Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models

Integrated assessment models can help in quantifying the implications of international climate agreements and regional climate action. This paper reviews scenario results from model intercomparison projects to explore different possible outcomes of post-2020 climate negotiations, recently announced pledges and their relation to the 2 °C target. We provide key information for all the major economies, such as the year of emission peaking, regional carbon budgets and emissions allowances. We highlight the distributional consequences of climate policies, and discuss the role of carbon markets for financing clean energy investments, and achieving efficiency and equity

An outline of the crystal-structure of Bi\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3eMo\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3eO\u3csub\u3e9\u3c/sub\u3e

\u3cp\u3eAn outline of the structure of the catalyser component Bi\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3eMo\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3eO\u3csub\u3e9\u3c/sub\u3e has been determined from X-ray powder diffractometer diagrams. The space group is P\u3csup\u3e2\u3c/sup\u3e l n (= P\u3csup\u3e2\u3c/sup\u3e l c) with cell constants: a = 11.946 (2) A ̊, b = 10.795 (2) A ̊, c = 11.876 (2) A ̊ and β = 90.15 (2)°. There are eight formula units per cell. The positions of the metal-ions could directly be derived from the intensities of the strongest reflexions. With difference terms calculated from 19 strong reflexions a Δ F-synthesis was calculated, which revealed the approximate positions of the O\u3csup\u3e2-\u3c/sup\u3e-ions. From packing considerations it was apparent that of 9 0\u3csup\u3e2-\u3c/sup\u3e-ions one is only coordinated by Bi\u3csup\u3e3+\u3c/sup\u3e and that Mo\u3csup\u3e6+\u3c/sup\u3e must be tetrahedrally surrounded by 0\u3csup\u3e2-\u3c/sup\u3e. These tetrahedra may be strongly distorted. The structure is not related to the scheelite-structure as has been assumed by some authors.\u3c/p\u3

Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes

Adaptation, Burden-sharing, Climate change, Climate policy, Emission allocation, Integrated assessment, Mitigation, Post-Kyoto,

Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways

The bottom-up approach of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in the Paris Agreement has led countries to self-determine their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The planned ‘ratcheting-up’ process, which aims to ensure that the NDCs comply with the overall goal of limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C or even 1.5 °C, will most likely include some evaluation of ‘fairness’ of these reduction targets. In the literature, fairness has been discussed around equity principles, for which many different effort-sharing approaches have been proposed. In this research, we analysed how country-level emission targets and carbon budgets can be derived based on such criteria. We apply novel methods directly based on the global carbon budget, and, for comparison, more commonly used methods using GHG mitigation pathways. For both, we studied the following approaches: equal cumulative per capita emissions, contraction and convergence, grandfathering, greenhouse development rights and ability to pay. As the results critically depend on parameter settings, we used the wide authorship from a range of countries included in this paper to determine default settings and sensitivity analyses. Results show that effort-sharing approaches that (i) calculate required reduction targets in carbon budgets (relative to baseline budgets) and/or (ii) take into account historical emissions when determining carbon budgets can lead to (large) negative remaining carbon budgets for developed countries. This is the case for the equal cumulative per capita approach and especially the greenhouse development rights approach. Furthermore, for developed countries, all effort-sharing approaches except grandfathering lead to more stringent budgets than cost-optimal budgets, indicating that cost-optimal approaches do not lead to outcomes that can be regarded as fair according to most effort-sharing approaches