Search

Does climate change influence if societies will be better or worse equipped to reduce climatic risks in the future? A society’s adaptive capacity determines whether the potential of adaptation to reduce risks will be realized. Assumptions about the level of adaptive capacity are inherently made when the potential for adaptation to reduce risks in the future and resultant levels of risk are estimated. In this review, we look at the literature on human impacts of climate change through the lens of adaptive capacity. Building on evidence of impacts on financial resources as presented in the Working Group 2 (WG2) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), we here present the methodology behind this review and complement it with an analysis of climatic risks to human resources. Based on our review, we argue that climate change itself adds to adaptation constraints and limits. We show that for more realistic assessments of sectoral climate risks, assumed levels of future adaptive capacity should — and can — be usefully constrained in assessments that rely on expert judgment, and propose avenues for doing so.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is a key element of any mitigation strategy aiming to achieve the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, as well as national net-zero and net-negative greenhouse gas emissions targets. For robust CDR policy, the credibility of certification schemes is essential.

Addressing questions of equitable contributions to emission reductions is important to facilitate ambitious global action on climate change within the ambit of the Paris Agreement. Several large developing regions with low historical contributions to global warming have a strong moral claim to a large proportion of the remaining carbon budget (RCB). However, this claim needs to be assessed in a context where the RCB consistent with the long-term temperature goal (LTTG) of the Paris Agreement is rapidly diminishing. Here we assess the potential tension between the moral claim to the remaining carbon space by large developing regions with low per capita emissions, and the collective obligation to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Based on scenarios underlying the IPCC's 6th Assessment Report, we construct a suite of scenarios that combine the following elements: (a) two quantifications of a moral claim to the remaining carbon space by South Asia, and Africa, (b) a 'highest possible emission reduction' effort by developed regions (DRs), and (c) a corresponding range for other developing regions (ODR). We find that even the best effort by DRs cannot compensate for a unilateral claim to the remaining carbon space by South Asia and Africa. This would put the LTTG firmly out of reach unless ODRs cede their moral claim to emissions space and, like DRs, pursue highest possible emission reductions, which would also constitute an inequitable outcome. Furthermore, regions such as Latin America would need to provide large-scale negative emissions with potential risks and negative side effects. Our findings raise important questions of perspectives on equity in the context of the Paris Agreement including on the critical importance of climate finance. A failure to provide adequate levels of financial support to compensate large developing regions to emit less than their moral claim will put the Paris Agreement at risk.

National net zero emission targets could, if fully implemented, reduce best estimates of projected global average temperature increase to 2.0–2.4 °C by 2100, bringing the Paris Agreement temperature goal within reach. A total of 131 countries are discussing, have announced or have adopted net zero targets, covering 72% of global emissions. These targets could substantially lower projected warming as compared to currently implemented policies (2.9–3.2 °C) or pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement (2.4–2.9 °C).