A quick note: Climate Interactive was one of the first teams to add up all the pledges countries were putting forward for the UN climate change negotiations initially around the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009 and the analysis played a historic role in the ensuing ten years of negotiations. During that time the addition of assessments like the UNEP Emissions Gap report, expanded efforts like the Climate Action Tracker, and many others, the need to offer another analysis of the gap between where policies are headed and what is needed has felt well covered. As a result, Climate Interactive has decided to invest our time in other endeavors. The Climate Scoreboard analysis below is no longer being updated and does not reflect the latest pledges countries have put forward. The C-ROADS simulation model that we used to create this analysis is still updated and available for your use. We encourage you to continue using C-ROADS with groups to interactively create your own scenarios for what is needed to address climate change.
Why a scoreboard, and what are you keeping score of?
The question is: are current government proposals ambitious enough to limit global warming to well below 2°C (3.6°F), with an effort toward 1.5°C?
In 2010 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP16 negotiations in Cancun, nations agreed to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent temperature rise to no more than 2°C (3.6°F) with some countries calling for the goal to be set lower at 1.5°C. Parties to the UNFCCC are poised to meet again for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris, France in December, 2015 and are submitting pledges to reach this goal. The Climate Scoreboard shows the progress nations have made.
Calculating the impact of the various proposals is dependent upon many variables including population growth, economic activity and the decisions of governments around the world and how they affect the complex dynamics of the Earth’s climate system. Even with a clear understanding of those factors, we must use computer modeling to explore the long-term impacts of any given emissions reduction proposal on greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature.
We created the C-ROADS simulator to address this challenge. C-ROADS can add up emissions reductions (for fossil fuel emissions, other GHG emissions, and land-use emissions) from proposals into a single, global emissions trajectory. The model then accounts for the cycling of the gases through the biosphere and atmosphere and calculates their impacts on the Earth’s mean temperature over time. Our team also uses C-ROADS as the calculation engine behind the Climate Scoreboard. However, C-ROADS is used in many contexts – as a tool for teaching and for interactive exercises and as a decision support tool for policy makers (including some UNFCCC negotiators).
C-ROADS allows inputs of emissions reductions targets for 12
countries (U.S., Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, South Korea, China,
India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia) and three blocs of
countries (EU, “other developed” and “other developing”). For the 12
countries with individual controls, we adjust that country’s modeled
emissions from a reference scenario (based on the IPCCs RCP 8.5
The emissions from EU countries are changed as a bloc. Pledges of
countries not technically included in the EU (e.g., Andorra) and of
countries within the EU that submitted their own NDC are properly scaled
to their share of 2013 emissions within the EU bloc.
NDCs accounted for in “other developed” or “other developing” were
calculated in accordance with that country’s percentage of emissions
from the entire group. In other words, each nation’s proposals are
properly scaled to their actual share of 2013 emissions within their
What assumptions and approximations do you make in this analysis?
Any effort like ours, which is trying to reduce a complicated real
world system into a few simple indicators, must make approximations and
assumptions. In doing so, we do our best to be aware of and make
explicit as many of those assumptions as we can.
Assumptions about proposals:
We include only Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that are unconditional. We assume that proposals will be fully implemented, in accordance with the dates specified in the NDC.
There are four types of pledges for which we made post-pledge-period (2025-2030) assumptions for the “NDCs Strict” case:
Absolute reductions. For countries that make
absolute emissions reductions, we assume that emissions stay constant
after 2025-2030 (the end of the pledge period), unless an NDC states
otherwise. For example, Canada has offered to reduce their GHG emissions
30% below 2005 levels by 2030. After that, given there is no post-2030
pledge, we assume that the emissions do not increase nor continue to
decrease, but rather stay constant at their 2030 levels.
Relative to a reference scenario.
For countries that are reducing emissions from a reference scenario or
business as usual (BAU) level, we assume they stay at the target level
below the reference scenario after the pledge period. For example,
Kenya has pledged to reduce their emissions 30% below their BAU
trajectory by 2030. After 2030, we assumed that the emissions would
continue to stay 30% below their BAU Scenario. Since the BAU Scenario is
increasing, emissions increase at the same rate as the Reference
Peaking. Emissions grow to a target
level. For example, China has said they will peak their CO2 emissions by
2030. We assumed that the rate of growth of emissions would slow down
starting in 2015, approaching a flat trajectory gradually. After the
peaking date, 2030 in this case, emissions would stay level. (Note —
other greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase given they are not
covered by China’s pledge).
Emissions intensity reduction.
This is would be a change in emissions relative to the GDP of the
country. For example, Singapore intends to reduce their emissions
intensity 36% by 2030. Up to 2030, we calculate emissions by using the
GDP growth. After 2030, emissions intensity remains at that target
intensity unless it exceeds the BAU intensity, at which point the BAU
trajectory resumes (GDP assumption is from SSP2–Shared Socioeconomic
Some countries have made proposals for specific actions
(rather than for emissions targets). If we don’t have a good estimate
for the impact of those actions on emissions then we don’t include the
action in our analysis.
We assume emission reductions cover all GHG emissions (CO2 from fossil fuels, CO2 from LULUCF, CH4, N2O, SF6,
PFCs, and HFCs), unless specified otherwise. The model can apply
emissions reductions to either all or individual GHGs; when the NDC
applies only to CO2, the model assumes BAU for other GHGs. We
apportion cuts across all the gasses and ensure that they add up to the
appropriate reduction in CO2e. If a pledge applies only to CO2, then the other gases follow their BAU trajectories.
Assumptions inherent in the C-ROADS model:
The C-ROADS “reference scenario” (often called “business as usual”) is based on the RCP 8.5 scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) report.
C-ROADS is generally set to a climate sensitivity of 3 (that is 3°C of temperature increase for a doubling of CO2) However, that assumption can be varied in the model, if desired.
is a physics-based model that includes plenty of climate science. There
are positive feedback loops in the real climate system that are not
modeled in the current version of C-ROADS. Additionally, C-ROADS is
based upon and calibrated to the results of models from the IPCC’s AR5.
We will update the results shown on the Climate Scoreboard if Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are submitted that result in changes of at least 0.1° C to the temperature in 2100.
How did you determine the extent of the blue “uncertainty range” on the Climate Scoreboard thermometer?
We analyzed the confidence ranges for the different scenarios in
the IPCC’s AR4 report, ranging from B1 to A1FI and calculated the range
of temperatures across the suite models relative to the mean temperature
change estimate. We estimated that the 90% confidence interval (defined
as “likely” by AR4), and show that range as the uncertainty in the
The line in the middle that we reference most prominently is the “mean” or average value.
Is your model scientifically reviewed?
The C-ROADS model was scientifically reviewed by a panel of outside, independent experts, chaired by Sir Robert Watson (former chair of the IPCC).
Who else has done similar calculations and why are they sometimes different?