Search

• Climate change was identified as the main threat for seagrass soil CO 2 emissions. • Direct threats have the highest potential risk for CO 2 emissions at a local scale. • Empirical data on seagrass CO 2 emissions following disturbance is scarce. • Ranking of threats for seagrass CO 2 emissions can aid management and policy. Seagrass meadows are natural carbon storage hotspots at risk from global change threats, and their loss can result in the remineralization of soil carbon stocks and CO 2 emissions fueling climate change. Here we used expert elicitation and empirical evidence to assess the risk of CO 2 emissions from seagrass soils caused by multiple human-induced, biological and climate change threats. Judgments from 41 experts were synthesized into a seagrass CO 2 emission risk score based on vulnerability factors (i.e., spatial scale, frequency, magnitude, resistance and recovery) to seagrass soil organic carbon stocks. Experts perceived that climate change threats (e.g., gradual ocean warming and increased storminess) have the highest risk for CO 2 emissions at global spatial scales, while direct threats (i.e., dredging and building of a marina or jetty) have the largest CO 2 emission risks at local spatial scales. A review of existing peer-reviewed literature showed a scarcity of studies assessing CO 2 emissions following seagrass disturbance, but the limited empirical evidence partly confirmed the opinion of experts. The literature review indicated that direct and long-term disturbances have the greatest negative impact on soil carbon stocks per unit area, highlighting that immediate management actions after disturbances to recover the seagrass canopy can significantly reduce soil CO 2 emissions. We conclude that further empirical evidence assessing global change threats on the seagrass carbon sink capacity is required to aid broader uptake of seagrass into blue carbon policy frameworks. The preliminary findings from this study can be used to estimate the potential risk of CO 2 emissions from seagrass habitats under threat and guide nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Current national policies are not sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals. • Collective increase in climate action is needed to stabilize warming at safe levels. • Good practice policies can bridge the emissions gap to a below 2 °C world. • These policies can create a bridge trajectory in key major-emitting countries. One key aspect of the Paris Agreement is the goal to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C by the end of the century. To achieve the Paris Agreement goals, countries need to submit, and periodically update, their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Recent studies show that NDCs and currently implemented national policies are not sufficient to cover the ambition level of the temperature limit agreed upon in the Paris Agreement, meaning that we need to collectively increase climate action to stabilize global warming at levels considered safe. This paper explores the generalization of previously adopted good practice policies (GPPs) to bridge the emissions gap between current policies, NDCs ambitions and a well below 2 °C world, facilitating the creation of a bridge trajectory in key major-emitting countries. These GPPs are implemented in eleven well-established national Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union (EU), India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States, that provide least-cost, low-carbon scenarios up to 2050. Results show that GPPs can play an important role in each region, with energy supply policies appearing as one of the biggest contributors to the reduction of carbon emissions. However, GPPs by themselves are not enough to close the emission gap, and as such more will be needed in these economies to collectively increase climate action to stabilize global warming at levels considered safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Infrastructure is essential to meet basic needs but require carbon intensive materials. • I assess the material/carbon impact of reaching in 2030 high access to 5 basic infrastructure. • Global material demand is the lowest for water and the highest for transportation. • Providing high sanitation and transportation access conflicts with low-carbon pathways. Access to infrastructure services is essential to meet human basic needs. However, infrastructure construction requires carbon-intensive materials, first and foremost cement and steel. In this paper, I assess if high level of access to 5 basic infrastructure services – electricity, water, shelter, sanitation and transportation – can be provided at the global scale in 2030 and until 2050 without compromising climate mitigation targets. Following historical patterns, I first quantify the cement and steel requirements in each country associated with providing high access levels. I then estimate the production-based carbon dioxide emissions related to manufacturing the cement and steel needs. To do so, I model influencing factors such as national production technologies mix, trade structure and mitigation actions in the cement and steel industries. Global cumulative material demand (central values) to reach high access level in 2030 is the lowest for water with 8 Gt of cement and 1 Gt of steel and the highest for transportation with 50 Gt of cement and 6 Gt of steel. Most of the cement and steel demand is concentrated in Asia, Middle-East and Africa. I show for all infrastructure services that achieving high access level in 2030 and until 2050 induces cumulative carbon dioxide emissions well below the carbon budgets related to Paris Agreement targets, with central values under baseline scenario from 10 to 53 Gt CO 2 depending on the infrastructure service. However, I find providing high sanitation and transportation access in Middle-East and Africa conflicts with existing low-carbon pathways. This calls for on one side implementing material efficiency and substitution towards less carbon-intensive construction materials, and on the other side strengthening mitigation efforts in wealthiest countries to leave enough 'carbon space' for basic infrastructure development in emerging countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The EDGAR dataset provides decades-long time series of GHG emissions for all world countries. • The EDGAR V5.0 updates CO 2 emissions data to 2018 and non-CO 2 to 2015. • EDGAR shows an overall upward trend for global GHG emissions. • A detailed overview of emission trends and features is provided by gas, by activity sector and by geographical areas. Over the last three decades, socio-economic, demographic and technological transitions have been witnessed throughout the world, modifying both sectorial and geographical distributions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Understanding these trends is central to the design of current and future climate change mitigation policies, requiring up-to-date methodologically robust emission inventories such as the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), the European Commission's in-house, independent global emission inventory. EDGAR is a key tool to track the evolution of GHG emissions and contributes to quantifying the global carbon budget, providing independent and systematically calculated emissions for all countries. According to the results of the EDGAR v.5.0 release, total anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emissions (excluding land use, land use change and forestry) were estimated at 49.1 Gt CO 2eq in 2015, 50 % higher than in 1990, despite a monotonic decrease in GHG emissions per unit of economic output. Between 1990 and 2015, emissions from developed countries fell by 9%, while emissions from low to medium income countries increased by 130%, predominantly from 2000 onwards. The 27 Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom led the pathway for emission reductions in industrialised economies whilst, in developing countries, the rise in emissions was driven by higher emissions in China, India, Brazil and nations in the South-East Asian region. This diversity of patterns shows how different patterns for GHG emissions are and the need for identifying regionally tailored emission reduction measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Prior beliefs and demographics affect reading accuracy and knowledge gains from scenarios. • In contrast, effects from different visualization formats analyzed are relatively minor. • Graphs with steep slope are disadvantageous over tables and graphs with gradual slope. • Tailoring formats to demographic and country differences to some extent reduces adverse effects. While scenarios are used extensively for communication about climate change mitigation, little is known about the interpretation of these scenarios by citizens. We conducted a cross-country empirical evaluation of scenario visualizations for global mitigation, using online surveys in Germany (N = 379), Poland (N = 223), and France (N = 225). Each respondent received visualizations of the required changes in global carbon dioxide emissions and composition of electricity supply (fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewable sources) for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. We evaluated the effects of respondents' demographics, prior beliefs, numeracy, and graph literacy on the reading accuracy and knowledge gains from the visualizations. We also included an experimental between-groups design on visualization format, where four groups received different graph formats (steep or gradual graphs with depictions of uncertainty ranges or scenario ensembles) and the fifth group received a table. Results showed that higher education level, numeracy, and graph literacy increased reading accuracy in all countries, while age reduced them. Respondents with prior beliefs about climate change mitigation that matched the information in the visualizations had also higher reading accuracy and knowledge gains. While the effects of different visualization formats were comparatively minor, customizing formats according to demographic and country differences was used to reduce adverse effects from these differences. These results emphasize the need to design visualizations that match characteristics of the intended audience and could inform better communication of climate change mitigation scenarios to non-expert audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We estimated economic value of sequestered carbon in California's coastal habitat. • Lack of site-specific carbon sequestration data hampers current valuation efforts. • Sub-national blue carbon policy can help countries keep Paris Agreement commitments. • Valuation of sequestration helps governments meet commitments to greenhouse gas goals. The emissions reduction pledges made by individual countries through the 2015 Paris Agreement represent the current global commitment to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the face of the enduring climate crisis. Natural lands carbon sequestration and storage are critical for successful pathways to global decarbonization (i.e., as a negative emissions technology). Coastal vegetated habitats maintain carbon sequestration rates exceeding forest sequestration rates on a per unit area basis by nearly two orders of magnitude. These blue carbon habitats and their associated carbon sequestration benefits are vulnerable to losses from land-use change and sea-level rise. Incorporation of blue carbon habitats in climate change policy is one strategy for both maintaining these habitats and conserving significant carbon sequestration capabilities. Previous policy assessments have found the potential for incorporation of coastal carbon sequestration in national-level policies, yet there has – to date – been little inclusion of blue carbon in the national-scale implementation of Paris commitments. Recently, sub-national jurisdictions have gained attention as models for pathways to decarbonization. However, few previous studies have examined sub-national level policy opportunities for operationalizing blue carbon into climate decision-making. California is uniquely poised to integrate benefits from blue carbon into its coastal planning and management and its suite of climate mitigation policies. Here, we evaluated legal authorities and policy contexts addressing sequestration specifically from blue carbon habitats. We synthesized the progressive action in California's approaches to mitigate carbon emissions including statutory, regulatory, and non-regulatory opportunities to incorporate blue carbon ecosystem service information into state- and local-level management decisions. To illustrate how actionable blue carbon information can be produced for use in decision-making, we conducted a spatial analysis of blue carbon sequestration in several locations in California across multiple agencies and management contexts. We found that the average market values of carbon sequestration services in 2100 ranged from $7,730 to $44,000 per hectare and that the social cost of carbon sequestration value was 1.3 to 2.7 times the market value. We also demonstrated that restoration of small areas with high sequestration rates can be comparable to the sequestration of existing marshes. Our results illustrate how accessible information about carbon sequestration in coastal habitats can be directly incorporated into existing policy frameworks at the sub-national scale. The incorporation of blue carbon sequestration benefits into sub-national climate policies can serve as a model for the development of future policy approaches for negative emissions technologies, with consequences for the success of the Paris Agreement and science-based decarbonization by mid-century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• EBSR divides responsibility for emissions in trade between producers and consumers. • EBSR goes beyond consumption-based (CBA) and production-based (PBA) accounting. • Responsibility is proportional to economic benefits from emitting free of charge. • With EBSR, China is attributed higher responsibility for emissions than in CBA. • Lower responsibility is attributed to both the US and the EU. How to share responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions between consumers and producers is a highly sensitive question in international climate policy negotiations. Traditional 'Production-Based Accounting' (PBA), which assigns responisibility to the region where emissions are released, has frequently been challenged by 'Consumption-Based Accounting' (CBA) schemes that suggest that greenhouse gas emissions generated to produce traded goods and services should be attributed to their final consumers. PBA and CBA both lack a sound foundation in economic theory as they do not consider the economic benefits accruing to producers or consumers if carbon emissions do not carry a price that reflects their social costs. We build on well-established economic theory to derive how to share responsibility for trade-related emissions between producers and consumers and apply this novel approach for the most prominent bilateral trade relationships using multi-regional input–output data. We propose an 'Economic Benefit Shared Responsibility' (EBSR) scheme, in which China is attributed significantly higher responsibility for emissions than in CBA, while lower emissions and responsibility are attributed to both the US and the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The carbon footprint (CF) has emerged as an important yardstick to understand the total contribution of countries, sectors and individuals to climate change. In contrast to conventional emissions accounting which captures only territorial or local production activities, the CF includes the emissions imposed by consumption across global supply chains for goods and services. Recent interest has grown in the application of CF assessment for municipalities owing to their large contribution to global carbon emissions and the limited coverage of existing data to monitor their climate pledges. By linking household-level consumer surveys to a global supply chain database, spatially-explicit CF assessment is possible at a district and household scale. To date, such technique has exposed otherwise unforeseen differences in consumer carbon footprints in developed countries. Within this study we calculate and compare the household carbon footprints 623 districts in India, based on micro consumption data from 203,313 households and explain their variation by economic, cultural and demographic factors. We show the eradication of extreme poverty does not conflict with ambitious climate change mitigation in India. However, our analysis suggests CF reduction policies within India need to target high-expenditure households which are responsible for nearly seven times the carbon emissions than low-expenditure households (living on $1.9 consumption a day). These vast disparities between the carbon footprint of citizens in India highlights the need to differentiate individual responsibilities for climate change in national and global climate policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]