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 The Climate Scoreboard analysis below is no longer being updated and does not reflect the latest pledges countries have put forward.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.
National Plans – 3.2°C(5.8°F) – No change after national contribution pledge period.
<2.0°C Path – 1.8°C (3.3°F) – All countries peak by 2030 and then reduce steadily, with rates in
the post-2030 period faster in the developed countries (5%/yr) than in the developing countries (3.5%/yr).
1.5°C Path – 1.5°C (2.8°F) – All developed countries peak by 2025 and then reduce steadily at 10%/yr;
all developing countries peak no later than 2030 and then reduce steadily at 8%/yr.
In order to assess the cumulative impact of all the pledges and offer a projected temperature in 2100, we had to make some assumptions
that are highlighted below. Many points are also explained in our FAQs.
We only include Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and Long-Term
Strategies submitted to the UNFCCC that are unconditional.
For the “National Plan” scenario, which is the one displayed on the Scoreboard, we assume no continued reductions by developed countries
and no further action from developing countries beyond the timeframe of their plans. Specifically, there are four primary types of
pledges, and we make the following assumptions for them:
Absolute reductions – For countries that are making 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, Australia has offered to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions 26% below 2005 levels by 2030. After that, given there is no formal post-2030 pledge, we assume that
Australia’s emissions do not increase nor continue to decrease, but stay constant at that new level.
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 by 2030. After 2030, we assumed that the emissions would continue to stay 30%
below their Reference Scenario. Since the Reference Scenario is increasing, however, emissions increase at the same rate as the
Peaking – Emissions grow until year target peak year. For example, China has said they will peak their CO2 emissions by
2030. We assumed that the rate of growth in emissions would slow starting in 2015, approaching a flat trajectory gradually. After
the peaking date, emissions would stay level. (Note: other greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase given they were not covered
by China’s pledge).
Emissions intensity reduction – Change in emissions relative to the GDP of the country. For example, India reducing
emissions intensity 40% (we took the low end of the pledge, which was 35-40%) by 2030. Up to 2030, we calculate emissions by using
the GDP growth. After 2030, emissions intensity stays 40% below the growing GDP.
In the <2°C and 1.5°C scenarios, we assume continued action and reductions after the period when the current NDCs end.
The regional distribution of emissions reductions in the <2°C and 1.5°C scenarios is one representation of many possible
approaches. We assume that developed countries move faster than developing countries.
We assume that proposals will be fully implemented, in accordance with the dates specified in the plans.
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 greenhouse gas emissions unless specified otherwise. In some cases for smaller countries, the
structure of the model requires us to assume that they take proportional action on other greenhouse gases.
The C-ROADS reference scenario (also called “business as usual”) accounts for the UN’s medium fertility
population projections, historical GDP per capita rates that converge over time to be consistent with other integrated assessment
models, and GHG per capita projections for each gas that reflect trends over the last decade for CO2 and follow the IPCC’s RCP8.5 for the non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
C-ROADS uses a climate sensitivity of 3 (that is 3°C of temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration.)
There are positive feedback loops in the real climate system that are not modeled in the current version of C-ROADS.
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
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 scaled to their actual share of emissions within their bloc.
We are fortunate to have many colleagues in the field of adding up climate mitigation proposals to assess their sufficiency, aggregate
their contributions, and see what more is needed. Explore other climate trackers.