DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Carbon Budgets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Carbon Budgets 2014 CLIMATE AND ENERGY LOW CARBON FRAMEWORKS CO UNDERSTANDING 2 CARBON BUDGETS A carbon budget can be defined as a tolerable quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted in total over a specified time. The budget needs to be in line with what is scientifically required to keep global warming and thus climate change “tolerable.” FAST FACTS: WHAT IS A CARBON BUDGET? WHY DO WE NEED GREENHOUSE GASES With industrialisation A carbon budget can be defined as a tolerable quantity of A CARBON BUDGET? from the mid-1700s on, human activity has greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted in total over released increasing a specified time. The budget needs to be in line with what is According to the scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate amounts of green- house gases into the scientifically required to keep global warming and thus climate Change, for the planet to have a 50% chance of avoiding a dangerous atmosphere. These are change “tolerable.” Carbon budgeting should not be confused with global average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (2 °C) or more 50% the gases that trap heat, leading to global warm- the use of targets, thresholds or caps to set emissions reduction above pre-industrial levels, greenhouse gas concentrations must ing, which is causing goals. stabilise at 450 ppm CO2e. This will be very tough to achieve, but climate change. The gases is still possible. As at April 2012, globally we are already at 396.18 CHANCE accumulate in the air over Scientists have tracked how much of emissions leads to how much OF AVOIDING DANGEROUS time, and get more and ppm1, so there is no time to lose. The average global temperature has GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE rise in temperature, and what impact higher temperatures have on more concentrated in the already increased by 0.8 °C over the past century, most of that since atmosphere, trapping the climate. If we want to avoid the worsening impacts of climate more and more heat. the 1970s.2 change, the temperature has to stay within limits, and so we The most common greenhouse gas released cannot emit more than a certain amount of emissions. This is our 1From the website co2now.org, by human activity is Africa is set to get much hotter than the global average. If globally global carbon budget. It is a global budget because emissions from accessed on 5/6/2012 carbon dioxide (CO ), 2 we continue emitting as we are, studies project that “by mid- which is emitted when anywhere on earth go into the atmosphere we all share. 2USA National Academies’ we make cement, burn century the South African coast will warm by around 1–2 °C, and A budget is a finite limit to the amount of emissions we can allow National Research Council wood and use fossil fuels 2011 publication Advancing the interior by around 2–3 °C; after 2050, warming is projected to such as gas, coal or oil. ourselves before we are locked into catastrophic climate change. But the Science of Climate Change, 3 Another major green- reach around 3–4 °C along the coast, and 6–7 °C in the interior” . the way in which we use our carbon budget is up to us to decide. cited in the Living Planet house gas is methane Report 2012, by the Zoological The consequences of such temperature increases in South Africa (CH ) from livestock farts, 4 For example, we could use our emissions allowance to improve Society of London, Global 4 rubbish landfills and Footprint Network, European can be found in government and independent research . rotting things. Different roads for private cars, or we could use it to create public transport Space Agency and WWF, greenhouse gases have infrastructure. Or focus on developing minerals beneficiation rather released May 2012 (www. Many argue that aiming for 450 ppm is too high. WWF and other different global warming wwf.org.za/media_room/ organisations say that humanity cannot allow our emissions to and hence climate change than accelerating mining. To stay within budget, a rise in emissions publications/lpr, accessed impacts. from one activity or country will require emissions to fall in another; 31/7/2012) increase the average global temperature by more than 1.5 °C. To be able to compare and an “overspend” in one year will require greater cuts in emissions 3From government’s Cooler would be better, but by now is unlikely to be possible. the emissions of these November 2010 National Hotter than that and the climate tips over into conditions that we gases, they are converted in future years. We can make choices about the timing and use of Climate Change Response to a common basis called emissions, but not all choices are feasible, desirable or affordable. Green Paper will find it very hard to survive in, particularly people with few carbon dioxide equivalent 4 resources. The longer we delay cutting emissions, or if our cuts are (written CO e). Shorthand For example South 2 We speak about “spending our carbon budget”, but note that we talk of “carbon emis- Africa’s Second National insignificant, the more dramatic our actions will need to be and sions”. a carbon budget is not an amount of money. It is an amount of Communication under the the heavier the price we pay – not only in conventional economic greenhouse gases. It is an answer to the question: How much more UNFCCC 2011 (at www.sanbi. org /sites/default/files/ terms, but in human suffering, and destruction of the ecosystems of these gases can we afford to emit, before life on earth as we know documents/ documents/ sasnc201111.pdf ), South which support life. it becomes impossible? African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (at www.rvatlas.org) 2 3 WHAT IS THE GLOBAL CARBON HOW CAN WE BUDGET AS REQUIRED BY DIVIDE THE GLOBAL SCIENCE? CARBON BUDGET FAIRLY BETWEEN 5Sharing the Effort Under a Global 5 Carbon Budget, a 2009 study WWF A study commissioned by WWF from Ecofys chose to set the desired International commissioned from concentration limit at 400 ppm CO e, so as to have a better chance COUNTRIES? Ecofys, written by Niklas Höhne 2 and Sara Moltmann (66% likelihood) of staying below 2 °C of global warming. The We have a carbon budget for the whole planet because 6For a better chance than 66%, study translates this ppm limit into a global carbon budget for the there is one shared atmosphere. But economic activity other researchers put the budget causing emissions is located within countries, sectors, at 700 Gt CO2e to have a 70% period 1990–2100. (1990 was chosen as the start year because the chance of staying within the 2 Kyoto Protocol allows for emission reduction targets against 1990 companies and other collectives, and that is where °C limit: “Decision support for we can change our global emissions. There are many international climate policy – the emissions levels.) PRIMAP emission module”, a ways to divide the budget up among countries, but 2011 paper by J.E.M.S. Nabel, J. The study concludes that collectively we can emit no more than the cumulative budget cannot change substantially. If Rogelj, C.M. Chen, K. Markmann, we relax on the emissions coming from one country, D.H. Gutzmann, M. Meinshausen, about 1 600 Gt CO e over the period 1990–2100. We have already published in Environmental 2 another country needs to reduce its emissions to Modelling and Software Issue 26 emitted a significant portion of this global carbon budget in the last compensate. 7 6 From The Emissions Gap Report 20 years, leaving us with about 870 Gt CO2e from 2009–2100. After The remaining carbon budget is a scarce resource, of 2010, by the United Nations Environmental Programme that we need to approach no net emissions. that needs to be divided fairly between countries. (UNEP) Issues that come into the debate about how to do this If we divide this total budget up per year, globally we can emit include: • responsibility for historical emissions • state on average 9.5 Gt CO2e per year for the 91 years from 2009. This is of economic development and the right to be able to about 20% of our current annual global emissions. If we continue develop to a certain level • size of population and per our current global 47 Gt CO e emissions per year7, we will use up our capita emissions • financial, technological and other 2 capacity to reduce emissions. These issues are the remaining budget by about 2030. subject of political negotiations between countries. This cube shows how much space a tonne of CO2 takes up at sea level pressure. So-called “developed” countries that have been FAST FACTS: (www.energyrace.com/commentary/what_does_a_ton_of_co2_look_like/, accessed 16/9/2011) industrialised for longer have historically been MEASURING EMISSIONS emitting the greenhouse gases that have built up to An amount of greenhouse gases is measured in tonnes: today’s concentrations in the atmosphere. Developing • 1 megatonne (Mt) = 1 000 000 tonnes countries motivate that they should still be allowed to • 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 1 000 000 000 tonnes emit to continue their economic development, at least up to a certain threshold. There is also debate about The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million (ppm): of every million molecules in the air, how many whether there should be convergence in terms of a are CO2e molecules. The more tonnes of emissions we add, the higher the global per capita carbon allowance, where everyone concentration becomes. This is like dissolving more and more spoonfuls of ends up with the same per capita allowance; or sugar in a cup of tea.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020
    Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020 Table of contents Table of contents 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Context 3 About this report 4 Key issues in setting SBTs 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Understand the business case for science-based targets 12 3. Science-based target setting methods 18 3.1 Available methods and their applicability to different sectors 18 3.2 Recommendations on choosing an SBT method 25 3.3 Pros and cons of different types of targets 25 4. Set a science-based target: key considerations for all emissions scopes 29 4.1 Cross-cutting considerations 29 5. Set a science-based target: scope 1 and 2 sources 33 5.1 General considerations 33 6. Set a science-based target: scope 3 sources 36 6.1 Conduct a scope 3 Inventory 37 6.2 Identify which scope 3 categories should be included in the target boundary 40 6.3 Determine whether to set a single target or multiple targets 42 6.4 Identify an appropriate type of target 44 7. Building internal support for science-based targets 47 7.1 Get all levels of the company on board 47 7.2 Address challenges and push-back 49 8. Communicating and tracking progress 51 8.1 Publicly communicating SBTs and performance progress 51 8.2 Recalculating targets 56 Key terms 57 List of abbreviations 59 References 60 Acknowledgments 63 About the partner organizations in the Science Based Targets initiative 64 Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 -2- Executive summary Key findings ● Companies can play their part in combating climate change by setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with reduction pathways for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Manchester's Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-Only
    A Review of Manchester’s Carbon Budgets for Direct / Energy-only CO2 Emissions Client: Manchester Climate Change Agency Document Reference: MCCA DIRECT Version: V.5.3 FINAL Date: February 2019 Prepared by: Dr Christopher Jones NB: All views contained with this report are attributable solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the wider Tyndall Centre. 1 Introduction In June 2018 the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester was commissioned by Manchester Climate Change Agency to advise on science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester. This led to the development of the Agency’s ‘Playing our Full Part’ proposal (http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2018) and the formal adoption of science-based carbon reduction targets for Manchester’s direct1 /energy-only CO2 emissions by Manchester City Council, in November 2018. In November 2019 the Tyndall Centre was commissioned by the Agency to review the city’s climate change targets and recommend revised targets, as required. The review covers four areas of activity: Direct / energy-only CO2 emissions Indirect / consumption-based CO2 emissions CO2 emissions from flights from Manchester Airport Target-setting and reporting methodology for organisations and sectors The full brief is available from http://www.manchesterclimate.com/targets-2020. This report covers the review of direct /energy-only aspect of the brief in Part 1. Part 2 of this report considers a proposal for a 2030 zero carbon target. 1 This definition of ‘direct’ refers to fuel use (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2) within the local authority geographic area.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Land Use – Measuring Economic Potential
    Dominic Moran and Kimberly Pratt CHAPTER XI Greenhouse gas mitigation in land use – measuring economic potential INTRODUCTION As noted in other sections the global technical mitigation potential of agriculture, excluding fossil fuel, offsets from biomass is around 5.5–6 Gt CO2eq/year. This can be delivered through a range of technically effective measures that can be deployed in a variety of farm and land-use systems. These measures can be deployed at varying cost, including a range of ancillary environmental and social costs and benefits that need to be taken into account when moving to some consideration of the socio-economic potential of mitigation pathways. This chapter will explore the distinction between the technical and economic potential as applied more generally to land-use mitigation measures. Specifically, the chapter considers how issues of efficiency and equity are important corollaries to the effectiveness of grassland mitigation. The consideration of efficiency is made with reference to a carbon (C) price, which provides a benchmark cost for comparing mitigation options on a cost per tonne basis. The equity dimension then addresses the distributional impacts arising if efficient measures are adopted across different income groups. We demonstrate these points with the example of biochar, a soils additive that is widely considered to offer a low-cost mitigation potential applicable in a wide variety of high- and low-income farm and land use systems. This example is used to illustrate the data requirements for developing a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve, which is essential for judging the relative effectiveness and efficient of mitigation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Emissions Pathways to the Europe We Want
    O NET ZERO BY 2050: FROM WHETHER TO HOW ZERO EMISSIONS PATHWAYS TO THE EUROPE WE WANT SEPTEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to the following organisations for their expertise and insight. CONTENTS Model testers - the following organisations supported the analytical team in testing the model, which is itself derived from the ClimateWorks Foundation’s Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI): 4 FOREWORD 6 METHODOLOGY & SCENARIOS OVERVIEW 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18 INTRODUCTION 20 1. REACHING NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 IS FEASIBLE but requires robust action across all sectors, widening the range of low-carbon options used for the transition Agora-Energiewende, Climate Strategy, The Coalition for Energy Savings, Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK, Grantham Research Institute - 30 2. NET-ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2050 London School of Economics, Iberdrola, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy REQUIRES RAISING THE 2030 AMBITION LEVEL (BEIS), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office. to leverage the no regrets options and Members of these organisations tested the model during the summer of 2018 and explored a variety of decarbonisation pathways. These set Europe on the right trajectory scenarios have informed our conclusions but were not used directly. Other organisations were consulted on sector specific discussions:
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Science-Based Target Setting
    Foundations of Science-based Target Setting Version 1.0 April 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4 1.1 Outline ........................................................................................................................4 2. Background ................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Target-setting methods ................................................................................................6 GHG budgets ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Emissions scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 7 Allocation approach .............................................................................................................................. 8 Constructing SBTi methods ................................................................................................................... 8 Box 1. Understanding scenarios ..............................................................................................9 Box 2. Determining useful GHG budgets ............................................................................... 11 3. Methods and scenarios the SBTi currently endorses .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific and International Context for the Fifth Carbon Budget
    The scientific and international context for the fifth carbon budget October 2015 Acknowledgements The Committee would like to thank: The team that prepared the analysis for this report: This was led by Matthew Bell, Adrian Gault and Mike Thompson and included Owen Bellamy, Ewa Kmietowicz, Amy McQueen, Dean Pearson and Stephen Smith. Other members of the Secretariat who contributed to this report: Jo Barrett and David Joffe. A number of organisations and individuals for their significant support: Climate Action Tracker, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the AVOID 2 consortium, the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, Matthew England and Jules Kajtar (University of New South Wales), Louise Jeffery (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), Carman Mak (Imperial College London), Alex Luta and Damien Morris (Sandbag), Martin Parry (Adaptation Sub-Committee, Joeri Rogelj (IIASA) and David Vaughan (British Antarctic Survey). __________________________________________________________________ 1 Contents The Committee 3-5 ________________________________________________________________________________ Executive summary 6-10 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 1: The science of climate change 11-26 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 2: International action to limit climate change 27-49 ________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 3: The EU and UK share of international action 50-68
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon City Budget” Or “Climate-Proofed Municipal Budgets”?
    Briefing / April 2020 “Carbon City budget” or “Climate-proofed municipal budgets”? What’s the difference, and how to implement them in my city. “We cannot set the right priorities with the wrong compass” Carbon budget”, “Climate-proofed municipal budgets”, “science-based targets”” are some of many different approaches offered to cities when they want to align their short, medium and long-term policies with the Paris Agreement. These instruments, measuring and monitoring tools, can be complementary. They, in any case, need to be adapted to the local context and to the local available data. Science-based targets can support cities in defining their strategy by identifying and leveraging on their own strengths; on the most impactful actions. 1. CARBON BUDGETS Carbon budgets emerged as a scientific concept from the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report on Climate Change1 and relate to the “cumulative amount of CO2 emissions permitted over a period of time to keep within a 2 certain temperature threshold” . Much like a financial budget, a carbon sets out how much CO2 can be ‘spent’ over a fixed time period; and once it’s gone, it cannot be replenished (unless new technologies are rolled out at scale to extract CO2 from the atmosphere). This framing is used to inform local and national climate strategies using the 1.5°C or 2°C temperature targets as enshrined in international goals. Figure 1 tracks different interpretations given by different institutions. 1 Anderson et al. (2017). ‘Carbon budget and pathways to a fossil-free future in Järfälla Municipality’ 2 https://www.carbontracker.org/carbon-budgets-explained/ Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Plastic Wave
    Breaking the Plastic Wave A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATHWAYS TOWARDS STOPPING OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION Thought Partners SUMMARY REPORT X About The Pew Charitable Trusts Table of contents The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life. As the United States and the world have evolved, we PREFACE 4 have remained dedicated to our founders’ emphasis on EXPERT PANEL 5 innovation. Today, Pew is a global research and public policy organization, still operated as an independent, nonpartisan, ENDORSEMENTS 6 nonprofit organization dedicated to serving the public. TIME FOR A PLASTIC PARADIGM SHIFT 8 Informed by the founders’ interest in research, practical knowledge, and public service, our portfolio includes public FAST FACTS: ‘BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE’ IN NUMBERS 12 opinion research; arts and culture; civic initiatives; and environmental, health, state, and consumer policy initiatives. ABOUT THIS PROJECT 14 Our goal is to make a difference for the public. That means TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS 16 working on a few key issues, with an emphasis on projects 1. Business-as-Usual will result in nearly three times more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040 17 that can produce consequential outcomes, foster new ideas, attract partners, avoid partisanship or wishful thinking, and 2. Current commitments are inadequate for the scale of the challenge 19 achieve measurable results that serve the public interest. 3. Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution 20 Learn more at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the CO2 Budget to Meet the Paris Climate Targets
    Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 2020 CHAPTER 2 Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris 2 climate targets Contents 2 Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets ................................ 5 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 The CO2 budget as the key metric for climate protection ............................................ 6 2.2.1 Basis for and uses of the CO2 budget ......................................................... 7 2.2.2 Factors in the calculation of the CO2 budget ............................................. 11 2.2.3 Size of the global CO2 budget ................................................................. 13 2.2.4 The CO2 budget for Europe, Germany and national sectors ........................ 15 2.3 Core principles and steps for ensuring compliance with a national CO2 budget ..............23 2.3.1 Switch rather than exit: renewable energies instead of fossil fuels ................ 24 2.3.2 No return to nuclear energy ................................................................... 27 2.3.3 The role of negative emis sions – limiting the use of CCS in Germany ............ 28 2.3.4 The need for regulation of the use of stemwood for energy ........................ 33 2.4 Governance: the key to remaining within the CO2 budget .......................................... 37 2.4.1 EU climate governance .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Are We Ready? November 2018
    Governing large-scale carbon dioxide removal: are we ready? November 2018 Carnegie an initiative of Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative This report was funded by the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2) which is an initiative of the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. The report was prepared in partnership between Climate Analytics and C2G2. Any views expressed in this report are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect any official positions nor those of other contributors or reviewers. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for education or non-profit purposes without special permission from C2G2, provided acknowledgement or proper referencing of the source is made. Suggested citation: Mace, M.J., Fyson, C.L., Schaeffer, M., Hare, W.L. (2018). Governing large-scale carbon dioxide removal: are we ready? Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2), November 2018, New York, US. Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the C2G2 team for coordinating, contributing to, and supporting this paper. The authors would also like to thank the following for very helpful conversations and insights that improved this paper: Katia Simeonova, Sabine Fuss, Anke Herold, Feja Lesniewska, Florian Claeys, Christine Dragisic, Ian Fry, Ursula Fuentes Hutfilter, Eduardo Reyes, Kuki Soejachmoen and Maria Cristina Urrutia Villanueva. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to a number of anonymous reviewers for their much-appreciated comments
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Emissions”: a Challenge for Climate Policy WP S Oliver Geden and Stefan Schäfer
    Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Comments “Negative Emissions”: A Challenge for Climate Policy WP S Oliver Geden and Stefan Schäfer The objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that these targets cannot be reached through conventional mitigation measures alone. The IPCC assumes that in addition to reducing emissions, technologies for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will become indispensable. The preferred technology option combines increased use of bio-energy with the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. To date, climate policy has largely ignored the necessity for “negative emissions” to achieve the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement. Discussions on the underlying model assumptions, potentials and risks of imaginable technological options, as well as their political implications, are only just beginning. It would be wise for the EU and Germany to proactively shape this debate and increase funding for research and devel- opment. If the Paris climate objectives are upheld, climate policy pioneers will soon be facing calls to set emission-reduction targets of much more than 100 percent – a notion that today seems paradoxical, but may soon become reality. Global climate stabilisation targets, such be consumed by the mid-2030s, the budget as restricting global warming to 1.5 or 2 for 1.5 °C as soon as the early 2020s. Since degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial, completely decarbonising the world econo- are usually translated into carbon budgets my within a time frame of only 5 to 20 years that show the total amount of emissions is unrealistic, climate models build on the that would still be allowed for meeting the concept of negative emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consolidated European Synthesis of CH4 and N2O Emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2017
    Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2307–2362, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2307-2021 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2017 Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu1, Chunjing Qiu2, Philippe Ciais2, Rona L. Thompson3, Philippe Peylin2, Matthew J. McGrath2, Efisio Solazzo4, Greet Janssens-Maenhout4, Francesco N. Tubiello5, Peter Bergamaschi4, Dominik Brunner6, Glen P. Peters7, Lena Höglund-Isaksson8, Pierre Regnier9, Ronny Lauerwald9,23, David Bastviken10, Aki Tsuruta11, Wilfried Winiwarter8,12, Prabir K. Patra13, Matthias Kuhnert14, Gabriel D. Oreggioni4, Monica Crippa4, Marielle Saunois2, Lucia Perugini15, Tiina Markkanen11, Tuula Aalto11, Christine D. Groot Zwaaftink3, Hanqin Tian16, Yuanzhi Yao16, Chris Wilson17,18, Giulia Conchedda5, Dirk Günther19, Adrian Leip4, Pete Smith14, Jean-Matthieu Haussaire6, Antti Leppänen20, Alistair J. Manning21, Joe McNorton22, Patrick Brockmann2, and Albertus Johannes Dolman1 1Department of Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 2Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 3Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller, Norway 4European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 21027 Ispra (Va), Italy 5Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division, 00153 Rome, Italy 6Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland 7CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway 8International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria 9Biogeochemistry and Modeling of the Earth System, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium 10Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden 11Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O.
    [Show full text]