Climate change mitigation

This article is about limiting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. For supplementary climate technologies such as solar radiation management, see solar geoengineering. For actions focusing on politics and society, see climate movement.

Climate change mitigation (or decarbonisation) is action to limit climate change. This action either reduces emissions of greenhouse gases or removes those gases from the atmosphere.^[1][2] The recent rise in global temperature is mostly due to emissions from burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. There are various ways that mitigation can reduce emissions. These are transitioning to sustainable energy sources, conserving energy, and increasing efficiency. It is possible to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere. This can be done by enlarging forests, restoring wetlands and using other natural and technical processes. The name for these processes is carbon sequestration.^{[3]: 12 [4]} Governments and companies have pledged to reduce emissions to prevent dangerous climate change. These pledges are in line with international negotiations to limit warming.

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

Solar energy and wind power have the greatest potential for mitigation at the lowest cost compared to a range of other options.^[5] The availability of sunshine and wind is variable. But it is possible to deal with this through energy storage and improved electrical grids. These include long-distance electricity transmission, demand management and diversification of renewables.^[6]: 1 It is possible to reduce emissions from infrastructure that directly burns fossil fuels, such as vehicles and heating appliances, by electrifying the infrastructure. If the electricity comes from renewable sources instead of fossil fuels this will reduce emissions. Using heat pumps and electric vehicles can improve energy efficiency. If industrial processes must create carbon dioxide, carbon capture and storage can reduce net emissions.^[7]

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture include methane as well as nitrous oxide. It is possible to cut emissions from agriculture by reducing food waste, switching to a more plant-based diet, by protecting ecosystems and by improving farming processes.^[8]: XXV Changing energy sources, industrial processes and farming methods can reduce emissions. So can changes in demand for energy, for instance by moving towards low-carbon diets or more sustainable transport in cities. Urban planning and design are among the most effective tools in dealing with climate change, because they address both mitigation and adaptation.^[9]

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.^[10] Current policies are estimated to produce global warming of about 2.7 °C by 2100.^[11] 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.^[12][13] Globally, limiting warming to 2 °C may result in higher economic benefits than economic costs.^[14]

Globally, financial flows for climate mitigation and adaptation are estimated to be over $800 billion per year, while requirements are predicted to exceed $4 trillion per year by 2030.^[15][16]

Definitions and scope

Climate change mitigation aims to sustain ecosystems to maintain human civilisation. This requires drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions .^{[17]: 1–64} 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

It is possible to approach various mitigation measures in parallel. This is because there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 °C.^[18]: 109 There are four types of measures:

1. Sustainable energy and sustainable transport
2. Energy conservation, including efficient energy use
3. Sustainable agriculture and green industrial policy
4. Enhancing carbon sinks and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), including carbon sequestration

The IPCC defined carbon dioxide removal 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]

Relationship with solar radiation management (SRM)

Some publications describe solar radiation management (SRM) as a climate mitigation technology.^{[19][better source needed]} Unrelated to greenhouse gas mitigation,^[20] SRM would work by changing the way Earth receives solar radiation.^{[21]: 14–56} Examples include reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, reducing the optical thickness and lifetime of clouds, and changing the ability of the surface to reflect radiation.^[22] The IPCC describes SRM as a climate risk reduction strategy or supplementary option rather than a climate mitigation option.^{[21]: 14–56}

The terminology in this area is still evolving. Experts sometimes use the term geoengineering or climate engineering in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM, if the techniques are used at a global scale.^{[17]: 6–11} IPCC reports no longer use the terms geoengineering or climate engineering.^[1]

Emission trends and pledges

Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions

GHG emissions 2020 by gas type
without land-use change
using 100 year GWP
Total: 49.8 GtCO₂e^[23]: 5

  CO₂ mostly by fossil fuel (72%)

  CH₄ methane (19%)

  N
₂O nitrous oxide (6%)

  Fluorinated gases (3%)

CO₂ emissions by fuel type^[24]

  coal (39%)

  oil (34%)

  gas (21%)

  cement (4%)

  others (1.5%)

Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities strengthen the greenhouse effect. This contributes 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 a record 56 billion tons (Gt) a year.^[25] In 2016, energy for electricity, heat and transport was responsible for 73.2% of GHG emissions. Direct industrial processes accounted for 5.2%, waste for 3.2% and agriculture, forestry and land use for 18.4%.^[4]

Electricity generation and transport are major emitters. The largest single source is coal-fired power stations with 20% of greenhouse gas emissions.^[26] 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.^[27] There is now a political solution to the problem of fluorinated gases from refrigerants. This is because many countries have ratified the Kigali Amendment.^[28]

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the dominant emitted greenhouse gas. Methane (CH₄) emissions almost have the same short-term impact.^[29] Nitrous oxide (N₂O) and fluorinated gases (F-Gases) play a minor role. Livestock and manure produce 5.8% of all greenhouse gas emissions.^[4] But this depends on the time frame used to calculate the global warming potential of the respective gas.^[30][31]

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are measured in CO₂ equivalents. Scientists determine their CO₂ equivalents from their global warming potential (GWP). This 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. Estimates largely depend on the ability of oceans and land sinks to absorb these gases. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) persist in the atmosphere for a period ranging from days to 15 years. Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for millennia.^[32] Short-lived climate pollutants include methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), tropospheric ozone and black carbon.

Scientists increasingly use satellites to locate and measure greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Earlier, scientists largely relied on or calculated estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and governments' self-reported data.^[33][34]

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 that it was necessary to almost halve emissions. "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."^[8]: xvi The report commented that the world should focus on broad-based economy-wide transformations and not incremental change.^[8]: xvi

In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report on climate change. It warned that greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030 to have a good chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).^[35][36] Or in the words of Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres: "Main emitters must drastically cut emissions starting this year".^[37]

Pledges

Further information: Climate target

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 countries only implement the pledges for 2030. The rise would be 2.1 °C with the achievement of the long-term targets too. Full achievement of all announced targets would mean the rise in global temperature will peak at 1.9 °C and go down to 1.8 °C by the year 2100.^[38] Experts gather information about climate pledges in the Global Climate Action Portal - Nazca. The scientific community is checking their fulfilment.^[39]

There has not been a definitive or detailed evaluation of most goals set for 2020. But it appears the world failed to meet most or all international goals set for that year.^[40][41]

One update came during the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow. The group of researchers running the Climate Action Tracker looked at countries responsible for 85% of greenhouse gas emissions. It found that only four countries or political entities – the EU, UK, Chile and Costa Rica – have published a detailed official policy‑plan that describes the steps to realise 2030 mitigation targets. These four polities are responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions.^[42]

In 2021 the US and EU launched the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. The UK, Argentina, Indonesia, Italy and Mexico joined the initiative. Ghana and Iraq signaled interest in joining. A White House summary of the meeting noted those countries represent six of the top 15 methane emitters globally.^[43] Israel also joined the initiative.^[44]

Low-carbon energy

Main articles: Sustainable energy and Energy transition

 

Coal, oil, and natural gas remain the primary global energy sources even as renewables have begun rapidly increasing.^[45]

The energy system includes the delivery and use of energy. It is the main emitter of carbon dioxide (CO₂).^{[46]: 6–6} Rapid and deep reductions in the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector are necessary to limit global warming to well below 2 °C.^{[46]: 6–3} IPCC recommendations include reducing fossil fuel consumption, increasing production from low- and zero carbon energy sources, and increasing use of electricity and alternative energy carriers.^{[46]: 6–3}

Nearly all scenarios and strategies involve a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with increased energy efficiency measures.^{[47]: xxiii} It will be necessary to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy six-fold from 0.25% annual growth in 2015 to 1.5% to keep global warming under 2 °C.^[48]

 

Renewable energy sources, especially solar photovoltaic and wind power, are providing an increasing share of power capacity.^[49]

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.^[50] Renewables may have higher storage costs but non-renewables may have higher clean-up costs.^[51] A carbon price can increase the competitiveness of renewable energy.^[52]

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.^[53]

Wind and sun can provide large amounts of low-carbon energy at competitive production costs.^[54] The IPCC estimates that these two mitigation options have the largest potential to reduce emissions before 2030 at low cost.^[5]: 43 Solar photovoltaics (PV) has become the cheapest way to generate electricity in many regions of the world.^[55] The growth of photovoltaics has been close to exponential. It has about doubled every three years since the 1990s.^[56][57] A different technology is concentrated solar power (CSP). This uses mirrors or lenses to concentrate a large area of sunlight on to a receiver. With CSP, the energy can be stored for a few hours. This provides supply in the evening. Solar water heating doubled between 2010 and 2019.^[58]

 

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 greatest potential for wind power.^[59] Offshore wind farms are more expensive. But offshore units deliver more energy per installed capacity with less fluctuations.^[60] 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.^[61]

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.^[62] but there are geographical limits and environmental issues.^[63] 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.^[64] While burning plant-derived biomass releases CO₂, the plants withdraw CO₂ from the atmosphere while they grow. The technologies for producing, transporting and processing a fuel have a significant impact on the lifecycle emissions of the fuel.^[65] For example, aviation is starting to use renewable biofuels.^[66]
• Geothermal power is electrical power generated from geothermal energy. Geothermal electricity generation is currently used in 26 countries.^[67][68] Geothermal heating is in use in 70 countries.^[69]

Integrating variable renewable energy

Further information: energy storage

Wind and solar power production does not consistently match demand.^[70][71] To deliver reliable electricity from variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, electrical power systems must be flexible.^[72] Most electrical grids were constructed for non-intermittent energy sources such as coal-fired power plants.^[73] The integration of larger amounts of solar and wind energy into the grid requires a change of the energy system; this is necessary to ensure that the supply of electricity matches demand.^[74]

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.^[74] Linking different geographical regions through long-distance transmission lines also makes it possible to reduce variability.^[75] It is possible to shift energy demand in time. Energy demand management and the use of smart grids make it possible to match the times when variable energy production is highest.^[74] Sector coupling can provide further flexibility. This involves coupling the electricity sector to the heat and mobility sector via power-to-heat-systems and electric vehicles.^[76]

Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help ensure sufficient electricity production even during poor weather. In optimal weather, it may be necessary to curtail energy generation if it is not possible to use or store excess electricity.^[77]

 

Battery storage facility

Energy storage helps overcome barriers to intermittent renewable energy.^[78] The most commonly used and available storage method is pumped-storage hydroelectricity. This requires locations with large differences in height and access to water.^[78] Batteries are also in wide use.^[79] They typically store electricity for short periods.^[80] Batteries have low energy density. This and their cost makes them impractical for the large energy storage necessary to balance inter-seasonal variations in energy production.^[81] Some locations have implemented pumped hydro storage with capacity for multi-month usage.^[82]

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.^[83] On the other hand, environmental and security risks could outweigh the benefits.^[84][85][86]

The construction of new nuclear reactors currently takes about 10 years. This is much longer than scaling up the deployment of wind and solar.^[87]: 335 And this timing gives rise to credit risks.^[88] However nuclear may be much cheaper in China. China is building a significant number of new power plants.^[88] As of 2019^[update] the cost of extending nuclear power plant lifetimes is competitive with other electricity generation technologies^[89] if long term costs for nuclear waste disposal are excluded from the calculation. There is also no sufficient financial insurance for nuclear accidents.^[90]

Replacing coal with 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. Burning 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.^[91] Natural gas combustion also produces less air pollution than coal.^[92] However, natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas in itself, and leaks during extraction and transportation can negate the advantages of switching away from coal.^[93] The technology to curb methane leaks is widely available but it is not always used.^[93]

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.^[94][95]

Demand reduction

Further information: Individual action on climate change

Reducing demand for products and services that cause greenhouse gas emissions can help in mitigating climate change. One is to reduce demand by behavioural and cultural changes, for example by making changes in diet, especially the decision to reduce meat consumption,^[96] an effective action individuals take to fight climate change. Another is by reducing the demand by improving infrastructure, by building a good public transport network, for example. Lastly, changes in end-use technology can reduce energy demand. For instance a well-insulated house emits less than a poorly-insulated house.^[97]: 119

Mitigation options that reduce demand for products or services help people make personal choices to reduce their carbon footprint. This could be in their choice of transport or food.^{[98]: 5–3} So these mitigation options have many social aspects that focus on demand reduction; they are therefore demand-side mitigation actions. For example, people with high socio-economic status often cause more greenhouse gas emissions than those from a lower status. If they reduce their emissions and promote green policies, these people could become low-carbon lifestyle role models.^{[98]: 5–4} However, there are many psychological variables that influence consumers. These include awareness and perceived risk.

Government policies can support or hinder demand-side mitigation options. For example, public policy can promote circular economy concepts which would support climate change mitigation.^{[98]: 5–6} Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is linked to the sharing economy.

There is a debate regarding the correlation of economic growth and emissions. It seems economic growth no longer necessarily means higher emissions.^[99][100]

Energy conservation and efficiency

Main articles: Energy conservation and Efficient energy use

 

A windcatcher and qanat used for cooling. Windcatcher is an example of technology that can "reduce the buildings energy consumption and carbon footprint".^[101] A window windcatcher can reduce the total energy use of a building by 23.3%.^[102]

Global primary energy demand exceeded 161,000 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2018.^[103] 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 go to waste. The actual amount of energy consumed is significantly lower at 116,000 TWh.^[104]

Energy conservation is the effort made to reduce the consumption of energy by using less of an energy service. One way is to use energy more efficiently. This means using less energy than before to produce the same service. Another way is to reduce the amount of service used. An example of this would be to drive less. Energy conservation is at the top of the sustainable energy hierarchy.^[105] When consumers reduce wastage and losses they can conserve energy. The upgrading of technology as well as the improvements to operations and maintenance can result in overall efficiency improvements.

Efficient energy use (or 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. This would help reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.^[106] 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.^[107] Another way is to use 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%.^[108] Meeting the 1.5°C goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement means that the richest 1% would need to reduce their current emissions by at least a factor of 30, while per capita emissions of the poorest 50% could increase by around three times their current levels.^[108]

 

This pie chart illustrates both total emissions for each income group, and emissions per person within each income group. For example, the 10% with the highest incomes are responsible for half of carbon emissions, and its members emit an average of more than five times as much per person as members of the lowest half of the income scale.^[109]

Individual action on climate change can include personal choices in many areas. These include diet, travel, household energy use, consumption of goods and services, and family size. People who wish to reduce their carbon footprint can take high-impact actions such as avoiding frequent flying and petrol-fuelled cars, eating mainly a plant-based diet, having fewer children,^[110][111] using clothes and electrical products for longer,^[112] and electrifying homes.^[113][114] These approaches are more practical for people in high-income countries with high-consumption lifestyles. Naturally, it is more difficult for those with lower income statuses to make these changes. This is because choices like electric-powered cars may not be available. Excessive consumption is more to blame for climate change than population increase.^[115] High-consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact, with the richest 10% of people emitting about half the total lifestyle emissions.^[116][117]

Dietary change

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

Some scientists say that avoiding meat and dairy foods is the single biggest way an individual can reduce their environmental impact.^[118] The widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet could cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 63% by 2050.^[119] China introduced new dietary guidelines in 2016 which aim to cut meat consumption by 50% and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 Gt per year by 2030.^[120] Overall, food accounts for the largest share of consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions. It is responsible for nearly 20% of the global carbon footprint. Almost 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been attributed to the livestock sector.^[114]

A shift towards plant-based diets would help to mitigate climate change.^[121] In particular, reducing meat consumption would help to reduce methane emissions.^[122] 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. This in turn has the potential to sequester 100 billion tonnes of CO₂ by the end of the century.^[123][124] A comprehensive analysis found that plant based diets reduce emissions, water pollution and land use significantly (by 75%), while reducing the destruction of wildlife and usage of water.^[125]

 

Environmental footprint of 55.504 UK citizens by diet group. (Nat Food 4, 565–574, 2023).

Family size

Further information: Individual action on climate change § Family size

 

Since 1950, world population has tripled.^[126]

Population growth has resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions in most regions, particularly Africa.^{[46]: 6–11} However, economic growth has a bigger effect than population growth.^{[98]: 6–622} Rising incomes, changes in consumption and dietary patterns, as well as population growth, cause pressure on land and other natural resources. This leads to more greenhouse gas emissions and fewer carbon sinks.^[127]: 117 Some scholars have argued that humane policies to slow population growth should be part of a broad climate response together with policies that end fossil fuel use and encourage sustainable consumption.^[128] Advances in female education and reproductive health, especially voluntary family planning, can contribute to reducing population growth.^{[98]: 5–35}

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

An important mitigation measure is "preserving and enhancing carbon sinks".^[5] This refers to the management of Earth's natural carbon sinks in a way that preserves or increases their capability to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and to store it durably. Scientists call this process also carbon sequestration. In the context of climate change mitigation, the IPCC defines a sink as "Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".^[1]: 2249 Globally, the two most important carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.^[129]

To enhance the ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon, changes are necessary in agriculture and forestry.^[130] Examples are preventing deforestation and restoring natural ecosystems by reforestation.^[131]: 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.^{[132]: 1068 [133]: 17} There are concerns about over-reliance on these technologies, and their environmental impacts.^{[133]: 17 [134]: 34} But ecosystem restoration and reduced conversion are among the mitigation tools that can yield the most emissions reductions before 2030.^[5]: 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"^[5]: 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 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂ -eq) per year.^[5]: 37

Forests

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

Conservation

Main articles: Deforestation § Control, Desertification § Countermeasures, Proforestation, and Wildfire § Prevention

 

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

The Stern Review on the economics of climate change stated in 2007 that curbing deforestation was a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.^[135] About 95% of deforestation occurs in the tropics, where clearing of land for agriculture is one of the main causes.^[136] One forest conservation strategy is to transfer rights over land from public ownership to its indigenous inhabitants.^[137] Land concessions often go to powerful extractive companies.^[137] Conservation strategies that exclude and even evict humans, called fortress conservation, often lead to more exploitation of the land. This is because the native inhabitants turn to work for extractive companies to survive.^[138]

Proforestation is promoting forests to capture their full ecological potential.^[139] 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. Original forests store 60% more carbon than these new forests.^[140] Strategies include rewilding and establishing wildlife corridors.^[141][142]

Mitigation measures in forestry are slow. They often have trade-offs with food prices. And they can lead to spill-over effects on climate from indirect land use change.^{[citation needed]} Additionally, the long-term success of forestry mitigation measures depends on careful consideration of their ecological impact and their integration into broader sustainable land use practices.^{[citation needed]}

Afforestation and reforestation

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

Afforestation is the establishment of trees where there was previously no tree cover. Scenarios for new plantations covering up to 4000 million hectares (Mha) (6300 x 6300 km) suggest cumulative carbon storage of more than 900 GtC (2300 GtCO₂) until 2100.^[143] But they are not a viable alternative to aggressive emissions reduction.^[144] This is because the plantations would need to be so large they would eliminate most natural ecosystems or reduce food production.^[145] One example is the Trillion Tree Campaign.^[146][147]

 

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.^[148][149]

Reforestation is the restocking of existing depleted forests or in places where there were recently forests. Reforestation could save at least 1 GtCO₂ per year, at an estimated cost of $5–15 per tonne of carbon dioxide (tCO₂).^[150] Restoring all degraded forests all over the world could capture about 205 GtC (750 GtCO₂).^[151] 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.^[140][152] In some countries, promoting regrowth on abandoned farmland could offset years of emissions.^[153]

Planting new trees can be expensive and a risky investment. For example, about 80 percent of planted trees in the Sahel die within two years.^[148] Reforestation has higher carbon storage potential than afforestation. In mangroves reforestation is predicted to provide 60% more carbon uptake per hectare in the 40 years after planting. Estuarine and coastal wetland ecosystems could see a 4.3-5.1% increase in annual CO₂ uptake by reforesting available mangrove areas.^[154] Even long-deforested areas still contain an "underground forest" of living roots and tree stumps. Helping native species sprout naturally is cheaper than planting new trees and they are more likely to survive. This could include pruning and coppicing to accelerate growth. 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 ownership of the trees by the state. The state often sells timber rights to businesses which leads to locals uprooting seedlings because they see them as a liability. Legal aid for locals^[155][156] and changes to property law such as in Mali and Niger have led to significant changes. Scientists describe them as the largest positive environmental transformation in Africa. It is possible to discern from space the border between Niger and the more barren land in Nigeria, where the law has not changed.^[148][149]

Soils

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

There are many measures to increase soil carbon.^[157] This makes it complex^[158] and hard to measure and account for.^[159] One 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 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually. This is more than the annual emissions of the US.^[160][161] 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. 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.^[160]

Methods that enhance carbon sequestration in soil include no-till farming, residue mulching and crop rotation. Organic farming makes more use of these techniques than conventional farming does.^[162][163] Because only 5% of US farmland currently uses no-till and residue mulching, there is a large potential for carbon sequestration.^[164][165]

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.^[166] The farming practice of cover crops is a form of climate-smart agriculture.^[167] Scientists have described the best management practices for European soils to increase soil organic carbon. These are conversion of arable land to grassland, straw incorporation, reduced tillage, straw incorporation combined with reduced tillage, ley cropping system and cover crops.^[168]

Regenerative agriculture includes conservation tillage, diversity, rotation and cover crops. It also includes minimizing physical disturbance and supporting carbon sequestration in soils.^[169][170] It has other benefits like improving the state of the soil and consequently yields.^[171]

Another mitigation option is the production of biochar and its storage in soils This is the solid material that remains after the pyrolysis of biomass. Biochar production releases half of the carbon from the biomass—either released into the atmosphere or captured with CCS—and retains the other half in the stable biochar.^[172] It can endure in soil for thousands of years.^[173] 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.^[172]

Wetlands

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

Wetland restoration is an important mitigation measure. It has moderate to great 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. They also store and regulate water.^[174][175] Wetlands store about 45 million tonnes of carbon per year globally.^[176]

Some wetlands are a significant source of methane emissions.^[177] Some also emit nitrous oxide.^[178][179] Peatland globally covers just 3% of the land's surface.^[180] But it stores up to 550 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon. This represents 42% of all soil carbon and exceeds the carbon stored in all other vegetation types, including the world's forests.^[181] The threat to peatlands includes draining the areas for agriculture. Another threat is cutting down trees for lumber, as the trees help hold and fix the peatland.^[182][183] Additionally, peat is often sold for compost.^[184] It is possible to restore degraded peatlands by blocking drainage channels in the peatland, and allowing natural vegetation to recover.^[141][185]

Mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses make up the majority of the ocean's vegetated habitats. They only equal 0.05% of the plant biomass on land. But they store carbon 40 times faster than tropical forests.^[141] 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 help other species thrive. This increases biomass in that area. In addition, oyster reefs mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the force of waves from hurricanes. They also reduce the erosion from rising sea levels.^[186] Restoration of coastal wetlands is thought to be more cost-effective than restoration of inland wetlands.^[187]

Deep ocean

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

These options focus on the carbon which ocean reservoirs can store. They include ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement or enhanced weathering.^{[188]: 12–36} The IPCC found in 2022 ocean-based mitigation options currently have only limited deployment potential. But it assessed that their future mitigation potential is large.^{[188]: 12–4} It found that in total, ocean-based methods could remove 1–100 Gt of CO₂ per year.^{[97]: TS-94} Their costs are in the order of 40–500 USD per tonne of CO₂. Most of these options could also help to reduce ocean acidification. This is the drop in pH value caused by increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.^[189]

Blue carbon management is another type of ocean-based biological carbon dioxide removal (CDR). It can involve land-based as well as ocean-based measures.^{[188]: 12–51  [190]: 764} The term usually refers to the role that tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses can play in carbon sequestration.^[1]: 2220 Some of these efforts can also take place in deep ocean waters. This is where the vast majority of ocean carbon is held. These ecosystems can contribute to climate change mitigation and also to ecosystem-based adaptation. Conversely, when blue carbon ecosystems are degraded or lost they release carbon back to the atmosphere.^[1]: 2220 There is increasing interest in developing blue carbon potential.^[191] Scientists have found that in some cases these types of ecosystems remove far more carbon per area than terrestrial forests. However, the long-term effectiveness of blue carbon as a carbon dioxide removal solution remains under discussion.^{[192][191][193]}

Enhanced weathering

Main article: Enhanced weathering

Enhanced weathering could remove 2–4 Gt of CO₂ per year. This process aims to accelerate natural weathering by spreading finely ground silicate rock, such as basalt, onto surfaces. This speeds up chemical reactions between rocks, water, and air. It removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, permanently storing it in solid carbonate minerals or ocean alkalinity.^[194] Cost estimates are in the 50-200 USD per tonne range of CO₂.^{[97]: TS-94}

Other methods to capture and store CO₂

Main articles: Direct air capture, Carbon capture and storage, and Bioenergy with 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

In addition to traditional land-based methods to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air, other technologies are under development. These could reduce CO₂ emissions and lower existing atmospheric CO₂ levels. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method to mitigate climate change by capturing CO₂ from large point sources, such as cement factories or biomass power plants. It then stores it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The IPCC estimates that the costs of halting global warming would double without CCS.^[195]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) expands on the potential of CCS and aims to lower atmospheric CO₂ levels. This process uses biomass grown for bioenergy. The biomass yields energy in useful forms such as electricity, heat, biofuels, etc. through consumption of the biomass via combustion, fermentation, or pyrolysis. The process captures the CO₂ that was extracted from the atmosphere when it grew. It then stores it underground or via land application as biochar. This effectively removes it from the atmosphere.^[196] This makes BECCS a negative emissions technology (NET).^[197]

Scientists estimated the potential range of negative emissions from BECCS in 2018 as 0-22 Gt per year.^[198] As of 2022^[update], BECCS was capturing approximately 2 million tonnes per year of CO₂ annually.^[199] The cost and availability of biomass limits wide deployment of BECCS.^{[200][201]: 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 sceptical due to the risk of loss of biodiversity.^[202]

Direct air capture is a process of capturing CO₂ directly from the ambient air. This is in contrast to CCS which captures carbon from point sources. It generates a concentrated stream of CO₂ for sequestration, utilization or production of carbon-neutral fuel and windgas.^[203] Artificial processes vary, and there are concerns about the long-term effects of some of these processes.^{[204][obsolete source]}

Mitigation by sector

See also: Greenhouse gas emissions § Emissions by sector

 

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

 

2016 global greenhouse gas emissions by sector.^[205] Percentages are calculated from estimated global emissions of all Kyoto Greenhouse Gases, converted to CO₂ equivalent quantities (GtCO₂e).

Buildings

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

See also: Renewable heat, Passive cooling, and Low-energy house

The building sector accounts for 23% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions.^[18]: 141 About half of the energy is used for space and water heating.^[206] 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.^[207] Solar water heating uses 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.^[97]: 71 Planners and civil engineers can construct new buildings 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. The amount depends on the coefficient of performance and the outside temperature.^[208]

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 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.^[209]

Energy consumption for cooling is likely 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.^[210] 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 GtCO₂-eq over the next four decades.^[211] 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.^[212]

Transportation accounts for 15% of emissions worldwide.^[213] Increasing the use of public transport, low-carbon freight transport and cycling are important components of transport decarbonisation.^[214][215]

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.^[216] Other efficiency means include improved public transport, smart mobility, carsharing and electric hybrids. Fossil-fuel for passenger cars can be included in emissions trading.^[217] Furthermore, moving away from a car-dominated transport system towards low-carbon advanced public transport system is important.^[218]

Heavyweight, large personal vehicles (such as cars) require a lot of energy to move and take up much urban space.^[219][220] Several alternatives modes of transport are available to replace these. The European Union has made smart mobility part of its European Green Deal.^[221] In smart cities, smart mobility is also important.^[222]

 

Battery electric bus in Montreal

The World Bank is helping lower income countries buy electric buses. Their purchase price is higher than diesel buses. But lower running costs and health improvements due to cleaner air can offset this higher price.^[223]

Between one quarter and three quarters of cars on the road by 2050 are forecast to be electric vehicles.^[224] Hydrogen may be a solution for long-distance heavy freight trucks, if batteries alone are too heavy.^[225]

Shipping

Further information: Environmental effects of shipping § Greenhouse gas emissions

In the shipping industry, the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine bunker fuel is driven by emissions regulations. Ship operators must switch from heavy fuel oil to more expensive oil-based fuels, implement costly flue gas treatment technologies or switch to LNG engines.^[226] Methane slip, when gas leaks unburned through the engine, lowers the advantages of LNG. Maersk, the world's biggest container shipping line and vessel operator, warns of stranded assets when investing in transitional fuels like LNG.^[227] The company lists green ammonia as one of the preferred fuel types of the future. It has announced the first carbon-neutral vessel on the water by 2023, running on carbon-neutral methanol.^[228] Cruise operators are trialling partially hydrogen-powered ships.^[229]

Hybrid and all electric ferries are suitable for short distances. Norway's goal is an all electric fleet by 2025.^[230]

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.^[231]

Jet airliners contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, contrails and particulates. Their radiative forcing is estimated at 1.3–1.4 that of CO₂ alone, excluding induced cirrus cloud. In 2018, global commercial operations generated 2.4% of all CO₂ emissions.^[232]

The aviation industry has become more fuel efficient. But 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.^[233]

It is possible to reduce aviation's environmental footprint by better fuel economy in aircraft. Optimising flight routes to lower non-CO₂ effects on climate from nitrogen oxides, particulates or contrails can also help. Aviation biofuel, carbon emission trading and carbon offsetting, part of the 191 nation ICAO's Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), can lower CO₂ emissions. Short-haul flight bans, train connections, personal choices and taxation on flights can lead to fewer flights. Hybrid electric aircraft and electric aircraft or hydrogen-powered aircraft may replace fossil fuel-powered aircraft.

Experts expect emissions from aviation to rise in most projections, at least until 2040. They currently amount to 180 Mt of CO₂ or 11% of transport emissions. Aviation biofuel and hydrogen can only cover a small proportion of flights in the coming years. Experts expect hybrid-driven aircraft to start commercial regional scheduled flights after 2030. Battery-powered aircraft are likely to enter the market after 2035.^[234] 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.^[235] Mitigation measures in the food system can be divided into four categories. These are demand-side changes, ecosystem protections, mitigation on farms, and mitigation in supply chains. On the demand side, limiting food waste is an effective way to reduce food emissions. Changes to a diet less reliant on animal products such as plant-based diets are also effective.^[8]: XXV

With 21% of global methane emissions, cattle are a major driver of global warming.^[3]: 6 When rainforests are cut and the land is converted for grazing, the impact is even higher. In Brazil, producing 1 kg of beef can result in the emission of up to 335 kg CO₂-eq.^[236] 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,^[237][238] introduction of methanotrophic bacteria into the rumen,^[239][240] vaccines, feeds,^[241] diet modification and grazing management.^{[242][243][244]} Other options are diet changes towards ruminant-free alternatives, such as milk substitutes and meat analogues. Non-ruminant livestock, such as poultry, emit far fewer GHGs.^[245]

It is possible to cut methane emissions in rice cultivation by improved water management, combining dry seeding and one drawdown, or executing a sequence of wetting and drying. This results in emission reductions of up to 90% compared to full flooding and even increased yields.^[246]

Industry

Industry is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases when direct and indirect emissions are included. Electrification can reduce emissions from industry. 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. This also saves on emissions that would have been released from the mining of collecting of those materials.^[8]: 43

The decarbonisation of cement production requires new technologies, and therefore investment in innovation.^[247] Bioconcrete is one possibility to reduce emissions.^[248] But no technology for mitigation is yet mature. So CCS will be necessary at least in the short-term.^[249]

Another sector with a significant carbon footprint is the steel sector, which is responsible for about 7% of global emissions.^[250] Emissions can be reduced by using electric arc furnaces to melt and recycle scrap steel. To produce virgin steel without emissions, Blast furnaces could be replaced by hydrogen direct reduced iron and electric arc furnaces. Alternatively, carbon capture and storage solutions can be used.^[250]

Coal, gas and oil production often come with significant methane leakage.^[251] In the early 2020s some governments recognized the scale of the problem and introduced regulations.^[252] Methane leaks at oil and gas wells and processing plants are cost-effective to fix in countries which can easily trade gas internationally.^[251] There are leaks in countries where gas is cheap; such as Iran,^[253] Russia,^[254] and Turkmenistan.^[255] Nearly all this can be stopped by replacing old components and preventing routine flaring.^[251] Coalbed methane may continue leaking even after the mine has been closed. But it can be captured by drainage and/or ventilation systems.^[256] Fossil fuel firms do not always have financial incentives to tackle methane leakage.^[257]

Co-benefits

Main article: Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

Health and well-being

Further information: Effects of climate change on human health § Health co-benefits from mitigation

The health benefits from climate change mitigation are significant. Potential measures can not only mitigate future health impacts from climate change but also improve health directly.^[258][259] Climate change mitigation is interconnected with various health co-benefits, such as those from reduced air pollution.^[259] Air pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion is both a major driver of global warming and the cause of a large number of annual deaths. Some estimates are as high as 8.7 million excess deaths during 2018.^[260][261] Mitigation policies can also promote healthier diets such as less red meat, more active lifestyles, and increased exposure to green urban spaces.^[262]: 26 Access to urban green spaces provides benefits to mental health as well.^[262]: 18 The increased use of green and blue infrastructure can reduce the urban heat island effect. This reduces heat stress on people.^{[97]: TS-66} Studies suggest that efforts to reduce consumption of goods and services have largely beneficial effects on 18 constituents of well-being.^[263][264]

Future sustainable pathways scenarios may result in an annual reduction of 1.18 million air pollution-related deaths, 5.86 million diet-related deaths, and 1.15 million deaths due to physical inactivity, across nine countries by 2040. These benefits were attributable to the mitigation of direct greenhouse gas emissions and the accompanying actions that reduce exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as improved diets and safe physical activity.^[265] 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.^[265]

In the transportation sector mitigation strategies could enable more equitable access to transportation services and reduce congestion.^{[5]: SPM-32}

Addressing inequality can assist with climate change mitigation efforts.^[5]: 38 Placing health as a key focus of the Nationally Determined Contributions could present an opportunity to increase ambition and realise health co-benefits.^[265]

Climate change adaptation

Further information: Climate change adaptation § Co-benefits with mitigation

Some mitigation measures have co-benefits in the area of climate change adaptation.^{[266]: 8–63} This is for example the case for many nature-based solutions.^{[267]: 4–94 [268]: 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 come for example through reduced heat stress and flooding risk.^{[266]: 8–64}

 

Emission trading and carbon taxes around the world (2019)^[269]

  Carbon emission trading implemented or scheduled

  Carbon tax implemented or scheduled

  Carbon emission trading or carbon tax under consideration

Costs and funding

Main articles: Economics of climate change mitigation § Assessing costs and benefits, and Economic analysis of climate change

Several factors affect mitigation cost estimates. One is the baseline. This is a reference scenario that the alternative mitigation scenario is compared with. Others are the way costs are modelled, and assumptions about future government policy.^[270]: 622 Cost estimates for mitigation for specific regions depend on the quantity of emissions allowed for that region in future, as well as the timing of interventions.^[271]: 90

Mitigation costs will vary according to how and when emissions are cut. Early, well-planned action will minimize the costs.^[150] Globally, the benefits of keeping warming under 2 °C exceed the costs.^[265]

Economists estimate the cost of climate change mitigation at between 1% and 2% of GDP.^[272] Whereas this is a large sum, it is still far less than the subsidies governments provide to the ailing fossil fuel industry. The International Monetary Fund estimated this at more than $5 trillion per year.^[273][47]

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.^[274]

Cost–benefit analysis may be unsuitable for analysing climate change mitigation as a whole. But it is still useful for analysing the difference between a 1.5 °C target and 2 °C.^[272] One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policymakers 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.^[150]

Avoided costs of climate change effects

See also: Economic impacts of climate change

It is possible to avoid some of the costs of the effects of climate change by limiting climate change. 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. This can be up to 20% of GDP or more when including a wider range of risks and impacts. But mitigating climate change will only cost about 2% of GDP. Also it may not be a good idea from a financial perspective to delay significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.^[275][276]

Mitigation solutions are often evaluated in terms of costs and greenhouse gas reduction potentials. This fails to take into account the direct effects on human well-being.^[277]

Distributing emissions abatement costs

Mitigation at the speed and scale required to limit warming to 2 °C or below implies deep economic and structural changes. These raise multiple types of distributional concerns across regions, income classes and sectors.^[274]

There have been different proposals on how to allocate responsibility for cutting emissions.^[278]: 103 These include egalitarianism, basic needs according to a minimum level of consumption, proportionality and the polluter-pays principle. A specific proposal is "equal per capita entitlements".^[278]: 106 This approach has 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 or cumulative emissions.

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. This would be both financial and technical. The IPCC found that accelerated support would also tackle inequities in financial and economic vulnerability to climate change.^[279] One way to achieve this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Feasibility and potential of and risk in mitigation

To achieve a drastic reduction in emissions and a significant increase in carbon uptake from the atmosphere, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in 2022, recommended a considerable number of mitigation options whose feasibility and potential are yet to be examined in each context. The IPCC endorsed an approach to assess the ʽfeasibilityʼ of mitigation options. The approach suggests that the assessment of options can be done by taking into consideration six feasibility dimensions, namely geophysical, environmental-ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional dimensions. The approach has been developed with a special focus on identifying barriers to and enablers of the deployment of mitigation actions and thus assessing their feasibility (IPCC, 2022). For the IPCC a mitigation option can fail to achieve its intended outcome, or create an adverse outcome elsewhere. This means uncertainty about mitigation outcomes or risk. Despite these developments, in specifying mitigation actions, it has been suggested further describing uncertainty and exhausting knowledge about the context of the option. The systematic evaluation of assumptions is also recommended ^[280]

Policies

Municipal policies and urban planning

Main article: Climate change and cities

 

Bicycles have almost no carbon footprint.^[281]

Cities have a big potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They emitted 28 GtCO2-eq in 2020 of combined CO₂ and CH₄ emissions.^{[97]: TS-61} This was from producing and consuming goods and services.^{[97]: TS-61} Climate-smart urban planning aims to reduce sprawl to reduce the distance travelled. This lowers emissions from transportation. It supports mixed use of space and transit. Walking, cycling and sharing vehicles can reduce urban emissions. Urban forestry, lakes and other blue and green infrastructure can reduce emissions directly and indirectly by reducing energy demand for cooling.^{[97]: TS-66} Personal cars are extremely inefficient at moving passengers. 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.^[282] Methane emissions from municipal solid waste can be reduced by segregation, composting, and recycling.^[283]

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 on the socio-economic status of individuals and countries This can be both positive and negative.^[284] It is important to design policies well and make them inclusive. Otherwise climate change mitigation measures can impose higher financial costs on poor households.^[285]

The most effective and economically efficient approach of achieving lower emissions in the energy sector is to apply a combination of measures. These include market-based instruments such as taxes and permits, standards, and information policies.^[286]: 422

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

• Regulatory standards: These set technology or performance standards. They can be effective in addressing the market failure of informational barriers.^[286]: 412 If the costs of regulation are less than the benefits of addressing the market failure, standards can result in net benefits. One example is fuel-efficiency standards for cars.^[287]
• 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 they release into the atmosphere.^{[286]: 4123} If every emitter were to face the same level of tax, emitters would choose the lowest cost way of achieving emission reductions first. In the real world, however, markets are not perfect. This means that an emissions tax may deviate from this ideal. Distributional and equity considerations usually result in differential tax rates for different sources.
• Tradable permits: A permit system can limit emissions.^[286]: 415 A number of permits are distributed equal to the emission limit. Each liable entity must hold the number of permits equal to its actual emissions. A tradable permit system can be cost-effective if costs are not excessive. There must also be no significant imperfections in the permit market and markets relating to emitting activities.
• Voluntary agreements: These are agreements between governments, often in the form of public agencies, and industry.^[286]: 417 Agreements may relate to general issues, such as research and development. In other cases they may involve quantitative targets. There is, however, the risk that participants in the agreement will free ride. They can do this by not complying with the agreement or by benefitting from the agreement while bearing no cost.
• Informational instruments: Poor information is a barrier to improving energy efficiency or reducing emissions.^[286]: 419 Examples of policies in this area include increasing public awareness of energy saving with home heating and insulation^[288] or emissions from meat and dairy products.^[289][290] However some say that it is politically toxic for a politician to ask people to eat less meat.^[291]
• Research and development policies: Some areas, such as soil, may differ by country and so need national research.^[292] Technologies may need financial support to reach commercial scale, for example floating wind power.^[293]
• Low carbon power: Governments may relax planning regulations on solar power and onshore wind.^[294] They may also partly finance technologies considered risky by the private sector, such as nuclear.^[295]
• Demand-side management: This aims to reduce energy demand, e.g. through energy audits, labelling, and regulation.^[286]: 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.^[286]: 421 Subsidies are generally less efficient than taxes. But distributional and competitiveness issues sometimes result when energy/emission taxes are coupled with subsidies or tax exceptions.
  • Creating subsidies and financial incentives.^[296] One example is energy subsidies to support clean generation which is not yet commercially viable such as tidal power.^[297]
  • Phasing-out of unhelpful subsidies. Many countries provide subsidies for activities that affect emissions. Examples are subsidies in the agriculture and energy sectors, and indirect subsidies for transport.
• A Green Marshall Plan. This calls for global central bank money creation to fund green infrastructure.^{[298][299][300]}
• Market liberalization: Energy markets have been restructured in several countries and regions. These policies mainly aim to increase competition in the market. But they can also have a significant impact on emissions.^{[301]: 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.^[302] Fossil fuel subsidies in 2019 for consumption totalled USD 320 billion^[303] spread over many countries.^[304] 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.^[305] Some fossil fuel companies lobby governments.^[306]

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is very important.^[307] It must however be done carefully to avoid protests^[308] and making poor people poorer.^[309] 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.^[310] This could in turn increase public support for subsidy reform.^[311]

Carbon pricing

Main article: Carbon price

 

Carbon emission trade – allowance prices from 2008

Imposing additional costs on greenhouse gas emissions can make fossil fuels less competitive 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. This was a big increase from earlier due to the introduction of the Chinese national carbon trading scheme.^[312]: 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.^[313] One exception is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme where prices began to rise in 2018. They reached about €80/tCO₂ in 2022.^[314] 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]}

Industries which have high energy requirements and high emissions often pay only very low energy taxes, or even none at all.^{[315]: 11–80}

Methane emissions from fossil fuel extraction are occasionally taxed.^[316] But methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture are typically not subject to tax.^[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]

Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has benefited climate change mitigation efforts.^[321] The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that has successfully reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs. These are also greenhouse gases.

Paris Agreement

 

Signatories (light green) and parties (#66F) to the Paris Agreement

This section is an excerpt from Paris Agreement.[edit]

The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris), often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, is an international treaty on climate change. Adopted in 2015, the agreement covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), recognizing that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change. To achieve this goal, emissions should be reduced as soon as possible and reach net zero by the middle of the 21st century.^[322] To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This is an aggregate of each country's nationally determined contributions.^[323]

It aims to help countries adapt to climate change effects, and mobilize enough finance. Under the agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on its contributions. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets, but each target should go beyond previous targets. In contrast to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the distinction between developed and developing countries is blurred, so that the latter also have to submit plans for emission reductions.

History

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

Historically efforts to deal with climate change have taken place at a multinational level. They involve attempts to reach a consensus decision at the United Nations, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).^[324] This is the dominant approach historically of engaging as many international governments as possible in taking action on a worldwide public issue. The Montreal Protocol in 1987 is a precedent that this approach can work. But some critics say the top-down framework of only utilizing the UNFCCC consensus approach is ineffective. They put forward counter-proposals of bottom-up governance. At this same time this would lessen the emphasis on the UNFCCC.^{[325][326][327]}

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC adopted in 1997 set out legally binding emission reduction commitments for the "Annex 1" countries.^[328]: 817 The Protocol defined three international policy instruments ("Flexibility Mechanisms") which could be used by the Annex 1 countries to meet their emission reduction commitments. According to Bashmakov, use of these instruments could significantly reduce the costs for Annex 1 countries in meeting their emission reduction commitments.^{[301]: 402 [needs update]}

The Paris Agreement reached in 2015 succeeded the 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 carbon emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

In 2015, the UNFCCC's "structured expert dialogue" came to the conclusion that, "in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5 °C".^[329] Together with the strong diplomatic voice of the poorest countries and the island nations in the Pacific, this expert finding was the driving force leading to the decision of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to lay down this 1.5 °C long-term target on top of the existing 2 °C goal.^[330]

Society and culture

Commitments to divest

 

More firms plan to invest in climate change mitigation, specifically focusing on low-carbon sectors.^[331]

More than 1000 organizations with investments worth US$8 trillion have made commitments to fossil fuel divestment.^[332] Socially responsible investing funds allow investors to invest in funds that meet high environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) standards.^[333]

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^[334]

 

Distribution of committed CO₂ emissions from developed fossil fuel reserves

There are individual, institutional and market barriers to achieving climate change mitigation.^{[98]: 5–71} They differ for all the different mitigation options, regions and societies.

Difficulties with accounting for carbon dioxide removal can act as economic barriers. This would apply to BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage).^{[46]: 6–42} The strategies that companies follow can act as a barrier. But they can also accelerate decarbonisation.^{[98]: 5–84}

In order to decarbonise societies the state needs to play a predominant role. This is because it requires a massive coordination effort.^[335]: 213 This strong government role can only work well if there is social cohesion, political stability and trust.^[335]: 213

For land-based mitigation options, finance is a major barrier. Other barriers are cultural values, governance, accountability and institutional capacity.^{[127]: 7–5}

Developing countries face further barriers to mitigation.^[336]

• The cost of capital increased in the early 2020s.^[337] A lack of available capital and finance is common in developing countries.^[338] 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.^[98]: 97

One study estimates that only 0.12% of all funding for climate-related research goes on the social science of climate change mitigation.^[339] Vastly more funding goes on natural science studies of climate change. Considerable sums also go on studies of the impact of climate change and adaptation to it.^[339]

Risks

Mitigation measures can also have negative side effects and risks.^{[97]: TS-133} In agriculture and forestry, mitigation measures can affect biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.^{[97]: TS-87} In renewable energy, mining for metals and minerals can increase threats to conservation areas.^[340] There is some research into ways to recycle solar panels and electronic waste. This would create a source for materials so there is no need to mine them.^[341][334]

Scholars have found that discussions about risks and negative side-effects of mitigation measures can lead to deadlock or the feeling that there are insuperable barriers to taking action.^[334] A qualitative investigation of extreme weather events in a district of Sweden 1867-8 shows that public/ state incentives can mitigate starvation risk in the future.^[342]

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.^[343] This obstacle to environmental policy efforts may have contributed to slowed investment in green energy technologies. The economic slowdown resulting from COVID-19 added to this effect.^[344][345]

In 2020, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 6.4% or 2.3 billion tonnes globally.^[346] Greenhouse gas emissions rebounded later in the pandemic as many countries began lifting restrictions. The direct impact of pandemic policies had a negligible long-term impact on climate change.^[346][347]

Examples by country

 

2020 Worldwide CO₂ emissions (by region, per capita). Vertical scale shows emissions per person, and areas of rectangles indicate total emissions for countries. Though China has larger emissions, the U.S. has more emissions per person.

 

Richer (developed) countries emit more CO₂ per person than poorer (developing) countries.^[348] Emissions are roughly proportional to GDP per person, though the rate of increase diminishes with average GDP/pp of about $10,000.

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,^[349] but the Obama administration entered the Paris Agreement.^[350] The Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement while increasing the export of crude oil and gas, making the United States the largest producer.^[351] In 2021, the Biden administration committed to reducing emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030.^[352] 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.^[353] As of 2022^[update] the social cost of carbon is 51 dollars a tonne whereas academics say it should be more than three times higher.^[354]

China

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

China has committed to peak emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2060.^[355] Warming cannot be limited to 1.5 °C if any coal plants in China (without carbon capture) operate after 2045.^[356] The Chinese national carbon trading scheme started in 2021.

See also

•  Climate change portal

• Attribution of recent climate change
• Carbon budget
• Carbon offsets and credits
• Carbon price
• Climate movement
• Climate change denial
• Nature-based solutions
• Pro-nuclear movement
• 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. Chen, Lin; Msigwa, Goodluck; Yang, Mingyu; Osman, Ahmed I.; Fawzy, Samer; Rooney, David W.; Yap, Pow-Seng (2022). "Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: a review". Environmental Chemistry Letters. 20 (4): 2277–2310. Bibcode:2022EnvCL..20.2277C. doi:10.1007/s10311-022-01435-8. PMC 8992416. PMID 35431715.
3. 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.
4. "Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
5. 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, United States
6. 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 2021-04-01 at the Wayback Machine. Study by Lappeenranta University of Technology and Energy Watch Group, Lappeenranta, Berlin, March 2019.
7. "Cement – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 24 November 2022.
8. United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window — Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. Nairobi.
9. Steuteville, Robert (2021-11-03). "Climate adaptation, mitigation, and urban design". CNU. Retrieved 2023-12-01.
10. "Climate Change Performance Index" (PDF). November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
11. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max; Rosado, Pablo (11 May 2020). "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Our World in Data. Retrieved 27 August 2022.
12. Harvey, Fiona (26 November 2019). "UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
13. "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.
14. 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).
15. "The crucial intersection between gender and climate". European Investment Bank. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
16. Nations, United. "Finance & Justice". United Nations. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
17. 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, United States
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, US, pp. 93-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.004.
19. "What is solar radiation modification and what questions should SIDS be asking about the governance of its research and deployment?". ODI: Think change. 21 October 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022. Solar radiation modification (SRM) – also discussed in the context of geoengineering – is part of a set of climate mitigation technologies
20. "Solar Radiation Modification: A Risk-Risk Analysis" (PDF).
21. 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, United States
22. 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.
23. Olivier J.G.J. (2022), Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions: 2021 summary report 2023-03-08 at the Wayback Machine. PBL Netherlands, Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague.
24. Friedlingstein, Pierre; O'Sullivan, Michael; Jones, Matthew W.; Andrew, Robbie M.; Hauck, Judith; Olsen, Are; Peters, Glen P.; Peters, Wouter; Pongratz, Julia; Sitch, Stephen; Le Quéré, Corinne; Canadell, Josep G.; Ciais, Philippe; Jackson, Robert B.; Alin, Simone (2020). "Global Carbon Budget 2020". Earth System Science Data. 12 (4): 3269–3340. Bibcode:2020ESSD...12.3269F. doi:10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020. hdl:10871/126892. ISSN 1866-3516.
25. (PDF). Ipcc_Ar6_Wgiii. 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-04-12. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
26. "It's critical to tackle coal emissions". blogs.worldbank.org. 8 October 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2022. Coal power plants produce a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than any other single source.
27. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max; Rosado, Pablo (11 May 2020). "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Our World in Data.
28. "Biden signs international climate deal on refrigerants". AP NEWS. 27 October 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
29. "Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown". One Green Planet. 30 September 2014. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
30. 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.
31. 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).
32. IGSD (2013). "Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs)". Institute of Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD). Retrieved 29 November 2019.
33. "How satellites could help hold countries to emissions promises made at COP26 summit". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
34. "Satellites offer new ways to study ecosystems—and maybe even save them". www.science.org. Retrieved 21 December 2021.
35. "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.
36. "The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030". IPCC. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
37. "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.
38. "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.
39. "Global Data Community Commits to Track Climate Action". UNFCCC. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
40. Nations, United. "Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020". United Nations. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
41. "World fails to meet a single target to stop destruction of nature – UN report". The Guardian. 15 September 2020. Retrieved 20 December 2021.
42. "Glasgow's 2030 credibility gap: net zero's lip service to climate action". climateactiontracker.org. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
43. Mason, Jeff; Alper, Alexandra (18 September 2021). "Biden asks world leaders to cut methane in climate fight". Reuters. Retrieved 8 October 2021.
44. Bassist, Rina (6 October 2021). "At OECD, Israel joins global battle against climate change". Al – Monitor.
45. 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. hdl:20.500.11850/385668. ISSN 1866-3508. from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
46. 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, United States
47. 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 Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2. ISBN 978-3030058425. S2CID 198078901 – via www.springer.com.
48. "Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (2019 edition)" (PDF). International Renewable Energy Agency. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
49. "Share of cumulative power capacity by technology, 2010-2027". IEA.org. International Energy Agency (IEA). 5 December 2022. from the original on 4 February 2023. Source states "Fossil fuel capacity from IEA (2022), World Energy Outlook 2022. IEA. Licence: CC BY 4.0."
50. "Scale-up of Solar and Wind Puts Existing Coal, Gas at Risk". BloombergNEF. 28 April 2020.
51. Emilio, Maurizio Di Paolo (2022-09-15). "The Cost of Energy, Key to Sustainability". Power Electronics News. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. "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.
55. "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
56. Jaeger, Joel (20 September 2021). "Explaining the Exponential Growth of Renewable Energy".
57. Wanner, Brent. "Is exponential growth of solar PV the obvious conclusion?". IEA. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
58. "Renewables 2021 Global Status Report" (PDF). REN21. pp. 137–138. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
59. . DTU Technical University of Denmark. Archived from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
60. "Onshore vs offshore wind energy: what's the difference? | National Grid Group". www.nationalgrid.com. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
61. 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.
62. "BP Statistical Review 2019" (PDF). Retrieved 28 March 2020.
63. "Large hydropower dams not sustainable in the developing world". BBC News. 5 November 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
64. "From baseload to peak" (PDF). IRENA. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
65. (PDF). UK environment agency. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
66. "Virgin Atlantic purchases 10 million gallons of SAF from Gevo". Biofuels International Magazine. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
67. Geothermal Energy Association. Geothermal Energy: International Market Update May 2010, p. 4-6.
68. 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.
69. 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)
70. 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. Bibcode:2022ApEn..30517773R. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117773. ISSN 0306-2619. S2CID 239113921.
71. "You've heard of water droughts. Could 'energy' droughts be next?". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 8 December 2022.
72. United Nations Environment Programme (2019). Emissions Gap Report 2019 (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. p. 47. ISBN 978-92-807-3766-0. (PDF) from the original on 7 May 2021.
73. . IEA. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
74. 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.
75. 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.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
76. 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. Bibcode:2018ApEn..212.1611B. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.073. hdl:10419/200120. S2CID 116132198.
77. IEA (2020). World Energy Outlook 2020. International Energy Agency. p. 109. ISBN 978-92-64-44923-7. from the original on 22 August 2021.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. "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.
82. 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.
83. "Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022". www.iaea.org. 19 August 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
84. "World Nuclear Waste Report". Retrieved 25 October 2021.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. Schneider, Mycle; Froggatt, Antony. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 1 January 2023.
88. "Nuclear Power Is Declining in the West and Growing in Developing Countries". BRINK – Conversations and Insights on Global Business. Retrieved 1 January 2023.
89. "May: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals". www.iea.org. Retrieved 8 July 2019.
90. "Factoring the Costs of Severe Nuclear Accidents into Backfit Decisions". Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants (Appendix L - Factoring the Costs of Severe Nuclear Accidents into Backfit Decisions). National Research Council. 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
91. "The Role of Gas: Key Findings". IEA. July 2019. from the original on 1 September 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
92. "Natural gas and the environment". US Energy Information Administration. from the original on 2 April 2021. Retrieved 28 March 2021.
93. Storrow, Benjamin. "Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas". Scientific American. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
94. 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.
95. 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. hdl:2066/228782. ISSN 1364-0321. S2CID 228885573.
96. Carman, Jennifer; Goldberg, Matthew; Marlon, Jennifer; Wang, Xinran; Lacroix, Karine; Neyens, Liz; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward; Rosenthal, Seth; Kotcher, John (Aug 3, 2021). "Americans' Actions to Limit and Prepare For Global Warming". Americans' Actions to Limit and Prepare for Global Warming, March 2021. March 2021.
97. 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, United States
98. Patrick Devine-Wright, Julio Diaz-José, Frank Geels, Arnulf Grubler, Nadia Maïzi, Eric Masanet, Yacob Mulugetta, Chioma Daisy Onyige-Ebeniro, Patricia E. Perkins, Alessandro Sanches Pereira, Elke Ursula Weber (2022) Chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation 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, United States
99. "Economic growth no longer means higher carbon emissions". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
100. "2021-2022 EIB Climate Survey, part 3 of 3: The economic and social impact of the green transition". EIB.org. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
101. Richard Hughes, Ben; Kaiser Calautit, John; Abdul Ghani, Saud (April 2012). "The development of commercial wind towers for natural ventilation: A review". Applied Energy. 92: 606. Bibcode:2012ApEn...92..606H. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.066. Retrieved 28 August 2023.
102. Nouh Ma'bdeh, Shouib; Fawwaz Alrebei, Odi; M. Obeidat, Laith; Al-Radaideh, Tamer; Kaouri, Katerina; I. Amhamed, Abdulkarem (29 December 2022). "Quantifying Energy Reduction and Thermal Comfort for a Residential Building Ventilated with a Window-Windcatcher: A Case Study". Buildings. 13: 86. doi:10.3390/buildings13010086. hdl:10919/113078.
103. IEA (2019), Global Energy & CO2 Status Report 2019, IEA, Paris, License: CC BY 4.0
104. Key World Energy Statistics 2020 (Report). IEA. 2020.
105. "A guide for effective energy saving". Renewable Energy World. 9 April 2015. from the original on 11 June 2016. Retrieved 14 June 2016.
106. "The value of urgent action on energy efficiency – Analysis". IEA. Retrieved 23 November 2022.
107. Diesendorf, Mark (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, p. 86.
108. "Emissions Gap Report 2020 / Executive Summary" (PDF). UNEP.org. United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. p. XV Fig. ES.8. (PDF) from the original on 31 July 2021.
109. Climate Equality: a Climate for the 99% (PDF). Oxfam International. November 2023. (PDF) from the original on 23 November 2023. Fig. ES.2, Fig. ES.3, Box 1.2.
110. Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Crist, E. (2021). "Human population, social justice, and climate policy". Sustainability Science. 16 (5): 1753–1756. Bibcode:2021SuSc...16.1753W. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w. S2CID 233404010.
111. Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022). "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 845: 157166. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.845o7166C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166. PMID 35803428. S2CID 250387801. Our first action call is a direct, global appeal to all women and men to choose none or at most one child. Individuals, especially if they aspire to large families, may pursue adoption, which is a desirable and compassionate choice for children who are here and need to be cared for.
112. "Six key lifestyle changes can help avert the climate crisis, study finds". the Guardian. 7 March 2022. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
113. Adcock, Bronwyn (2022). "Electric Monaros and hotted-up skateboards : the 'genius' who wants to electrify our world". the Guardian. Retrieved 6 February 2022.
114. Ripple, William J.; Smith, Pete; et al. (2013). "Ruminants, climate change and climate policy" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 2–5. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4....2R. doi:10.1038/nclimate2081.
115. "COP26: How can an average family afford an electric car? And more questions". BBC News. 11 November 2021. Retrieved 12 November 2021.
116. "Emissions inequality—a gulf between global rich and poor – Nicholas Beuret". Social Europe. 10 April 2019. from the original on 26 October 2019. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
117. Westlake, Steve (11 April 2019). "Climate change: yes, your individual action does make a difference". The Conversation. from the original on 18 December 2019. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
118. "Avoiding meat and dairy is 'single biggest way' to reduce your impact on Earth". the Guardian. 31 May 2018. Retrieved 25 April 2021.
119. Harvey, Fiona (21 March 2016). "Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2016.
120. Milman, Oliver (20 June 2016). "China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2016.
121. Schiermeier, Quirin (8 August 2019). "Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet". Nature. 572 (7769): 291–292. Bibcode:2019Natur.572..291S. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02409-7. PMID 31409926.
122. Harvey, Fiona (4 April 2022). "Final warning: what does the IPCC's third report instalment say?". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
123. "How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture". Leiden University. Retrieved 15 February 2022.
124. Sun, Zhongxiao; Scherer, Laura; Tukker, Arnold; Spawn-Lee, Seth A.; Bruckner, Martin; Gibbs, Holly K.; Behrens, Paul (January 2022). "Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend". Nature Food. 3 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5. ISSN 2662-1355. PMID 37118487. S2CID 245867412.
125. Carrington, Damian (21 July 2023). "Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 July 2023.
126. "World Population Prospects". UN.
127. IPCC (2022) Chapter 7: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) 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, United States
128. Dodson, Jenna C.; Dérer, Patrícia; Cafaro, Philip; Götmark, Frank (2020). "Population growth and climate change: Addressing the overlooked threat multiplier". Science of the Total Environment. 748: 141346. Bibcode:2020ScTEn.748n1346D. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141346. PMID 33113687. S2CID 225035992.
129. "Carbon Sources and Sinks". National Geographic Society. 2020-03-26. from the original on 14 December 2020. Retrieved 2021-06-18.
130. Levin, Kelly (8 August 2019). "How Effective Is Land At Removing Carbon Pollution? The IPCC Weighs In". World Resources Institute.
131. 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 1.5°C 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, US, pp. 175-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005.
132. 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. hdl:10044/1/55714. ISSN 1754-5692.
133. 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, US, pp. 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001.
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max (9 February 2021). "Forests and Deforestation". Our World in Data.
137. "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.
138. "How Conservation Became Colonialism". Foreign Policy. 16 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
139. 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: 27. Bibcode:2019FrFGC...2...27M. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027.
140. "New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests". New York Times. 29 January 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
141. "The natural world can help save us from climate catastrophe | George Monbiot". The Guardian. 3 April 2019.
142. Wilmers, Christopher C.; Schmitz, Oswald J. (19 October 2016). "Effects of gray wolf-induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling". Ecosphere. 7 (10). Bibcode:2016Ecosp...7E1501W. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1501.
143. 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 (1): 3. Bibcode:2008CarBM...3....3V. doi:10.1186/1750-0680-3-3. ISSN 1750-0680. PMC 2359746. PMID 18412946.
144. 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.
145. Yoder, Kate (12 May 2022). "Does planting trees actually help the climate? Here's what we know". Rewilding. Grist. Retrieved 15 May 2022.
146. "One trillion trees - uniting the world to save forests and climate". World Economic Forum. 22 January 2020. Retrieved 8 October 2020.
147. 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.
148. "The Great Green Wall: African Farmers Beat Back Drought and Climate Change with Trees". Scientific America. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
149. "In semi-arid Africa, farmers are transforming the "underground forest" into life-giving trees". University of Minnesote. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
150. 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
151. 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.
152. 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
153. "In Latin America, Forests May Rise to Challenge of Carbon Dioxide". New York Times. 16 May 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
154. Song, Shanshan; Ding, Yali; Li, Wei (10 February 2023). "Mangrove reforestation provides greater blue carbon benefit than afforestation for mitigating global climate change". Nature Communications. 14 (1): 11. Bibcode:2023NatCo..14..756S. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36477-1. PMC 9918466. PMID 36765059. Retrieved 28 April 2023.
155. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change. World Resources Institute. ISBN 978-1569738290. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
156. "Community forestry can work, but plans in the Democratic Republic of Congo show what's missing". The Conversation. 29 June 2020. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
157. "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
158. 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
159. "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.
160. Harris, Nancy; Gibbs, David (21 January 2021). "Forests Absorb Twice As Much Carbon As They Emit Each Year".
161. Rosane, Olivia (18 March 2020). "Protecting and Restoring Soils Could Remove 5.5 Billion Tonnes of CO₂ a Year". Ecowatch. Retrieved 19 March 2020.
162. 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.
163. 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.
164. 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.
165. 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.
166. 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.
167. "Cover Crops, a Farming Revolution With Deep Roots in the Past". The New York Times. 2016.
168. 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.
169. 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.
170. Scanlon, Kerry (18 October 2018). . Rainforest Alliance. Archived from the original on 29 October 2019. Retrieved 29 October 2019.
171. "What Is Regenerative Agriculture?". Ecowatch. The Climate Reality Project. 2 July 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
172. 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.
173. 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.
174. Synthesis of Adaptation Options for Coastal Areas. Climate Ready Estuaries Program, EPA 430-F-08-024. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009.
175. "Coastal Wetland Protection". Project Drawdown. 6 February 2020. Retrieved 13 September 2020.
176. Chmura, G. L. (2003). "Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 17 (4): Abstract. Bibcode:2003GBioC..17.1111C. doi:10.1029/2002GB001917. S2CID 36119878.
177. 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.
178. 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.
179. 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.
180. "Climate change and deforestation threaten world's largest tropical peatland". Carbon Brief. 25 January 2018.
181. "Peatlands and climate change". IUCN. 6 November 2017.
182. 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.
183. "Peatlands and climate change". IUCN. 6 November 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
184. "Climate change: National Trust joins international call for peat product ban". BBC News. 7 November 2021. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
185. 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
186. "How oysters can stop a flood". Vox. 31 August 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
187. 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.
188. IPCC (2022) Chapter 12: Cross sectoral perspectives 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, United States
189. Doney, Scott C.; Busch, D. Shallin; Cooley, Sarah R.; Kroeker, Kristy J. (2020). "The Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems and Reliant Human Communities". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 45 (1): 83–112. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-083019. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 225741986.
190. Canadell, J.G., P.M.S. Monteiro, M.H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P.M. Cox, A.V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P.K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, and K. Zickfeld, 2021: Chapter 5: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [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. 673–816, doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007.
191. Ricart, Aurora M.; Krause-Jensen, Dorte; Hancke, Kasper; Price, Nichole N.; Masqué, Pere; Duarte, Carlos M. (2022). "Sinking seaweed in the deep ocean for carbon neutrality is ahead of science and beyond the ethics". Environmental Research Letters. 17 (8): 081003. Bibcode:2022ERL....17h1003R. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac82ff. hdl:10754/679874. S2CID 250973225.
192. Hurd, Catriona L.; Law, Cliff S.; Bach, Lennart T.; Britton, Damon; Hovenden, Mark; Paine, Ellie R.; Raven, John A.; Tamsitt, Veronica; Boyd, Philip W. (2022). "Forensic carbon accounting: Assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration". Journal of Phycology. 58 (3): 347–363. Bibcode:2022JPcgy..58..347H. doi:10.1111/jpy.13249. PMID 35286717. S2CID 247453370.
193. Boyd, Philip W.; Bach, Lennart T.; Hurd, Catriona L.; Paine, Ellie; Raven, John A.; Tamsitt, Veronica (2022). "Potential negative effects of ocean afforestation on offshore ecosystems". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 6 (6): 675–683. Bibcode:2022NatEE...6..675B. doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01722-1. PMID 35449458. S2CID 248322820.
194. "Guest post: How 'enhanced weathering' could slow climate change and boost crop yields". Carbon Brief. 19 February 2018. from the original on 8 September 2021. Retrieved 3 November 2021.
195. "CO₂ turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough". The Guardian. 9 June 2016. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
196. Obersteiner, M. (2001). "Managing Climate Risk". Science. 294 (5543): 786–7. doi:10.1126/science.294.5543.786b. PMID 11681318. S2CID 34722068.
197. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (24 October 2018). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. doi:10.17226/25259. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. PMID 31120708. S2CID 134196575. from the original on 25 May 2020. Retrieved 22 February 2020.

March 05, 2024