be reduced by better fuel economy in aircraft, and by optimising flight routes to lower non-CO₂ effects on climate from NO
_x, particulates or contrails. Aviation biofuel, emissions trading and carbon offsetting, part of the 191 nation ICAO's Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), can lower CO₂ emissions. Aviation usage can be lowered by short-haul flight bans, train connections, personal choices and taxation on flights. Fuel-powered aircraft may be replaced by hybrid electric aircraft and electric aircraft or by hydrogen-powered aircraft.

In aviation, current 180 Mt of CO₂ emissions (11% of emissions in transport) are expected to rise in most projections, at least until 2040. Aviation biofuel and hydrogen can only cover a small proportion of flights in the coming years. The market entry for hybrid-driven aircraft on regional scheduled flights is projected after 2030, for battery-powered aircraft after 2035.^[131] Under CORSIA flight operators can purchase carbon offsets to cover their emissions above 2019 levels, CORSIA will be compulsory from 2027.

Agriculture, forestry and land use

 

Greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain for different foods, showing which type of food should be encouraged and which discouraged from a mitigation perspective.

See also: Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, Environmental impact of meat production, and Sustainable agriculture

Almost 20% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the agriculture and forestry sector.^[132] Mitigation measures in the food system can be divided into four categories: demand-side changes, ecosystem protections, mitigation on farms, and mitigation in the supply chains. On the demand side, limiting food waste is an effective way to reduce food emissions. Furthermore, changes to a diet less reliant on animal products (especially plant-based diets), are effective.^[7]: XXV

With 21% of global methane emissions, cattle are a major driver of global warming.^[2]: 6 When rainforests are cut and the land is converted for grazing, the impact is even higher. This results in up to 335 kg CO_2eq emissions to produce 1 kg beef in Brazil, when using a 30-year time horizon.^[133] Other livestock, manure management and rice cultivation also emit greenhouse gases, in addition to fossil fuel combustion in agriculture.

Important mitigation options for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock include genetic selection,^[134][135] introduction of methanotrophic bacteria into the rumen,^[136][137] vaccines, feeds,^[138] toilet-training,^[139] diet modification and grazing management.^{[140][141][142]} Other options include just using ruminant-free alternatives instead, such as milk substitutes and meat analogues. Non-ruminant livestock, such as poultry, emits far less.^[143]

Methane emissions in rice cultivation can be cut by implementing an improved water management, combining dry seeding and one drawdown, or a perfect execution of a sequence of wetting and drying. This results in emission reductions of up to 90% compared to full flooding and even increased yields.^[144]

Industry

Industry is the largest emittor of greenhouse gases when direct and indirect emissions are included. Emissions from industry can be reduced by electrification and green hydrogen can play a major role in energy-intensive industries for which electricity is not an option. Further mitigation options involve the steel and cement industry, which can switch to a less polluting production process. Products can be made with less material to reduce emission-intensity and industrial processes can be made more efficient. Finally, circular economy measures reduce the need for new materials, which also saves on emissions that would have been released from the mining of collecting of those materials.^[7]: 43

The decarbonisation of cement production requires new technologies to be developed, and therefore investment in innovation.^[145] Bioconcrete is one possibility to reduce emissions,^[146] but because no technology for mitigation is mature yet CCS will be needed at least in the short-term.^[147] Blast furnaces could be replaced by hydrogen direct reduced iron and electric arc furnaces.^[148]

Coal, gas and oil production often comes with significant methane leakage.^[149] In the early 2020s some governments recognized the scale of the problem and introduced regulations.^[150] Methane leaks at oil and gas wells and processing plants are cost-effective to fix in countries which can easily trade gas internationally.^[149] There are leaks in countries where gas is cheap; such as Iran,^[151] Russia,^[152] and Turkmenistan.^[153] Nearly all this can be stopped by replacing old components and preventing routine flaring.^[149] Coalbed methane may continue leaking even after the mine has been closed, but it can be captured by drainage and/or ventilation systems.^[154] Fossil fuel firms do not always have financial incentives to tackle methane leakage.^[155]

Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks

 

About 58% of CO₂ emissions have been absorbed by carbon sinks, including plant growth, soil uptake, and ocean uptake (2020 Global Carbon Budget).

 

World protected area map with total percentage of each country under protection, where countries in lighter colors have more protected land

Main articles: Carbon dioxide removal; Carbon sequestration; and Land use, land-use change, and forestry

To reduce pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes are necessary in agriculture and forestry,^[156] such as preventing deforestation and restoring natural ecosystems by reforestation.^[157]: 266 Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C typically project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century.^{[158]: 1068 [159]: 17} There are concerns though about over-reliance on these technologies, and environmental impacts.^{[159]: 17 [160]: 34} Nonetheless, the mitigation potential of ecosystem restoration and reduced conversion are among the mitigation tools that can yield the most emissions reductions before 2030.^[4]: 43

Land-based mitigation options are referred to as "AFOLU mitigation options" in the 2022 IPCC report on mitigation. The abbreviation stands for "agriculture, forestry and other land use"^[4]: 37 The report described the economic mitigation potential from relevant activities around forests and ecosystems as follows: "the conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems (coastal wetlands, peatlands, savannas and grasslands)". A high mitigation potential is found for reducing deforestation in tropical regions. The economic potential of these activities has been estimated to be 4.2 to 7.4 Giga tons of CO₂ equivalents per year.^[4]: 37

Forests

Further information: Carbon sequestration § Forestry, Deforestation and climate change, and Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

The UK government's Stern Review on the economics of climate change stated already in 2007 that curbing deforestation was a "highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions".^[161]

Mitigation measures in the area of forestry are slow and often have trade-offs with food prices and potential confounding spill-over effects on climate from indirect land use change.^{[citation needed]}

Conservation

Main articles: Deforestation § Control, and Desertification § Countermeasures

 

Transferring land rights to indigenous inhabitants is argued to efficiently conserve forests.

About 95% of deforestation occurs in the tropics, where it is mostly driven by the clearing of land for agriculture.^[162] One forest conservation strategy is transferring rights over land from public domain to its indigenous inhabitants.^[163] Concessions to land often go to powerful extractive companies^[163] and conservation strategies that exclude and even evict humans, called "fortress conservation", often lead to more exploitation of the land as the native inhabitants then turn to work for extractive companies to survive.^[164]

Afforestation and reforestation

Main articles: Reforestation § For climate change mitigation, Forest restoration, and Afforestration

Afforestation is the establishment of trees where there was previously no tree cover. Scenarios for new plantations covering up to 4000 Mha (6300 x 6300 km) calculate with a cumulative carbon storage of more than 900 GtC (2300 GtCO₂) until 2100.^[165] However, these are not considered a viable alternative to aggressive emissions reduction,^[166] as the plantations would need to be so large, they would eliminate most natural ecosystems or reduce food production.^[167] One example is the Trillion Tree Campaign.^[168][169]

 

Helping existing roots and tree stumps regrow even in long deforested areas is argued to be more efficient than planting trees. Lack of legal ownership to trees by locals is the biggest obstacle preventing regrowth.^[170][171]

Reforestation is the restocking of existing depleted forests or where there was once recently forests. Reforestation could save at least 1 GtCO₂/year, at an estimated cost of $5–15/tCO₂.^[172] Restoring all degraded forests all over the world could capture about 205 GtC (750 GtCO₂).^[173] With increased intensive agriculture and urbanization, there is an increase in the amount of abandoned farmland. By some estimates, for every acre of original old-growth forest cut down, more than 50 acres of new secondary forests are growing.^[174][175] Promoting regrowth on abandoned farmland could offset years of carbon emissions.^[176][177]

Planting new trees can be expensive and a risky investment as, for example, about 80 percent of planted trees in the Sahel die within two years.^[170] Instead, helping native species sprout naturally is cheaper and they are more likely to survive, with even long deforested areas still containing an "underground forest" of living roots and tree stumps. This could include pruning and coppicing to accelerate growth and this also provides woodfuel, which is otherwise a major source of deforestation. Such practices, called farmer-managed natural regeneration, are centuries old but the biggest obstacle towards implementation is the ownership of the trees by the state, who often sell timber rights to businesses. This leads to seedlings being uprooted by locals who saw them as a liability. Legal aid for locals^[178][179] and changes to property law such as in Mali and Niger has led to what has been called the largest positive environmental transformation in Africa, with it being possible to discern from space the border between Niger and the more barren land in Nigeria, where the law has not changed.^[170][171]

Proforestation is promoting forests to capture their full ecological potential.^[180] This is a mitigation strategy as secondary forests that have regrown in abandoned farmland are found to have less biodiversity than the original old-growth forests and original forests store 60% more carbon than these new forests.^[174] Strategies include rewilding and establishing wildlife corridors.^[181][182]

Increasing soil carbon

Further information: Carbon sequestration § Agriculture, Carbon farming, and Climate-smart agriculture

There are many measures to increase soil carbon,^[183] which makes it complex^[184] and hard to measure and account for;^[185] an advantage is that there are fewer trade-offs for these measures than for BECCS or afforestation, for example.^{[citation needed]}

Globally, protecting healthy soils and restoring the soil carbon sponge could remove 7.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, which is more than the annual emissions of the US.^[186][187] Trees capture CO₂ while growing above ground and exuding larger amounts of carbon below ground. Trees contribute to the building of a soil carbon sponge. The carbon formed above ground is released as CO₂ immediately when wood is burned. If dead wood remains untouched, only some of the carbon returns to the atmosphere as decomposition proceeds.^[186]

Methods that enhance carbon sequestration in soil include no-till farming, residue mulching and crop rotation, all of which are more widely used in organic farming than in conventional farming.^[188][189] Because only 5% of US farmland currently uses no-till and residue mulching, there is a large potential for carbon sequestration.^[190][191]

Farming can deplete soil carbon and render soil incapable of supporting life. However, conservation farming can protect carbon in soils, and repair damage over time.^[192] The farming practice of cover crops has been recognized as climate-smart agriculture.^[193] Best management practices for European soils were described to increase soil organic carbon: conversion of arable land to grassland, straw incorporation, reduced tillage, straw incorporation combined with reduced tillage, ley cropping system and cover crops.^[194]

Regenerative agriculture includes conservation tillage, diversity, rotation and cover crops, minimizing physical disturbance and supporting carbon sequestration in soils.^[195][196] It has other benefits like improving the state of the soil and consequently yields.^[197]

Another mitigation option is the production of biochar, the solid remaining after the pyrolysis of biomass, and its storage in soils. Biochar production releases half of the carbon from the biomass—either released into the atmosphere or captured with CCS—and retains most the other half in the stable biochar.^[198] It can endure in soil for thousands of years.^[199] Biochar may increase the soil fertility of acidic soils and increase agricultural productivity. During production of biochar, heat is released which may be used as bioenergy.^[198]

Wetland restoration

Further information: Carbon sequestration § Wetlands, and Wetland § Climate change mitigation and adaptation

 

(A) untrawled seamount and (B) a trawled seamount. Bottom trawling has destroyed many coastal habitats, one of the largest sinks of carbon.

Wetland restoration is an important mitigation measure which has moderate to big mitigation potential on a limited land area with low trade-offs and costs.^{[citation needed]} Wetlands perform two important functions in relation to climate change. They can sequester carbon, converting carbon dioxide to solid plant material through photosynthesis, but they also store and regulate water.^[200][201] Wetlands store approximately 44.6 million tonnes of carbon per year globally.^[202]

Some wetlands are a significant source of methane emissions^[203] and some also emit nitrous oxide.^[204][205] Peatland globally covers just 3% of the land's surface^[206] but stores up to 550 gigatonnes of carbon, representing 42% of all soil carbon and exceeds the carbon stored in all other vegetation types, including the world's forests.^[207] The threat to peatlands include draining the areas for agriculture and cutting down trees for lumber as the trees help hold and fix the peatland.^[208][209] Additionally, peat is often sold for compost.^[210] Restoration of degraded peatlands can be done by blocking drainage channels in the peatland, and allowing natural vegetation to recover.^[181][211]

Mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses (collectively called "blue carbon") make up the majority of the ocean's vegetated habitats. They only equal 0.05% of the plant biomass on land, but store carbon 40 times faster than tropical forests.^[181] Bottom trawling, dredging for coastal development and fertilizer runoff have damaged coastal habitats. Notably, 85% of oyster reefs globally have been removed in the last two centuries. Oyster reefs clean the water and make other species thrive, thus increasing biomass in that area. In addition, oyster reefs mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the force of waves from hurricanes and reduce the erosion from rising sea levels.^[212] Restoration of coastal wetlands is thought to be more cost-effective than restoration of inland wetlands.^[213]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Main article: Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the process of extracting bioenergy from biomass and capturing and storing the carbon, thereby removing it from the atmosphere.^[214] The carbon in the biomass comes from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂) which is extracted from the atmosphere by the biomass when it grows. Energy is extracted in useful forms (electricity, heat, biofuels, etc.) as the biomass is utilized through combustion, fermentation, pyrolysis or other conversion methods. Some of the carbon in the biomass is converted to CO₂ or biochar which can then be stored by geologic sequestration or land application, respectively, enabling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and making BECCS a negative emissions technology (NET).^[215]

The potential range of negative emissions from BECCS was estimated in 2018 as 0 to 22 giga tonnes per year.^[216] As of 2022^[update], approximately 2 million tonnes per year of CO₂ was being captured annually.^[217] Wide deployment of BECCS is constrained by cost and availability of biomass.^{[218][219]: 10}

BECCS currently forms a big part of achieving climate targets beyond 2050 in modelling, such as by the Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) associated with the IPCC process, but many scientists are very skeptical due the risk of loss of biodiversity^[220] and increases in food prices.^{[citation needed]}

Ocean-based options

Further information: Carbon sequestration § Sequestration techniques in oceans, and Ocean acidification § Technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the ocean

In principle, carbon can be stored in ocean reservoirs. This can be done with "ocean-based mitigation systems" including ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement or enhanced weathering.^{[221]: 12–36} Blue carbon management is partly an ocean-based method and partly a land-based method.^{[221]: 12–37} Most of these options could also help to reduce ocean acidification, the drop in pH value caused by increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.^[222]

The current assessment of potential for ocean-based mitigation options is in 2022 that they have only "limited current deployment", but "moderate to large future mitigation potentials" in future.^{[221]: 12–4}

In total, "ocean-based methods have a combined potential to remove 1–100 gigatons of CO₂ per year".^{[20]: TS-94} Their costs are in the order of USD40–500 per ton of CO₂.

For example, enhanced weathering could remove 2–4 gigatons of CO₂ per year. This technology comes with a cost of 50-200 USD per ton of CO₂.^{[20]: TS-94} Enhanced weathering is a process that aims to accelerate the natural weathering by spreading finely ground silicate rock, such as basalt, onto surfaces which speeds up chemical reactions between rocks, water, and air. It removes removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere, permanently storing it in solid carbonate minerals or ocean alkalinity.^[223]

Blue carbon management

This section is an excerpt from Blue carbon.[edit]

Blue carbon is a term used in the climate change mitigation context that refers to "biologically driven carbon fluxes and storage in marine systems that are amenable to management."^{[224]: 2220} Most commonly, it refers to the role that tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses can play in carbon sequestration.^{[224]: 2220} Such ecosystems can contribute to climate change mitigation and also to ecosystem-based adaptation. However, when coastal blue carbon ecosystems are degraded or lost they release carbon back to the atmosphere.^{[224]: 2220}

Technologies to capture carbon dioxide

Main articles: Direct air capture and Carbon capture and storage

 

Schematic showing both terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a large point source, for example burning natural gas

• Direct air capture is a process of capturing CO₂ directly from the ambient air (as opposed to capturing from point sources) and generating a concentrated stream of CO₂ for sequestration or utilization or production of carbon-neutral fuel and windgas.^[225] Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about the long-term effects of some of these processes.^{[226][obsolete source]}
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from large point sources, such as cement factories or biomass power plants, and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The IPCC estimates that the costs of halting global warming would double without CCS.^[227] Norway's Sleipner gas field, beginning in 1996, stores almost a million tons of CO₂ a year to avoid penalties in producing natural gas with unusually high levels of CO₂.^[228][229]

 

Taking into account direct and indirect emissions, industry is the sector with the highest share of global emissions.

Demand reduction

Further information: Individual action on climate change

Demand of products and services which cause greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in three different ways. Firstly, demand can be reduced by behavioural and cultural changes, for instance changes in diet. Secondly, demand for energy and other emitting services can be reduced by improved infrastructure, such as a good public transport network. Lastly, changes in end-use technology can reduce energy demand (e.g., a well-insulated house emits less than a poorly-insulated house).^[20]: 119

Mitigation options that reduce demand for products or services are helping people make personal choices to reduce their carbon footprint, for example in their choice of transport options or their diets.^{[230]: 5–3} This means there are many social aspects with the demand-side mitigation actions. For example, people with high socio-economic status often contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than those from a lower socio-economic status. By reducing their emissions and promoting green policies, these people could become "role models of low-carbon lifestyles".^{[230]: 5–4} However, there are many psychological variables that influence motivation of people to reduce their demand such as awareness and perceived risk. Government policies can support or hinder demand-site mitigation options. For example, public policy can promote circular economy concepts which would support climate change mitigation.^{[230]: 5–6} Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is linked to sharing economy and circular economy.

Energy conservation and efficiency

Main articles: Energy conservation and Efficient energy use

Global primary energy demand exceeded 161,000 TWh in 2018.^[231] This refers to electricity, transport and heating including all losses. In transport and electricity production, fossil fuel usage has a low efficiency of less than 50%. Large amounts of heat in power plants and in motors of vehicles are wasted. The actual amount of energy consumed is significantly lower at 116,000 TWh.^[232]

Energy conservation is the effort made to reduce the consumption of energy by using less of an energy service. This can be achieved either by using energy more efficiently (using less energy for a constant service) or by reducing the amount of service used (for example, by driving less). Energy conservation is at the top of the sustainable energy hierarchy.^[233] Energy can be conserved by reducing wastage and losses, improving efficiency through technological upgrades, and improved operations and maintenance.

Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called energy efficiency, is the process of reducing the amount of energy required to provide products and services. Improved energy efficiency in buildings ("green buildings"), industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and thus help reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.^[234] For example, insulating a building allows it to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain thermal comfort. Improvements in energy efficiency are generally achieved by adopting a more efficient technology or production process^[235] or by application of commonly accepted methods to reduce energy losses.

Lifestyle changes

 

The emissions of the richest 1% of the global population account for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50%.^[236]

Individual action on climate change can include personal choices in many areas, such as diet, travel, household energy use, consumption of goods and services, and family size. People who wish to reduce their carbon footprint (particularly those in high income countries with high consumption lifestyles), can take "high-impact" actions, such as avoiding frequent flying and petrol fuelled cars, eating mainly a plant-based diet, having fewer children,^[237] using clothes and electrical products for longer,^[238] and electrifying homes.^[239][240] Excessive consumption is more to blame for climate change than population increase.^[241] High consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact, with the richest 10% of people emitting about half the total lifestyle emissions.^[242][243]

Dietary change

Main articles: Low-carbon diet and Plant-based diet

Avoiding meat and dairy foods has been called "the single biggest way" an individual can reduce their environmental impact.^[244] The widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet could cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 63% by 2050.^[245] China introduced new dietary guidelines in 2016 which aim to cut meat consumption by 50% and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030.^[246] Overall, food accounts for the largest share of consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% of the global carbon footprint. Almost 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has been attributed to the livestock sector.^[240]

A shift towards plant-based diets would help to mitigate climate change.^[247] In particular, reducing meat consumption would help to reduce methane emissions.^[248] If high-income nations switched to a plant-based diet, vast amounts of land used for animal agriculture could be allowed to return to their natural state, which in turn has the potential to sequester 100 billion tons of CO₂ by the end of the century.^[249][250]

Family size

Further information: Individual action on climate change § Family size

 

Since 1950, world population has tripled.^[251]

Population growth has resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions in most regions, particularly Africa.^{[57]: 6–11} However, economic growth has a bigger effect than population growth.^{[230]: 6–11 [page needed]}It is the rising incomes, changes in consumption and dietary patterns, together with population growth, which causes pressure on land and other natural resources, and leads to more greenhouse gas emissions and less carbon sinks.^[252]: 117 Scholars have pointed out that "In concert with policies that end fossil fuel use and incentivize sustainable consumption, humane policies that slow population growth should be part of a multifaceted climate response."^[253] It is known that "advances in female education and reproductive health, especially voluntary family planning, can contribute greatly to reducing world population growth".^{[230]: 5–35}

Investment and finance

Main articles: Economics of climate change mitigation, Economics of climate change, and Climate risk

Investment

Main article: Business action on climate change

 

More firms plan to invest in climate change mitigation, specifically focusing on low-carbon sectors.^[254]

More than 1000 organizations with a worth of US$8 trillion have made commitments to fossil fuel divestment.^[255] Socially responsible investing funds allow investors to invest in funds that meet high environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) standards.^[256]

There are lists to show the business organisations which are the "top contributors to greenhouse gas emissions".^{[257][258][259]} Asset management firms are often identified as controllers of large amounts of contemporary financial value with insufficient dedication to climate change targets, with the largest four asset managers controlling around 20% of the world's listed market values – an aggregate assets under management of $20 trillion as of 2021.^{[260][261][262]}

Funding

Main articles: Climate finance and Economics of climate change mitigation § Finance

In order to reconcile economic development with mitigating carbon emissions, developing countries need particular support, both financial and technical. One of the means of achieving this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund^[263] is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM. However, none of these initiatives suggest a quantitative cap on the emissions from developing countries. This is considered as a particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse emissions.

An important point of contention is how overseas development assistance not directly related to climate change mitigation is affected by funds provided to climate change mitigation.^[264] One of the outcomes of the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Conference was the Copenhagen Accord, in which developed countries promised to provide US$30 million between 2010 and 2012 of new and additional resources.^[264] Yet it remains unclear what exactly the definition of "additional" is.^[264]

 

Emission trading and carbon taxes around the world (2019)^[265]

  Carbon emission trading implemented or scheduled

  Carbon tax implemented or scheduled

  Carbon emission trading or carbon tax under consideration

Carbon pricing

Main article: Carbon price

 

Carbon emission trade – allowance prices from 2008

Additional costs on greenhouse gas emissions can lower competitiveness of fossil fuels and accelerate investments into low-carbon sources of energy. A growing number of countries raise a fixed carbon tax or participate in dynamic carbon emission trading (ETS) systems. In 2021, more than 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions were covered by a carbon price, a major increase due to the introduction of the Chinese national carbon trading scheme.^[266]: 23

Trading schemes offer the possibility to limit emission allowances to certain reduction targets. However, an oversupply of allowances keeps most ETS at low price levels around $10 with a low impact. This includes the Chinese ETS which started with $7/tCO₂ in 2021.^[267] One exception is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme where prices began to rise in 2018, reaching about €80/tCO₂ in 2022.^[268] This results in additional costs of about €0.04/KWh for coal and €0.02/KWh for gas combustion for electricity, depending on the emission intensity.^{[citation needed]}

2021 models of the social cost of carbon calculated a damage of more than $3000 per ton CO₂ as a result of economy feedbacks and falling global GDP growth rates, while policy recommendations for a carbon price ranged from about $50 to $200.^[269]: 22

Industries which have high energy requirements and high emissions often pay only very low energy taxes, or even none at all.^{[270]: 11–80}

Methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction are occasionally taxed,^[271] but methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture are typically left untaxed.^[272]

Cost estimates

Main articles: Economics of climate change mitigation § Assessing costs and benefits, and Economics of climate change § Cost–benefit analysis

Mitigation cost estimates depend on the baseline (in this case, a reference scenario that the alternative scenario is compared with), the way costs are modelled, and assumptions about future government policy.^[273]: 622 Cost estimates for mitigation for specific regions are dependent on the quantity of emissions "allowed" for that region in future, as well as the timing of interventions.^[274]: 90

Mitigation costs will vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.^[172] Globally, the benefits of keeping warming under 2 °C exceed the costs.^[23]

Many economists estimate the cost of climate change mitigation at between 1% and 2% of GDP.^[275] One 2018 estimate stated that temperature increase can be limited to 1.5 °C for 1.7 trillion dollars a year.^[276][277] According to this study, a global investment of approximately $1.7 trillion per year would have been needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C. Whereas this is a large sum, it is still far less than the subsidies governments provided to the ailing fossil fuel industry, estimated at more than $5 trillion per year by the International Monetary Fund.^[278][58] However by the end of 2022 many thought limiting to 1.5 °C politically impossible.^[279]

The economic repercussions of mitigation vary widely across regions and households, depending on policy design and level of international cooperation. Delayed global cooperation increases policy costs across regions, especially in those that are relatively carbon intensive at present. Pathways with uniform carbon values show higher mitigation costs in more carbon-intensive regions, in fossil-fuels exporting regions and in poorer regions. Aggregate quantifications expressed in GDP or monetary terms undervalue the economic effects on households in poorer countries; the actual effects on welfare and well-being are comparatively larger.^[280]

Cost–benefit analysis may be unsuitable for analysing climate change mitigation as a whole but still useful for analysing the difference between a 1.5 °C target and 2 °C.^[275] One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policy makers can compare the marginal abatement costs of different methods to assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.^[172]

Distributing emissions abatement costs

Mitigation at the speed and scale required to likely limit warming to 2 °C or below implies deep economic and structural changes, thereby raising multiple types of distributional concerns across regions, income classes and sectors.^[280]

There have been different proposals on how to allocate responsibility for cutting emissions:^[281]: 103 Egalitarianism, basic needs (as defined according to a minimum level of consumption), proportionality and polluter-pays principle. A specific proposal is the "equal per capita entitlements".^[281]: 106 This approach can be divided into two categories. In the first category, emissions are allocated according to national population. In the second category, emissions are allocated in a way that attempts to account for historical (cumulative) emissions.

Avoided costs of climate change effects

See also: Economic impacts of climate change

By limiting climate change, some of the costs of the effects of climate change can be avoided. According to the Stern Review, inaction can be as high as the equivalent of losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever (up to 20% of the GDP or more when including a wider range of risks and impacts), whereas mitigating climate change will only cost about 2% of the GDP. Also, delaying to take significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may not be a good idea, when seen from a financial perspective.^[282][283]

Mitigation solutions are often evaluated in terms of costs and greenhouse gas reduction potentials, missing out on the consideration of direct effects on human well-being.^[284]

Policies and actors

Municipal policies and urban planning

Main article: Climate change and cities

 

Bicycles have almost no carbon footprint.^[285]

Cities have big potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They emitted 28 GtCO2-eq in 2020 of combined CO₂ and CH4 emissions.^{[20]: TS-61} This was "through the production and consumption of goods and services".^{[20]: TS-61} Climate-smart urban planning aims to reduce sprawl to reduce the distance travelled, thus lowering emissions from transportation. It supports mixed use of space, transit, walking, cycling, sharing vehicles can reduce urban emissions. Urban forestry, lakes and other blue and green infrastructure can reduce emissions directly and indirectly by reduced energy demand for cooling.^{[20]: TS-66} Personal cars are extremely inefficient at moving passengers, while public transport and bicycles are many times more efficient in an urban context. Switching from cars by improving walkability and cycling infrastructure is either free or beneficial to a country's economy as a whole.^[286] Methane emissions from municipal solid waste can be reduced by segregation, composting, and recycling.^[287]

National policies

 

Although China is the leading producer of CO₂ emissions in the world with the U.S. second, per capita the U.S. leads China by a fair margin (data from 2017).

Climate change mitigation policies can have a large and complex impact, both positive and negative, on the socio-economic status of individuals and countries.^[288] Without "well-designed and inclusive policies, climate change mitigation measures can place a higher financial burden on poor households."^[289]

The most effective and economically efficient approach of achieving lower emissions in the energy sector is to apply a combination of market-based instruments (taxes, permits), standards, and information policies.^[290]: 422

Many countries are aiming for net zero emissions, and many have either carbon taxes or carbon emission trading. As of 2021, three countries are carbon negative, meaning they remove from the atmosphere more greenhouse gas emissions then they emit. These countries; Bhutan, Suriname and Panama; formed a small coalition at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference and asked for help so that other countries will join it.^[291]

Types of national policies that would support climate change mitigation include:

• Regulatory standards: These set technology or performance standards, and can be effective in addressing the market failure of informational barriers.^[290]: 412 If the costs of regulation are less than the benefits of addressing the market failure, standards can result in net benefits. One example are fuel-efficiency standards for cars.^[292]
• Market-based instruments such as emission taxes and charges: an emissions tax requires domestic emitters to pay a fixed fee or tax for every tonne of CO₂-eq GHG emissions released into the atmosphere.^{[290]: 4123} If every emitter were to face the same level of tax, the lowest cost way of achieving emission reductions in the economy would be undertaken first. In the real world, however, markets are not perfect, meaning that an emissions tax may deviate from this ideal. Distributional and equity considerations usually result in differential tax rates for different sources.
• Tradable permits: Emissions can be limited with a permit system.^[290]: 415 A number of permits are distributed equal to the emission limit, with each liable entity required to hold the number of permits equal to its actual emissions. A tradable permit system can be cost-effective so long as transaction costs are not excessive, and there are no significant imperfections in the permit market and markets relating to emitting activities.
• Voluntary agreements: These are agreements between government (public agencies) and industry.^[290]: 417 Agreements may relate to general issues, such as research and development, but in other cases, quantitative targets may be agreed upon. There is, however, the risk that participants in the agreement will free ride, either by not complying with the agreement or by benefitting from the agreement while bearing no cost.
• Informational instruments: Poor information is recognized as a barrier to improved energy efficiency or reduced emissions.^[290]: 419 Examples of policies in this area include increasing public awareness of energy saving with home heating and insulation^[293] or emissions from meat and dairy products.^[294][295] However some say that for a politician asking people to eat less meat is "politically toxic".^[296]
• Research and development policies: Some areas, such as soil, may differ by country and so need national research.^[297] Technologies may need financial support to reach commercial scale, for example floating wind power.^[298]
• Low carbon power: Governments may relax planning regulations on solar power and onshore wind,^[299] and may partly finance technologies considered risky by the private sector, such as nuclear.^[300]
• Demand-side management: This aims to reduce energy demand, e.g., through energy audits, labelling, and regulation.^[290]: 422
• Adding or removing subsidies:
  • A subsidy for greenhouse gas emissions reductions pays entities a specific amount per tonne of CO₂-eq for every tonne of greenhouse gas reduced or sequestered.^[290]: 421 Although subsidies are generally less efficient than taxes, distributional and competitiveness issues sometimes result in energy/emission taxes being coupled with subsidies or tax exceptions.
  • Creating subsidies and financial incentives:^[301] for example energy subsidies to support clean generation which is not yet commercially viable such as tidal power.^[302]
  • Phasing-out of unhelpful subsidies: Many countries provide subsidies for activities that impact emissions, e.g., subsidies in the agriculture and energy sectors, and indirect subsidies for transport. Specific example agricultural subsidies for cattle^[303] or fossil fuel subsidies
• A Green Marshall Plan, which calls for global central bank money creation to fund green infrastructure,^{[304][305][306]}
• Market liberalization: Restructuring of energy markets has occurred in several countries and regions. These policies have mainly been designed to increase competition in the market, but they can have a significant impact on emissions.^{[307]: 409–410}

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies

This section is an excerpt from Fossil fuel phase-out § Phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies.[edit]

Significant fossil fuel subsidies are present in many countries.^[308] Fossil fuel subsidies in 2019 for consumption totalled USD 320 billion^[309] spread over many countries.^[310] As of 2019^[update] governments subsidise fossil fuels by about $500 billion per year: however using an unconventional definition of subsidy which includes failing to price greenhouse gas emissions, the International Monetary Fund estimated that fossil fuel subsidies were $5.2 trillion in 2017, which was 6.4% of global GDP.^[311] Some fossil fuel companies lobby governments.^[312]

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is very important.^[313] It must however be done carefully to avoid protests^[314] and making poor people poorer.^[315] In most cases, however, low fossil fuel prices benefit wealthier households more than poorer households. So to help poor and vulnerable people, other measures than fossil fuel subsidies would be more targeted.^[316] This could in turn increase public support for subsidy reform.^[317]

International agreements

Main article: Politics of climate change

See also: Climate change § Policies and politics, and Climate change mitigation framework

Almost all countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).^[318][319] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.^[320]

Paris Agreement

Main article: Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement has become the main current international agreement on combating climate change. Each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming.^[321] Climate change mitigation measures can be written down in national environmental policy documents like the nationally determined contributions (NDC). The Paris agreement succeeds the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which expired in 2020. Countries that ratified the Kyoto protocol committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

In 2015, two official UNFCCC scientific expert bodies came to the conclusion that, "in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5 °C".^[322] This expert position was, together with the strong diplomatic voice of the poorest countries and the island nations in the Pacific, the driving force leading to the decision of the Paris Conference 2015, to lay down this 1.5 °C long-term target on top of the existing 2 °C goal.^[323]

Additional commitments

In addition to the main agreements, there are many additional pledges made by international coalitions, countries, cities, regions and businesses. According to a report published in September 2019 before the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, full implementation of all pledges, including those in the Paris Agreement, will be sufficient to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees but not to 1.5 degrees.^[324] After the report was published, additional pledges were made in the September climate summit^[325] and in December of that year.^[326]

In December 2020 another climate action summit was held and important commitments were made. The organizers stated that, including the commitments expected in the beginning of the following year, countries representing 70% of the global economy will be committed to reach zero emissions by 2050.^[327]

In September 2021 the US and EU launched the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. UK, Argentina, Indonesia, Italy and Mexico joined the initiative, "while Ghana and Iraq signaled interest in joining, according to a White House summary of the meeting, which noted those countries represent six of the top 15 methane emitters globally".^[328] Israel also joined the initiative^[329]

Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has benefited climate change mitigation efforts.^[330] The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that has successfully reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances (for example, CFCs), which are also greenhouse gases.

History

See also: Climate change mitigation framework, History of climate change policy and politics, Kyoto Protocol § Chronology, and Paris Agreement § Development

Historically climate change has been approached at a multinational level where a consensus decision is reached at the United Nations (UN), under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).^[331] This represents the dominant approach historically of engaging as many international governments as possible in taking action in on a worldwide public issue. There is a precedent that this model can work, as seen in the Montreal Protocol in 1987. The top-down framework of only utilizing the UNFCCC consensus approach has been proposed to be ineffective, with counter proposals of bottom up governance and decreasing the emphasis of the UNFCCC.^{[332][333][334]}

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (adopted in 1997) set out legally binding emission reduction commitments for the "Annex B" countries.^[335]: 817 The Protocol defined three international policy instruments ("Flexibility Mechanisms") which could be used by the Annex B countries to meet their emission reduction commitments. According to Bashmakov, use of these instruments could significantly reduce the costs for Annex B countries in meeting their emission reduction commitments.^{[336]: 402 [needs update]}

The European Union's mitigation target for 2020 was: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from the level in 1990, produce 20% of energy from renewable sources, increase Energy Efficiency by 20%.^[337] The European Union claims that they have already achieved the 2020 target for emission reduction and have the legislation needed to achieve the 2030 targets. Already in 2018, its greenhouse gas emissions were 23% lower than those in 1990.^[338]

Society and culture

Barriers

See also: Politics of climate change, Psychology of climate change denial, Global warming controversy, Fossil fuels lobby, Climate change denial, Global warming conspiracy theory, Climate communication, Media coverage of climate change, Public opinion on climate change, and Sustainability § Barriers

 

A typology of discourses aimed at delaying climate change mitigation^[31]

 

Distribution of committed CO₂ emissions from developed fossil fuel reserves

Barriers to achieving climate change mitigation can be grouped into individual, institutional and market barriers.^{[230]: 5–71} They differ for all the different mitigation options, regions and societies.

Complicated issues around accounting of carbon dioxide removal can act as economic barriers, for example with regards to BECCS (Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage).^{[57]: 6–42} The strategies that companies follow can act as a barrier but also as an "accelerator of decarbonisation".^{[230]: 5–84}

In order to "decarbonise societies" the state (government) needs to play a predominant role because this requires a massive coordination effort.^[339]: 213 This strong government role, however, can only work well if there is social cohesion, political stability and trust.^[339]: 213

For land-based mitigation options, finance is a major barrier, followed by "cultural values, governance, accountability and institutional capacity" as other barriers.^{[252]: 7–5}

For developing countries, additional barriers to mitigation include:^[340]

• The cost of capital increased in the early 2020s.^[341] A lack of available capital and finance is common in developing countries.^[342] Together with the absence of regulatory standards, this barrier supports the proliferation of inefficient equipment.
• There are also financial and capacity barrier in many of these countries.^[230]: 97

It has been estimated that only 0.12% of all funding for climate-related research is spent on the social science of climate change mitigation.^[343] Vastly more funding is spent on natural science studies of climate change and considerable sums are also spent on studies of impact of and adaptation to climate change.^[343]

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

Main article: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment § Climate change

The COVID-19 pandemic led some governments to shift their focus away from climate action, at least temporarily.^[344] Decreased human activity during the pandemic diverted attention from ongoing activities such as accelerated deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.^[345][346] The hindrance of environmental policy efforts, combined with economic slowdown may have contributed to slowed investment in green energy technologies.^[347][348]

In 2020, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 6.4% or 2.3 billion tonnes globally.^[349] Greenhouse gas emissions rebounded later in the pandemic as many countries began lifting restrictions, with the direct impact of pandemic policies having a negligible long-term impact on climate change.^[349][350]

Examples by country

See also: Climate change scenario § National climate (change) projections

United States

Main article: Climate change in the United States

This section is an excerpt from Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States § Federal Policies.[edit]

The United States government has held shifting attitudes toward addressing greenhouse gas emissions. The George W. Bush administration opted not to sign the Kyoto Protocol,^[351] but the Obama administration entered the Paris Agreement.^[352] The Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement while increasing the export of crude oil and gas, making the United States the largest producer.^[353] In 2021, the Biden administration committed to reducing emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030.^[354] In 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, which is estimated to provide around $375 billion over 10 years to fight climate change.^[355] As of 2022^[update] the social cost of carbon is 51 dollars a tonne whereas academics say it should be more than 3 times higher.^[356]

China

Main articles: Greenhouse gas emissions by China, Climate change in China, and Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation

In 2020, China committed to peak emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2060;^[357] following the 2021 blackouts, officials indicated the 2030 target was something "to strive to" and not necessarily to be met.^[358] In order to limit warming to 1.5 °C coal plants in China without carbon capture must be phased out by 2045.^[359] The Chinese national carbon trading scheme started in 2021.

European Union

Further information: Climate change in Europe and European Green Deal

The climate commitments of the European Union were divided into three main categories: targets for the year 2020 (now obsolete), for 2030 and for 2050. The European Union state that their policies are in line with the goal of the Paris Agreement.^[360][361]

• Targets for 2030: Reduce greenhouse gas emission by 40% from the level of 1990.^[362] In 2019 The European Parliament adopted a resolution upgrading the target to 55%,^[363] produce 32% of energy from renewables, increase energy efficiency by 32.5%.
• Target for 2050: become climate neutral.^[360]

See also

•  Climate change portal
•  Economics portal
•  Energy portal
•  World portal

• Attribution of recent climate change
• Carbon budget
• Climate movement
• Climate change denial
• Nature-based solutions
• Tipping points in the climate system

References

1. IPCC, 2021: 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.)]. 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 [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
2. Olivier J.G.J. and Peters J.A.H.W. (2020), Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions: 2020 report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague.
3. "Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
4. IPCC (2022) Summary for policy makers in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
5. Ram M., Bogdanov D., Aghahosseini A., Gulagi A., Oyewo A.S., Child M., Caldera U., Sadovskaia K., Farfan J., Barbosa LSNS., Fasihi M., Khalili S., Dalheimer B., Gruber G., Traber T., De Caluwe F., Fell H.-J., Breyer C. Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy – Power, Heat, Transport and Desalination Sectors. Study by Lappeenranta University of Technology and Energy Watch Group, Lappeenranta, Berlin, March 2019.
6. "Cement – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
7. United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window — Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. Nairobi.
8. "Climate Change Performance Index" (PDF). November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
9. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max; Rosado, Pablo (11 May 2020). "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Our World in Data. Retrieved 27 August 2022.
10. Harvey, Fiona (26 November 2019). "UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
11. "Cut Global Emissions by 7.6 Percent Every Year for Next Decade to Meet 1.5°C Paris Target – UN Report". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
12. IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; et al. (eds.). 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. p. 300.: The global benefits of pathways limiting warming to 2°C (>67%) outweigh global mitigation costs over the 21st century, if aggregated economic impacts of climate change are at the moderate to high end of the assessed range, and a weight consistent with economic theory is given to economic impacts over the long term. This holds true even without accounting for benefits in other sustainable development dimensions or nonmarket damages from climate change (medium confidence).
13. IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
14. "What is solar radiation modification and what questions should SIDS be asking about the governance of its research and deployment?". ODI: Think change. Retrieved 26 November 2022. Solar radiation modification (SRM) – also discussed in the context of geoengineering – is part of a set of climate mitigation technologies
15. "Solar Radiation Modification: A Risk-Risk Analysis" (PDF).
16. IPCC (2022) Chapter 14: International cooperation in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299.
18. Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018: Chapter 2: 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 [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 93-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.004.
19. Molar, Roberto. "Reducing Emissions to Lessen Climate Change Could Yield Dramatic Health Benefits by 2030". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
20. IPCC (2022) Technical Summary. In 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
21. Budolfson, Mark; Dennig, Francis; Errickson, Frank; Feindt, Simon; Ferranna, Maddalena; Fleurbaey, Marc; Klenert, David; Kornek, Ulrike; Kuruc, Kevin; Méjean, Aurélie; Peng, Wei; Scovronick, Noah; Spears, Dean; Wagner, Fabian; Zuber, Stéphane (2021). "Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being". Nature Climate Change. 11 (12): 1111–1116. Bibcode:2021NatCC..11.1111B. doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01217-0. ISSN 1758-678X. S2CID 244726475.
22. Workman, Annabelle; Blashki, Grant; Bowen, Kathryn J.; Karoly, David J.; Wiseman, John (April 2018). "The Political Economy of Health Co-Benefits: Embedding Health in the Climate Change Agenda". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15 (4): 674. doi:10.3390/ijerph15040674. PMC 5923716. PMID 29617317.
23. Sampedro, Jon; Smith, Steven J.; Arto, Iñaki; González-Eguino, Mikel; Markandya, Anil; Mulvaney, Kathleen M.; Pizarro-Irizar, Cristina; Van Dingenen, Rita (2020). "Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply". Environment International. 136: 105513. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513. PMID 32006762. S2CID 211004787.
24. "MCC: Quality of life increases when we live, eat and travel energy-efficiently". idw-online.de. Retrieved 11 December 2021.
25. Creutzig, Felix; Niamir, Leila; Bai, Xuemei; Callaghan, Max; Cullen, Jonathan; Díaz-José, Julio; Figueroa, Maria; Grubler, Arnulf; Lamb, William F.; Leip, Adrian; Masanet, Eric; Mata, Érika; Mattauch, Linus; Minx, Jan C.; Mirasgedis, Sebastian (2022). "Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being". Nature Climate Change. 12 (1): 36–46. Bibcode:2022NatCC..12...36C. doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y. ISSN 1758-678X. S2CID 234275540.
26. IPCC (2022) Chapter 8: Urban systems and other settlements in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
27. IPCC (2022) Chapter 4: Mitigation and development pathways in the near- to mid-term in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
28. Ingemarsson, M. L., Weinberg, J., Rudebeck, T., Erlandsson, L. W. (2022) Key messages and executive summary, The essential drop to Net-Zero: Unpacking freshwater's role in climate change mitigation, SIWI, Stockholm, Sweden
29. Sonter, Laura J.; Dade, Marie C.; Watson, James E. M.; Valenta, Rick K. (1 September 2020). "Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 4174. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.4174S. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17928-5. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7463236. PMID 32873789. S2CID 221467922.
30. "Solar panels are a pain to recycle. These companies are trying to fix that". from the original on 8 November 2021. Retrieved 8 November 2021.
31. Lamb, William F.; Mattioli, Giulio; Levi, Sebastian; Roberts, J. Timmons; Capstick, Stuart; Creutzig, Felix; Minx, Jan C.; Müller-Hansen, Finn; Culhane, Trevor; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). "Discourses of climate delay". Global Sustainability. 3. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.13. ISSN 2059-4798. S2CID 222245720.
32. "Chapter 2: Emissions trends and drivers" (PDF). Ipcc_Ar6_Wgiii. 2022.
33. "It's critical to tackle coal emissions". blogs.worldbank.org. Retrieved 25 November 2022. Coal power plants produce a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than any other single source.
34. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max; Rosado, Pablo (11 May 2020). "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Our World in Data.
35. "Biden signs international climate deal on refrigerants". AP NEWS. 27 October 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
36. "Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown". One Green Planet. 30 September 2014. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
37. Pérez-Domínguez, Ignacio; del Prado, Agustin; Mittenzwei, Klaus; Hristov, Jordan; Frank, Stefan; Tabeau, Andrzej; Witzke, Peter; Havlik, Petr; van Meijl, Hans; Lynch, John; Stehfest, Elke (December 2021). "Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets". Nature Food. 2 (12): 970–980. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00385-8. ISSN 2662-1355. PMC 7612339. PMID 35146439.
38. Franziska Funke; Linus Mattauch; Inge van den Bijgaart; H. Charles J. Godfray; Cameron Hepburn; David Klenert; Marco Springmann; Nicolas Treich (19 July 2022). "Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption?". Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 16 (2): 000. doi:10.1086/721078. S2CID 250721559. animal-based agriculture and feed crop production account for approximately 83 percent of agricultural land globally and are responsible for approximately 67 percent of deforestation (Poore and Nemecek 2018). This makes livestock farming the single largest driver of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, nutrient pollution, and ecosystem loss in the agricultural sector. A failure to mitigate GHG emissions from the food system, especially animal-based agriculture, could prevent the world from meeting the climate objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement, and complicate the path to limiting climate change to well below 2°C of warming (Clark et al. 2020).
39. IGSD (2013). "Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs)". Institute of Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD). Retrieved 29 November 2019.
40. "How satellites could help hold countries to emissions promises made at COP26 summit". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
41. "Satellites offer new ways to study ecosystems—and maybe even save them". www.science.org. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
42. "It's over for fossil fuels: IPCC spells out what's needed to avert climate disaster". The Guardian. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
43. "The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030". IPCC. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
44. "Ambitious Action Key to Resolving Triple Planetary Crisis of Climate Disruption, Nature Loss, Pollution, Secretary-General Says in Message for International Mother Earth Day | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". www.un.org. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
45. "Glasgow's 2030 credibility gap: net zero's lip service to climate action". climateactiontracker.org. from the original on 9 November 2021. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
46. "Global Data Community Commits to Track Climate Action". UNFCCC. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
47. Nations, United. "Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020". United Nations. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
48. "World fails to meet a single target to stop destruction of nature – UN report". The Guardian. 15 September 2020. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
49. "Glasgow's 2030 credibility gap: net zero's lip service to climate action". climateactiontracker.org. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
50. Sathaye, J.; et al. (2007). "Sustainable Development and Mitigation". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Archived from the original on 2 November 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
51. Ripple, William J; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R (5 November 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. 70: 8–12. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088. hdl:1808/30278. Retrieved 25 November 2022. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion...
52. Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). "Scientists' warning on affluence". Nature Communications. 11 (3107): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753.
53. "Overconsumption and growth economy key drivers of environmental crises" (Press release). Phys.org. University of New South Wales. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
54. "Economic growth no longer means higher carbon emissions". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
55. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 3 of 3: The economic and social impact of the green transition". EIB.org. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
56. Friedlingstein, Pierre; Jones, Matthew W.; O'Sullivan, Michael; Andrew, Robbie M.; Hauck, Judith; Peters, Glen P.; Peters, Wouter; Pongratz, Julia; Sitch, Stephen; Le Quéré, Corinne; Bakker, Dorothee C. E. (2019). "Global Carbon Budget 2019". Earth System Science Data. 11 (4): 1783–1838. Bibcode:2019ESSD...11.1783F. doi:10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019. ISSN 1866-3508. from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
57. IPCC (2022) Chapter 6: Energy systems in 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
58. Teske, Sven, ed. (2 August 2019). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals: Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5°C and +2°C. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2. ISBN 978-3030058425. S2CID 198078901 – via www.springer.com.
59. "Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (2019 edition)" (PDF). International Renewable Energy Agency. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
60. "Scale-up of Solar and Wind Puts Existing Coal, Gas at Risk". BloombergNEF. 28 April 2020.
61. Emilio, Maurizio Di Paolo (2022-09-15). "The Cost of Energy, Key to Sustainability". Power Electronics News. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
62. Liebensteiner, Mario; Naumann, Fabian (2022-11-01). "Can carbon pricing counteract renewable energies' cannibalization problem?". Energy Economics. 115: 106345. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106345. ISSN 0140-9883. S2CID 252958388.
63. Cartlidge, Edwin (18 November 2011). "Saving for a rainy day". Science. 334 (6058): 922–24. Bibcode:2011Sci...334..922C. doi:10.1126/science.334.6058.922. PMID 22096185.
64. "Renewable power's growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security". IEA. 6 December 2022. Retrieved 8 December 2022. Utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind are the cheapest options for new electricity generation in a significant majority of countries worldwide.
65. "Solar - Fuels & Technologies". IEA. Retrieved 22 December 2022. utility-scale solar PV is the least costly option for new electricity generation in a significant majority of countries worldwide
66. Jaeger, Joel (20 September 2021). "Explaining the Exponential Growth of Renewable Energy".
67. Wanner, Brent. "Is exponential growth of solar PV the obvious conclusion?". IEA. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
68. "Renewables 2021 Global Status Report" (PDF). REN21. pp. 137–138. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
69. "Global Wind Atlas". DTU Technical University of Denmark. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
70. "Onshore vs offshore wind energy: what's the difference? | National Grid Group". www.nationalgrid.com. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
71. Nyenah, Emmanuel; Sterl, Sebastian; Thiery, Wim (1 May 2022). "Pieces of a puzzle: solar-wind power synergies on seasonal and diurnal timescales tend to be excellent worldwide". Environmental Research Communications. 4 (5): 055011. Bibcode:2022ERCom...4e5011N. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ac71fb. ISSN 2515-7620. S2CID 249227821.
72. "BP Statistical Review 2019" (PDF). Retrieved 28 March 2020.
73. "Large hydropower dams not sustainable in the developing world". BBC News. 5 November 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
74. "From baseload to peak" (PDF). IRENA. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
75. (PDF). UK environment agency. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
76. "Virgin Atlantic purchases 10 million gallons of SAF from Gevo". Biofuels International Magazine. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
77. Geothermal Energy Association. Geothermal Energy: International Market Update May 2010, p. 4-6.
78. Bassam, Nasir El; Maegaard, Preben; Schlichting, Marcia (2013). Distributed Renewable Energies for Off-Grid Communities: Strategies and Technologies Toward Achieving Sustainability in Energy Generation and Supply. Newnes. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-12-397178-4.
79. Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer, A. Verbruggen, 2011: Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (ref. page 10)
80. Ruggles, Tyler H.; Caldeira, Ken (1 January 2022). "Wind and solar generation may reduce the inter-annual variability of peak residual load in certain electricity systems". Applied Energy. 305: 117773. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117773. ISSN 0306-2619. S2CID 239113921.
81. "You've heard of water droughts. Could 'energy' droughts be next?". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 8 December 2022.
82. United Nations Environment Programme (2019). Emissions Gap Report 2019 (PDF). p. 47. ISBN 978-92-807-3766-0. (PDF) from the original on 7 May 2021.
83. . IEA. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
84. Blanco, Herib; Faaij, André (2018). "A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus on Power to Gas and long-term storage". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 81: 1049–1086. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.062. ISSN 1364-0321.
85. REN21 (2020). Renewables 2020: Global Status Report (PDF). REN21 Secretariat. p. 177. ISBN 978-3-948393-00-7. (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2020.
86. Bloess, Andreas; Schill, Wolf-Peter; Zerrahn, Alexander (2018). "Power-to-heat for renewable energy integration: A review of technologies, modeling approaches, and flexibility potentials". Applied Energy. 212: 1611–1626. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.073. S2CID 116132198.
87. IEA (2020). World Energy Outlook 2020. p. 109. ISBN 978-92-64-44923-7. from the original on 22 August 2021.
88. Koohi-Fayegh, S.; Rosen, M.A. (2020). "A review of energy storage types, applications and recent developments". Journal of Energy Storage. 27: 101047. doi:10.1016/j.est.2019.101047. ISSN 2352-152X. S2CID 210616155. from the original on 17 July 2021. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
89. Katz, Cheryl (17 December 2020). "The batteries that could make fossil fuels obsolete". BBC. from the original on 11 January 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2021.
90. Herib, Blanco; André, Faaij (2018). "A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus on Power to Gas and long-term storage". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 81: 1049–1086. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.062. ISSN 1364-0321.
91. "Climate change and batteries: the search for future power storage solutions" (PDF). Climate change: science and solutions. The Royal Society. 19 May 2021. from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
92. Hunt, Julian D.; Byers, Edward; Wada, Yoshihide; Parkinson, Simon; et al. (2020). "Global resource potential of seasonal pumped hydropower storage for energy and water storage". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 947. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11..947H. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14555-y. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7031375. PMID 32075965.
93. "Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022". www.iaea.org. 19 August 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
94. "World Nuclear Waste Report". Retrieved 25 October 2021.
95. Smith, Brice. "Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change – Institute for Energy and Environmental Research". Retrieved 24 November 2021.
96. Prăvălie, Remus; Bandoc, Georgeta (2018). "Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications". Journal of Environmental Management. 209: 81–92. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.043. PMID 29287177.
97. Schneider, Mycle; Froggatt, Antony. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 1 January 2023.
98. "Nuclear Power Is Declining in the West and Growing in Developing Countries". BRINK – Conversations and Insights on Global Business. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
99. "May: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals". www.iea.org. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
100. "The Role of Gas: Key Findings". IEA. July 2019. from the original on 1 September 2019. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
101. "Natural gas and the environment". US Energy Information Administration. from the original on 2 April 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
102. Plumer, Brad (26 June 2019). "As Coal Fades in the U.S., Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground". The New York Times. from the original on 23 September 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
103. Gürsan, C.; de Gooyert, V. (2021). "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 138: 110552. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110552. ISSN 1364-0321. S2CID 228885573. from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
104. International Energy Agency (2017). Energy technology perspectives 2017 : catalysing energy technology transformations. Paris. ISBN 978-92-64-27597-3. OCLC 1144453104.
105. "Heat Pumps – Analysis". IEA. 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
106. Zhou, Kai; Miljkovic, Nenad; Cai, Lili (March 2021). "Performance analysis on system-level integration and operation of daytime radiative cooling technology for air-conditioning in buildings". Energy and Buildings. 235: 110749. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110749. S2CID 234180182 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
107. Radhika, Lalik (2019). "How India is solving its cooling challenge". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
108. "Cooling Emissions and Policy Synthesis Report". IEA/UNEP. 2020. Retrieved 20 July 2020.
109. Data from McKerracher, Colin (12 January 2023). "Electric Vehicles Look Poised for Slower Sales Growth This Year". BloombergNEF. Archived from the original on 12 January 2023.
110. Ge, Mengpin; Friedrich, Johannes; Vigna, Leandro (6 February 2020). "4 Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors". World Resources Institute. Retrieved 30 December 2020.
111. Jochem, Patrick; Rothengatter, Werner; Schade, Wolfgang (2016). "Climate change and transport".
112. Kwan, Soo Chen; Hashim, Jamal Hisham (1 April 2016). "A review on co-benefits of mass public transportation in climate change mitigation". Sustainable Cities and Society. 22: 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.01.004. ISSN 2210-6707.
113. Lowe, Marcia D. (April 1994). . Archived from the original on 4 December 2006. Retrieved 15 February 2007.
114. Keating, Dave (21 December 2022). "EU's end-of-year energy breakthroughs will have big climate implications". Energy Monitor. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
115. Mattioli, Giulio; Roberts, Cameron; Steinberger, Julia K.; Brown, Andrew (1 August 2020). "The political economy of car dependence: A systems of provision approach". Energy Research & Social Science. 66: 101486. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101486. ISSN 2214-6296. S2CID 216186279.
116. Gonsalvez, Venkat Sumantran, Charles Fine and David (16 October 2017). "Our cities need fewer cars, not cleaner cars". The Guardian.
117. Casson, Richard (25 January 2018). "We don't just need electric cars, we need fewer cars". Greenpeace. Retrieved 17 September 2020.
118. "The essentials of the "Green Deal" of the European Commission". Green Facts. Green Facts. 7 January 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
119. "Smart Mobility in Smart Cities". ResearchGate.
120. "How electric vehicles can help the developing world". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
121. "How green are electric cars?". The Guardian.
122. Collins, Leigh (13 May 2022). "Hydrogen v battery trucks | UK launches $240m competition to find out which is best for zero-emissions haulage | Recharge". Recharge news. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
123. "LNG projected to gain significant market share in transport fuels by 2035". Gas Processing News/Bloomberg. 28 September 2014.
124. Chambers, Sam (26 February 2021). "'Transitional fuels are capturing the regulatory agenda and incentives': Maersk". splash247. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
125. "Maersk backs plan to build Europe's largest green ammonia facility" (Press release). Maersk. 23 February 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
126. Bahtić, Fatima (10 November 2022). "Viking's new cruise ship equipped with hydrogen fuel cells delivered". Offshore Energy. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
127. Parker, Selwyn (8 September 2020). "Norway moves closer to its ambition of an all-electric ferry fleet". Rivera.
128. D. S. Lee; et al. (2021), "The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018", Atmospheric Environment, 244: 117834, Bibcode:2021AtmEn.24417834L, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117834, PMC 7468346, PMID 32895604
129. Brandon Graver; Kevin Zhang; Dan Rutherford (September 2019). "CO₂ emissions from commercial aviation, 2018" (PDF). International Council on Clean Transportation.
130. "Reducing emissions from aviation". Climate Action. European Commission. 23 November 2016.
131. "The aviation network – Decarbonisation issues". Eurocontrol. 4 September 2019.
132. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max; Rosado, Pablo (11 May 2020). "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Our World in Data. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
133. Schmidinger, Kurt; Stehfest, Elke (2012). "Including CO₂ implications of land occupation in LCAs – method and example for livestock products" (PDF). Int J Life Cycle Assess. 17 (8): 967. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0434-7. S2CID 73625760.
134. . www.genomecanada.ca. Archived from the original on 10 August 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
135. Airhart, Ellen. "Canada Is Using Genetics to Make Cows Less Gassy". Wired – via www.wired.com.
136. "The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review".
137. Parmar, N.R.; Nirmal Kumar, J.I.; Joshi, C.G. (2015). "Exploring diet-dependent shifts in methanogen and methanotroph diversity in the rumen of Mehsani buffalo by a metagenomics approach". Frontiers in Life Science. 8 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1080/21553769.2015.1063550. S2CID 89217740.
138. "Kowbucha, seaweed, vaccines: the race to reduce cows' methane emissions". The Guardian. 30 September 2021. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
139. Dirksen, Neele; Langbein, Jan; Schrader, Lars; Puppe, Birger; Elliffe, Douglas; Siebert, Katrin; Röttgen, Volker; Matthews, Lindsay (13 September 2021). "Learned control of urinary reflexes in cattle to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Current Biology. 31 (17): R1033–R1034. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.011. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 34520709. S2CID 237497867.
140. Boadi, D (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84 (3): 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
141. Martin, C. et al. 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4 : pp 351-365.
142. Eckard, R. J.; et al. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
143. "Livestock Production Science | Livestock Farming Systems and their Environmental Impacts | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier". www.sciencedirect.com.
144. Searchinger, Tim; Adhya, Tapan K. (2014). "Wetting and Drying: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Water from Rice Production". WRI.
145. "Cement – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
146. "Adding bacteria can make concrete greener". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
147. "The role of CCUS in decarbonizing the cement industry: A German case study". Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
148. "Steel industry decarbonization: New methods to net zero | Sustainability | McKinsey & Company". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
149. Krane, Jim. "Why fixing methane leaks from the oil and gas industry can be a climate game-changer – one that pays for itself". The Conversation. Retrieved 27 November 2022.
150. Cocks, Tim (29 September 2022). "Explainer: How methane leaks accelerate global warming". Reuters. Retrieved 27 November 2022.
151. Heyman, Taylor (26 October 2022). "Iran and Turkmenistan among methane 'super emitters' spotted by Nasa from space". The National. Retrieved 27 November 2022.
152. "CO2 Emissions: Multiple Countries - Fossil fuel operations - 2021 - Climate TRACE". climatetrace.org. Retrieved 28 November 2022.
153. Combier, Etienne (10 March 2022). "Turkmenistan, the unknown mega-polluter". Novastan English. Retrieved 27 November 2022.
154. US EPA, OAR (8 December 2015). "About Coal Mine Methane". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 28 November 2022.
155. "Driving Down Methane Leaks from the Oil and Gas Industry – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 28 November 2022.
156. Levin, Kelly (8 August 2019). "How Effective Is Land At Removing Carbon Pollution? The IPCC Weighs In". World Resources Institute.
157. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., D. Jacob, M. Taylor, M. Bindi, S. Brown, I. Camilloni, A. Diedhiou, R. Djalante, K.L. Ebi, F. Engelbrecht, J.Guiot, Y. Hijioka, S. Mehrotra, A. Payne, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Thomas, R. Warren, and G. Zhou, 2018: Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5ºC Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. 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 [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 175-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005.
158. Bui, Mai; Adjiman, Claire S.; Bardow, André; Anthony, Edward J.; Boston, Andy; Brown, Solomon; Fennell, Paul S.; Fuss, Sabine; Galindo, Amparo; Hackett, Leigh A.; Hallett, Jason P.; Herzog, Howard J.; Jackson, George; Kemper, Jasmin; Krevor, Samuel (2018). "Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward". Energy & Environmental Science. 11 (5): 1062–1176. doi:10.1039/C7EE02342A. ISSN 1754-5692.
159. IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. 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 [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001.
160. IPCC, 2018: 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 [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
161. Stern, Nicholas Herbert (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. xxv. ISBN 978-0-521-70080-1. from the original on 2006-11-14. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
162. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max (9 February 2021). "Forests and Deforestation". Our World in Data.
163. "India should follow China to find a way out of the woods on saving forest people". The Guardian. 22 July 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
164. "How Conservation Became Colonialism". Foreign Policy. 16 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
165. van Minnen, Jelle G; Strengers, Bart J; Eickhout, Bas; Swart, Rob J; Leemans, Rik (2008). "Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model". Carbon Balance and Management. 3: 3. doi:10.1186/1750-0680-3-3. ISSN 1750-0680. PMC 2359746. PMID 18412946.
166. Boysen, Lena R.; Lucht, Wolfgang; Gerten, Dieter; Heck, Vera; Lenton, Timothy M.; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim (17 May 2017). "The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal". Earth's Future. 5 (5): 463–474. Bibcode:2017EaFut...5..463B. doi:10.1002/2016EF000469. hdl:10871/31046. S2CID 53062923.
167. Yoder, Kate (12 May 2022). "Does planting trees actually help the climate? Here's what we know". Rewilding. Grist. Retrieved 15 May 2022.
168. "One trillion trees - uniting the world to save forests and climate". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 8 October 2020.
169. Gabbatiss, Josh (16 February 2019). "Massive restoration of world's forests would cancel out a decade of CO₂ emissions, analysis suggests". Independent. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
170. "The Great Green Wall: African Farmers Beat Back Drought and Climate Change with Trees". Scientific America. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
171. "In semi-arid Africa, farmers are transforming the "underground forest" into life-giving trees". University of Minnesote. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
172. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Part III: The Economics of Stabilisation. HM Treasury, London: http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
173. Chazdon, Robin; Brancalion, Pedro (5 July 2019). "Restoring forests as a means to many ends". Science. 365 (6448): 24–25. Bibcode:2019Sci...365...24C. doi:10.1126/science.aax9539. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 31273109. S2CID 195804244.
174. "New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests". New York Times. 29 January 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
175. Young, E. (2008). IPCC Wrong On Logging Threat to Climate. New Scientist, 5 August 2008. Retrieved on 18 August 2008, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14466-ipcc-wrong-on-logging-threat-toclimate.html
176. "In Latin America, Forests May Rise to Challenge of Carbon Dioxide". New York Times. 16 May 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
177. Sengupta, Somini (5 July 2019). "Restoring Forests Could Help Put a Brake on Global Warming, Study Finds". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
178. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change. World Resources Institute. ISBN 978-1569738290. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
179. "Community forestry can work, but plans in the Democratic Republic of Congo show what's missing". The Conversation. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
180. Moomaw, William R.; Masino, Susan A.; Faison, Edward K. (2019). "Intact Forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good". Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 2. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027.
181. "The natural world can help save us from climate catastrophe | George Monbiot". The Guardian. 3 April 2019.
182. Wilmers, Christopher C.; Schmitz, Oswald J. (19 October 2016). "Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling". Ecosphere. 7 (10). doi:10.1002/ecs2.1501.
183. "What to consider when increasing soil carbon stocks". Farmers Weekly. 14 February 2022. Retrieved 2 December 2022. many factors can affect how easy it is for micro-organisms to access carbon
184. Terrer, C.; Phillips, R. P.; Hungate, B. A.; Rosende, J.; Pett-Ridge, J.; Craig, M. E.; van Groenigen, K. J.; Keenan, T. F.; Sulman, B. N.; Stocker, B. D.; Reich, P. B.; Pellegrini, A. F. A.; Pendall, E.; Zhang, H.; Evans, R. D. (March 2021). "A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2". Nature. 591 (7851): 599–603. Bibcode:2021Natur.591..599T. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03306-8. hdl:10871/124574. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 33762765. S2CID 232355402. Although plant biomass often increases in elevated CO2 (eCO2) experiments SOC has been observed to increase, remain unchanged or even decline. The mechanisms that drive this variation across experiments remain poorly understood, creating uncertainty in climate projections
185. "Carbon farming explained: the pros, the cons and the EU's plans". Clean Energy Wire. 17 March 2022. Retrieved 2 December 2022. But many German researchers and the country's agriculture ministry warn that soil carbon sequestration is easily reversible, hard to measure, and could lead to greenwashing. Existing frameworks for carbon farming certificates deploy a wide variety of approaches to quantifying the amount of carbon removals, the European Commission says.
186. Harris, Nancy; Gibbs, David (21 January 2021). "Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year".
187. Rosane, Olivia (18 March 2020). "Protecting and Restoring Soils Could Remove 5.5 Billion Tonnes of CO₂ a Year". Ecowatch. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
188. Lang, Susan S. (13 July 2005). "Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds". Retrieved 8 July 2008.
189. Pimentel, David; Hepperly, Paul; Hanson, James; Douds, David; Seidel, Rita (2005). "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems". BioScience. 55 (7): 573–82. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2.
190. Lal, Rattan; Griffin, Michael; Apt, Jay; Lave, Lester; Morgan, M. Granger (2004). "Ecology: Managing Soil Carbon". Science. 304 (5669): 393. doi:10.1126/science.1093079. PMID 15087532. S2CID 129925989.
191. Amelung, W.; Bossio, D.; de Vries, W.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Lehmann, J.; Amundson, R.; Bol, R.; Collins, C.; Lal, R.; Leifeld, J.; Minasny, B. (27 October 2020). "Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 5427. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.5427A. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18887-7. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7591914. PMID 33110065.
192. Papanicolaou, A. N. (Thanos); Wacha, Kenneth M.; Abban, Benjamin K.; Wilson, Christopher G.; Hatfield, Jerry L.; Stanier, Charles O.; Filley, Timothy R. (2015). "Conservation Farming Shown to Protect Carbon in Soil". Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 120 (11): 2375–2401. Bibcode:2015JGRG..120.2375P. doi:10.1002/2015JG003078.
193. "Cover Crops, a Farming Revolution With Deep Roots in the Past". The New York Times. 2016.
194. Lugato, Emanuele; Bampa, Francesca; Panagos, Panos; Montanarella, Luca; Jones, Arwyn (1 November 2014). "Potential carbon sequestration of European arable soils estimated by modelling a comprehensive set of management practices". Global Change Biology. 20 (11): 3557–3567. Bibcode:2014GCBio..20.3557L. doi:10.1111/gcb.12551. ISSN 1365-2486. PMID 24789378.
195. Teague, W. R.; Apfelbaum, S.; Lal, R.; Kreuter, U. P.; Rowntree, J.; Davies, C. A.; Conser, R.; Rasmussen, M.; Hatfield, J.; Wang, T.; Wang, F. (1 March 2016). "The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America". Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 71 (2): 156–164. doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156. ISSN 0022-4561.
196. Scanlon, Kerry (18 October 2018). . Rainforest Alliance. Archived from the original on 29 October 2019. Retrieved 29 October 2019.
197. "What Is Regenerative Agriculture?". Ecowatch. The Climate Reality Project. 2 July 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
198. Lehmann, Johannes; Cowie, Annette; Masiello, Caroline A.; Kammann, Claudia; Woolf, Dominic; Amonette, James E.; Cayuela, Maria L.; Camps-Arbestain, Marta; Whitman, Thea (2021). "Biochar in climate change mitigation". Nature Geoscience. 14 (12): 883–892. Bibcode:2021NatGe..14..883L. doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8. ISSN 1752-0908. S2CID 85463771.
199. Dominic Woolf; James E. Amonette; F. Alayne Street-Perrott; Johannes Lehmann; Stephen Joseph (August 2010). "Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change". Nature Communications. 1 (5): 56. Bibcode:2010NatCo...1...56W. doi:10.1038/ncomms1053. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 2964457. PMID 20975722.
200. Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas. Climate Ready Estuaries Program, EPA 430-F-08-024. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009.
201. "Coastal Wetland Protection". Project Drawdown. 6 February 2020. Retrieved 13 September 2020.
202. Chmura, G. L. (2003). "Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 17 (4): 1111. Bibcode:2003GBioC..17.1111C. doi:10.1029/2002GB001917. S2CID 36119878.^{[page needed]}
203. Tiwari, Shashank; Singh, Chhatarpal; Singh, Jay Shankar (2020). "Wetlands: A Major Natural Source Responsible for Methane Emission". In Upadhyay, Atul Kumar; Singh, Ranjan; Singh, D. P. (eds.). Restoration of Wetland Ecosystem: A Trajectory Towards a Sustainable Environment. Singapore: Springer. pp. 59–74. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7665-8_5. ISBN 978-981-13-7665-8. S2CID 198421761.
204. Bange, Hermann W. (2006). "Nitrous oxide and methane in European coastal waters". Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 70 (3): 361–374. Bibcode:2006ECSS...70..361B. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2006.05.042.
205. Thompson, A. J.; Giannopoulos, G.; Pretty, J.; Baggs, E. M.; Richardson, D. J. (2012). "Biological sources and sinks of nitrous oxide and strategies to mitigate emissions". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 367 (1593): 1157–1168. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0415. PMC 3306631. PMID 22451101.
206. "Climate change and deforestation threaten world's largest tropical peatland". Carbon Brief. 25 January 2018.
207. "Peatlands and climate change". IUCN. 6 November 2017.
208. Maclean, Ruth (22 February 2022). "What Do the Protectors of Congo's Peatlands Get in Return?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
209. "Peatlands and climate change". IUCN. 6 November 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
210. "Climate change: National Trust joins international call for peat product ban". BBC News. 7 November 2021. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
211. Harenda K.M., Lamentowicz M., Samson M., Chojnicki B.H. (2018) The Role of Peatlands and Their Carbon Storage Function in the Context of Climate Change. In: Zielinski T., Sagan I., Surosz W. (eds) Interdisciplinary Approaches for Sustainable Development Goals. GeoPlanet: Earth and Planetary Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71788-3_12
212. "How oysters can stop a flood". Vox. 31 August 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
213. Taillardat, Pierre; Thompson, Benjamin S.; Garneau, Michelle; Trottier, Karelle; Friess, Daniel A. (6 October 2020). "Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration". Interface Focus. 10 (5): 20190129. doi:10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129. PMC 7435041. PMID 32832065. Analysis of wetland restoration costs relative to the amount of carbon they can sequester revealed that restoration is more cost-effective in coastal wetlands such as mangroves (US$1800 ton C−1) compared with inland wetlands (US$4200–49 200 ton C−1). We advise that for inland wetlands, priority should be given to conservation rather than restoration; while for coastal wetlands, both conservation and restoration may be effective techniques for climate change mitigation.

March 03, 2023