Climate change mitigation

Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term global warming and its related effects.[2] Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).[3] Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks, e.g., through reforestation.[3] Mitigation policies can substantially reduce the risks associated with human-induced global warming.[4]

According to the IPCC's 2014 assessment report, "Mitigation is a public good; climate change is a case of the 'tragedy of the commons'. Effective climate change mitigation will not be achieved if each agent (individual, institution or country) acts independently in its own selfish interest (see International cooperation and Emissions trading), suggesting the need for collective action. Some adaptation actions, on the other hand, have characteristics of a private good as benefits of actions may accrue more directly to the individuals, regions, or countries that undertake them, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, financing such adaptive activities remains an issue, particularly for poor individuals and countries."[5]

Examples of mitigation include reducing energy demand by increasing energy efficiency, phasing out fossil fuels by switching to low-carbon energy sources, and removing carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere.[3][6] Another approach to climate change mitigation is climate engineering.[7] Climate change mitigation measures can be written down in national environmental policy documents of countries (for instance the nationally determined contributions (NDC) under the Paris agreement).

Almost all countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[8] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.[9] Scientific analysis can provide information on the impacts of climate change, but deciding which impacts are dangerous requires value judgments.[10]

In 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[11] With the Paris Agreement of 2015 this was confirmed, but was revised with a new target laying down "parties will do the best" to achieve warming below 1.5 °C.[12] The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions does not appear to be consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C.[13][14]. [15] Other mitigation policies have been proposed, some of which are more modest[16][17] than the 2 °C limit. In 2019, after 2 years of research, scientists from Australia, and Germany presented the "One Earth Climate Model" showing how temperature increase can be limited to 1.5 °C for 1.7 trillion dollars a year.[18][19]

Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization

Stabilizing CO2 emissions at their present level would not stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere.[20]
Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated.[20]

One of the issues often discussed in relation to climate change mitigation is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has the ultimate objective of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference with the climate system. As is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, this requires that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.[21]

There are a number of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These include carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO
), methane (CH
), nitrous oxide (N
), and a group of gases referred to as halocarbons. Another greenhouse gas, water vapor, has also risen as an indirect result of human activities.[22] The emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the atmospheric concentrations of these gases varies.[20] CO
is the most important of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases (see radiative forcing).[23]

There is a difference between stabilizing CO
emissions and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO
.[24] Stabilizing emissions of CO2 at current levels would not lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continuing to rise over the 21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite).

The reason for this is that human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it (see carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for a complete explanation).[20] This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub.[25] So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (analogous to the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.

According to some studies, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would require anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be reduced by 80% relative to the peak emissions level.[26] An 80% reduction in emissions would stabilize CO
concentrations for around a century, but even greater reductions would be required beyond this.[20][26] Other research has found that, after leaving room for emissions for food production for 9 billion people and to keep the global temperature rise below 2 °C, emissions from energy production and transport will have to peak almost immediately in the developed world and decline at ca. 10% per annum until zero emissions are reached around 2030.[27][28][29][30]

In 2018 an international team of scientist published research saying that the current mitigation policy in Paris Agreement is insufficient to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees. They say that even if all the current pledges will be accomplished there is a chance for a 4.5 degree temperature rise in decades. To prevent that, restoration of natural Carbon sinks, Carbon dioxide removal, changes in society and values will be necessary.[31]

In 2019 a report was published by United Nations saying that for limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees, the world will need to cut emissions by 2.7% each year from 2020 to 2030, and triple the climate targets. To limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degree the world will need to cut emissions by 7.6% each year from 2020 to 2030 and increase its climate commitments fivefold. Even if all of the pledges in Paris Agreement as they are in 2019, will be fulfilled the temperature will rise by 3.2 degrees in this century[32][33]. A report published in september 2019 before the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit says, that the full implementation of all pledges taken by international coalitions, countries, cities, regions and businesses (not only in paris agreement) will be sufficient to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees but not to 1.5 degrees[34]. Adittional pledges were done in September climate summit[35] and in December[36]. All the information about the pledges is streamed to the Global Climate Action Portal - Nazca. The scientific community is checking the fullfilment[37].


Projections of future greenhouse gas emissions are highly uncertain.[38] In the absence of policies to mitigate climate change, GHG emissions could rise significantly over the 21st century.[39]

Numerous assessments have considered how atmospheric GHG concentrations could be stabilized.[40] The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner global GHG emissions must peak and decline.[41] GHG concentrations are unlikely to stabilize this century without major policy changes.[39]

Methods and means

We cannot be radical enough in dealing with those issues that face us at the moment. The question is what is practically possible.

David Attenborough, in testimony to the UK House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.[43]

Assessments often suggest that GHG emissions can be reduced using a portfolio of low-carbon technologies.[45] At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reducing energy waste and switching to low-carbon power sources of energy. As the cost of reducing GHG emissions in the electricity sector appears to be lower than in other sectors, such as in the transportation sector, the electricity sector may deliver the largest proportional carbon reductions under an economically efficient climate policy.[46]

Economic tools can be useful in designing climate change mitigation policies.[5] Abolishing fossil fuel subsidies is very important but must be done carefully to avoid making poor people poorer.[47]

Other frequently discussed means include efficiency, public transport, increasing fuel economy in automobiles (which includes the use of electric hybrids), charging plug-in hybrids and electric cars by low-carbon electricity, making individual changes,[48] and changing business practices. Replacing gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric means their emissions would be displaced away from street level, where they cause illness. Increased use of electricity could be met through low-carbon sources such as renewables and nuclear.

A range of energy technologies may contribute to climate change mitigation.[49] These include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as biomass, hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, geothermal power, ocean energy, and; the use of carbon sinks, and carbon capture and storage.

Another consideration is how future socioeconomic development proceeds. Development choices (or "shared socioeconomic pathways") can lead to differences in GHG emissions.[50] Political and social attitudes may affect how easy or difficult it is to implement effective policies to reduce emissions.[51]

Fossil fuel phase-out

As most greenhouse gas emissions are due to fossil fuels[52] rapidly phasing out fossil fuels is critical.[53]

Natural gas emits far fewer greenhouse gases (i.e. CO
and methane—CH4) than coal when burned at power plants, but over the timescale available to prevent warming over 2 degrees this benefit may be completely negated by methane leakage at gas drilling fields and other points in the supply chain.[54]

Alternative energy sources

Renewable energy

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, plant growth, and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:[57]

Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

Climate change concerns and the need to reduce carbon emissions are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.[58] Low-carbon renewable energy replaces conventional fossil fuels in three main areas: power generation, hot water/ space heating, and transport fuels.[59]

Renewable energy use has grown much faster than anyone anticipated.[60] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there are few fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies to meet most of total global energy demand.[61] At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20% of energy supply.

Public policy and political leadership helps to "level the playing field" and drive the wider acceptance of renewable energy technologies.[62] The incentive to use 100% renewable energy has been created by global warming and other ecological as well as economic concerns.[60] Globally, there are an estimated 3 million direct jobs in renewable energy industries, with about half of them in the biofuels industry.[63]

Some countries, with favorable geography, geology, and weather well suited to an economical exploitation of renewable energy sources, already get most of their electricity from renewables.[64] Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, with wind power providing a significant share of electricity in some regional areas. Solar water heating makes an important and growing contribution in many countries, most notably in China, which now has 70 percent of the global total (180 GWth). Worldwide, total installed solar water heating systems meet a portion of the water heating needs of over 70 million households. The use of biomass for heating continues to grow as well. Direct geothermal heating is also growing rapidly.[64]

Renewable biofuels are starting to be used in aviation.

Some of the world's largest solar power stations: Ivanpah (CSP) and Topaz (PV), both in California

Hydrogen (sometimes as ammonia) may be used for heating, seasonal energy storage and long-distance transport.

Nuclear power

As of 2019 the cost of extending nuclear power plant lifetimes is competitive with other electricity generation technologies, including new solar and wind projects.[65] Many new plants are being built in China. Public opinion about nuclear power varies widely between countries.[66][67] Nuclear fusion research, in the form of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is underway but fusion is not likely to be commercially widespread before 2050.[68]

Heat pump

A heat pump is a device that provides heat energy from a source of heat to a destination called a "heat sink". Heat pumps are designed to move thermal energy opposite to the direction of spontaneous heat flow by absorbing heat from a cold space and releasing it to a warmer one. A heat pump uses some amount of external power to accomplish the work of transferring energy from the heat source to the heat sink.

While air conditioners and freezers are familiar examples of heat pumps, the term "heat pump" is more general and applies to many HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) devices used for space heating or space cooling. When a heat pump is used for heating, it employs the same basic refrigeration-type cycle used by an air conditioner or a refrigerator, but in the opposite direction—releasing heat into the conditioned space rather than the surrounding environment. In this use, heat pumps generally draw heat from the cooler external air or from the ground.[69] In heating mode, heat pumps are three to four times more efficient in their use of electric power than simple electrical resistance heaters.

It has been concluded that heat pumps are the single technology that could reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of households better than every other technology that is available on the market. With a market share of 30% and (potentially) clean electricity, heat pumps could reduce global CO
emissions by 8% annually.[70] Using ground source heat pumps could reduce around 60% of the primary energy demand and 90% of CO
emissions in Europe in 2050 and make handling high shares of renewable energy easier.[71] Using surplus renewable energy in heat pumps is regarded as the most effective household means to reduce global warming and fossil fuel depletion.[72]

With significant amounts of fossil fuel used in electricity production, demands on the electrical grid also generate greenhouse gases. Without a high share of low-carbon electricity, a domestic heat pump will produce more carbon emissions than using natural gas.[73]

Carbon neutral and negative fuels

Fossil fuel may be phased-out with carbon-neutral and carbon-negative pipeline and transportation fuels created with power to gas and gas to liquids technologies.[74][75][76][77][78] Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel flue gas can be used to produce plastic lumber allowing carbon negative reforestation.[79]

Demand side management

Lifestyle and behavior

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report emphasises that behaviour, lifestyle, and cultural change have a high mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.[80]:20 In general, higher consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact. Several scientific studies have shown that when relatively rich people wish to reduce their carbon footprint, there are a few key actions they can take such as living car-free (2.4 tonnes CO2), avoiding one round-trip transatlantic flight (1.6 tonnes) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tonnes).[81]

These appear to differ significantly from the popular advice for “greening” one's lifestyle, which seem to fall mostly into the “low-impact” category: Replacing a typical car with a hybrid (0.52 tonnes); Washing clothes in cold water (0.25 tonnes); Recycling (0.21 tonnes); Upgrading light bulbs (0.10 tonnes); etc. The researchers found that public discourse on reducing one's carbon footprint overwhelmingly focuses on low-impact behaviors, and that mention of the high-impact behaviors is almost non-existent in the mainstream media, government publications, K-12 school textbooks, etc.[81][82][83]

The researchers added that “Our recommended high-impact actions are more effective than many more commonly discussed options (e.g. eating a plant-based diet saves eight times more emissions than upgrading light bulbs).”[81][82][83]

Dietary change

Overall, food accounts for the largest share of consumption-based GHG emissions with nearly 20% of the global carbon footprint, followed by housing, mobility, services, manufactured products, and construction. Food and services are more significant in poor countries, while mobility and manufactured goods are more significant in rich countries.[84]:327 The widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet could cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 63% by 2050.[85] China introduced new dietary guidelines in 2016 which aim to cut meat consumption by 50% and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030.[86] A 2016 study concluded that taxes on meat and milk could simultaneously result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and healthier diets. The study analyzed surcharges of 40% on beef and 20% on milk and suggests that an optimum plan would reduce emissions by 1 billion tonnes per year.[87][88]

Energy efficiency and conservation

Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called "energy efficiency", is the goal of efforts to reduce the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating a home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing LED lighting, or natural skylight windows reduces the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using traditional incandescent light bulbs. LED lamps use only about 10% of the energy an incandescent lamp requires.

Energy efficiency has proved to be a cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption.[89]

Energy conservation is broader than energy efficiency in that it encompasses using less energy to achieve a lesser energy demanding service, for example through behavioral change, as well as encompassing energy efficiency. Examples of conservation without efficiency improvements would be heating a room less in winter or driving less. As with other definitions, the boundary between efficient energy use and energy conservation can be fuzzy, but both are important in environmental and economic terms. This is especially the case when actions are directed at the saving of fossil fuels.[90]

Reducing energy use is seen as a key solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, improved energy efficiency in buildings, industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases.[91]


Fuel switching on the demand side refers to changing the type of fuel used to satisfy a need for an energy service. To meet deep decarbonization goals, like the net zero goal being discussed in the European Union, many primary energy changes are needed.[92][93] Energy efficiency alone may not be sufficient to meet these goals, switching fuels used on the demand side will help lower carbon emissions.[94][95] Progressively coal, oil and eventually natural gas for space and water heating in buildings will need to be reduced. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 45 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning coal.[96] There are various ways in which this could happen, and different strategies will likely make sense in different locations. While the system efficiency of a gas furnace may be higher than the combination of natural gas power plant and electric heat, the combination of the same natural gas power plant and an electric heat pump has lower emissions per unit of heat delivered in all but the coldest climates. This is possible because of the very efficient coefficient of performance of heat pumps.

At the beginning of this century 70% of all electricity was generated by fossil fuels, and as carbon free sources eventually make up half of the generation mix, replacing gas or oil furnaces and water heaters with electric ones will have a climate benefit. In areas like Norway, Brazil, and Quebec that have abundant hydroelectricity, electric heat and hot water are common.

The economics of switching the demand side from fossil fuels to electricity for heating, will depend on the price of fuels vs electricity and the relative prices of the equipment. Electrifying heating loads may also provide a flexible resource that can participate in demand response. Since thermostatically controlled loads have inherent energy storage, electrification of heating could provide a valuable resource to integrate variable renewable resources into the grid.

Alternatives to electrification, include decarbonizing pipeline gas through power to gas, biogas, or other carbon-neutral fuels.

Smart grid

Expanding intermittent electrical sources such as wind power, creates a growing problem balancing grid fluctuations. Some of the plans include building pumped storage or continental super grids costing billions of dollars. However instead of building for more power, there are a variety of ways to affect the size and timing of electricity demand on the consumer side. Designing for reduced demands on a smaller power grid is more efficient and economic than having extra generation and transmission for intermittency, power failures and peak demands. Having these abilities is one of the chief aims of a smart grid.

Time of use metering is a common way to motivate electricity users to reduce their peak load consumption. For instance, running dishwashers and laundry at night after the peak has passed, reduces electricity costs.

Dynamic demand plans have devices passively shut off when stress is sensed on the electrical grid. This method may work very well with thermostats, when power on the grid sags a small amount, a low power temperature setting is automatically selected reducing the load on the grid. For instance millions of refrigerators reduce their consumption when clouds pass over solar installations. Consumers would need to have a smart meter in order for the utility to calculate credits.

Demand response devices could receive all sorts of messages from the grid. The message could be a request to use a low power mode similar to dynamic demand, to shut off entirely during a sudden failure on the grid, or notifications about the current and expected prices for power. This would allow electric cars to recharge at the least expensive rates independent of the time of day. Vehicle-to-grid uses a car's battery or fuel cell to supply the grid temporarily.

Carbon sinks and removal

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period, such as a growing forest. Carbon dioxide removal on the other hand is a permanent removal of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Examples are direct air capture, enhanced weathering technologies such as storing it in geologic formations underground and biochar. These processes are sometimes considered as variations of sinks or mitigation,[97][98] and sometimes as geoengineering.[99] In combination with other mitigation measures, carbon sinks and removal are crucial for meeting the 2 degree target.[100][101][102]

The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE-CRC) notes that one third of humankind's annual emissions of CO
are absorbed by the oceans.[103] However, this also leads to ocean acidification, which may harm marine life.[104] Acidification lowers the level of carbonate ions available for calcifying organisms to form their shells. These organisms include plankton species that contribute to the foundation of the Southern Ocean food web. However acidification may impact on a broad range of other physiological and ecological processes, such as fish respiration, larval development and changes in the solubility of both nutrients and toxins.[105]

Reforestation, avoided deforestation and afforestation

According to a research by Tom Crowther et al, there is still enough room to plant an additional 1.2 trillion trees. This amount of trees would cancel out the last 10 years of CO2 emissions and sequester 160 billion tons of carbon.[106][107][108][109]This vision is being executed by the Trillion Tree Campaign. According to research conducted at ETH Zurich, restoring all degraded forests all over the world could capture about 205 billion tons of carbon in total (which is about 2/3rd of all carbon emissions, bringing global warming down to below 2 °C).[110][111]

Almost 20 percent (8 GtCO2/year) of total greenhouse-gas emissions were from deforestation in 2007. It is estimated that avoided deforestation reduces CO2 emissions at a rate of 1 tonne of CO2 per $1–5 in opportunity costs from lost agriculture. Reforestation could save at least another 1 GtCO2/year, at an estimated cost of $5–15/tCO2.[112] Afforestation is where there was previously no forest – such plantations are estimated to have to be prohibitively massive to reduce emissions by itself.[113]

Transferring rights over land from public domain to its indigenous inhabitants, who have had a stake for millennia in preserving the forests that they depend on, is argued to be a cost effective strategy to conserve forests.[114] This includes the protection of such rights entitled in existing laws, such as India's Forest Rights Act.[114] The transferring of such rights in China, perhaps the largest land reform in modern times, has been argued to have increased forest cover.[115][116] Granting title of the land has shown to have two or three times less clearing than even state run parks, notably in the Brazilian Amazon.[117][118] Excluding humans and even evicting inhabitants from protected areas (called "fortress conservation") often lead to more exploitation of the land as the native inhabitants then turn to work for extractive companies to survive.[115]

With increased intensive agriculture and urbanization, there is an increase in the amount of abandoned farmland. By some estimates, for every half a hectare of original old-growth forest cut down, more than 20 hectares of new secondary forests are growing, even though they do not have the same biodiversity as the original forests and original forests store 60% more carbon than these new secondary forests.[119][120] According to a study in Science, promoting regrowth on abandoned farmland could offset years of carbon emissions.[121] Research by the university ETH Zurich estimates that Russia, the United States and Canada have the most land suitable for reforestation.[122][123]

Avoided desertification

Restoring grasslands store CO2 from the air into plant material. Grazing livestock, usually not left to wander, would eat the grass and would minimize any grass growth. However, grass left alone would eventually grow to cover its own growing buds, preventing them from photosynthesizing and the dying plant would stay in place.[125] A method proposed to restore grasslands uses fences with many small paddocks and moving herds from one paddock to another after a day a two in order to mimick natural grazers and allowing the grass to grow optimally.[125][126][127] Additionally, when part of leaf matter is consumed by a herding animal, a corresponding amount of root matter is sloughed off too as it would not be able to sustain the previous amount of root matter and while most of the lost root matter would rot and enter the atmosphere, part of the carbon is sequestered into the soil.[125] It is estimated that increasing the carbon content of the soils in the world's 3.5 billion hectares of agricultural grassland by 1% would offset nearly 12 years of CO2 emissions.[125] Allan Savory, as part of holistic management, claims that while large herds are often blamed for desertification, prehistoric lands supported large or larger herds and areas where herds were removed in the United States are still desertifying.[124]

Additionally, the global warming induced thawing of the permafrost, which stores about two times the amount of the carbon currently released in the atmosphere,[128] releases the potent greenhouse gas, methane, in a positive feedback cycle that is feared to lead to a tipping point called runaway climate change. A method proposed to prevent such a scenario is to bring back large herbivores such as seen in Pleistocene Park, where their trampling naturally keep the ground cooler by eliminating shrubs and keeping the ground exposed to the cold air.[129]

Carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The IPCC estimates that the costs of halting global warming would double without CCS.[130] The International Energy Agency says CCS is "the most important single new technology for CO2 savings" in power generation and industry.[131] Norway's Sleipner gas field, beginning in 1996, stores almost a million tons of CO2 a year to avoid penalties in producing natural gas with unusually high levels of CO2.[132][131] According to a Sierra Club analysis, the US Kemper Project, which was due to be online in 2017, is the most expensive power plant ever built for the watts of electricity it will generate.[133]

Enhanced weathering

Enhanced weathering is the removal of carbon from the air into the earth, enhancing the natural carbon cycle where carbon is mineralized into rock. The CarbFix project couples with carbon capture and storage in power plants to turn carbon dioxide into stone in a relatively short period of two years. While this project used basalt rocks, olivine has also shown promise.[130]


IPCC (2007) concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven.[134] It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.

Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."[135] They evaluated a range of options to try to give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options work and could they be carried out with a reasonable cost. They also sought to encourage discussion of a third question — what adverse side effects might there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation, increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) and screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued "Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks."[135] In July 2011 a report by the United States Government Accountability Office on geoengineering found that "[c]limate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change."[136]

Carbon dioxide removal

Carbon dioxide removal has been proposed as a method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled organisms (see biosequestration). Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about the long-term effects of some of these processes.[137]

It is notable that the availability of cheap energy and appropriate sites for geological storage of carbon may make carbon dioxide air capture viable commercially. It is, however, generally expected that carbon dioxide air capture may be uneconomic when compared to carbon capture and storage from major sources — in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations, refineries, etc. As in the case of the US Kemper Project with carbon capture, costs of energy produced will grow significantly. However, captured CO2 can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.[138] CO2 can also be used in commercial greenhouses, giving an opportunity to kick-start the technology.

Solar radiation management

The main purpose of solar radiation management is to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in climate engineering projects.[139]

Non-CO2 greenhouse gases

CO2 is not the only GHG relevant to mitigation,[140] and governments have acted to regulate the emissions of other GHGs emitted by human activities (anthropogenic GHGs). The emissions caps agreed to by most developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol regulate the emissions of almost all the anthropogenic GHGs.[141] These gases are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), the hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of the different anthropogenic GHGs requires an understanding of their different physical properties. Stabilization depends both on how quickly GHGs are added to the atmosphere and how fast they are removed. The rate of removal is measured by the atmospheric lifetime of the GHG in question (see the main GHG article for a list). Here, the lifetime is defined as the time required for a given perturbation of the GHG in the atmosphere to be reduced to 37% of its initial amount.[20] Methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years, while N2O's lifetime is about 110 years. For methane, a reduction of about 30% below current emission levels would lead to a stabilization in its atmospheric concentration, while for N2O, an emissions reduction of more than 50% would be required.[20]

Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the amount of heat it can trap, especially in the short term.[142] Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide, indicating there may be no net benefit in using gas as a fuel source.[143][144] Reducing the amount of waste methane produced in the first place and moving away from use of gas as a fuel source will have a greater beneficial impact, as might other approaches to productive use of otherwise-wasted methane. In terms of prevention, vaccines are being developed in Australia to reduce the significant global warming contributions from methane released by livestock via flatulence and eructation.[145]

Another physical property of the anthropogenic GHGs relevant to mitigation is the different abilities of the gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared radiation). Some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others, e.g., SF6 is 22,200 times more effective a GHG than CO2 on a per-kilogram basis.[146] A measure for this physical property is the global warming potential (GWP), and is used in the Kyoto Protocol.[147]

Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has probably benefited climate change mitigation efforts.[148] The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that has successfully reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances (for example, CFCs), which are also greenhouse gases.

By sector


Transportation emissions account for roughly 1/4 of emissions worldwide and are even more important in terms of impact in developed nations especially in North America and Australia. Many citizens of countries like the United States and Canada who drive personal cars often, see well over half of their climate change impact stemming from the emissions produced from their cars. Modes of mass transportation such as bus, light rail (metro, subway, etc.), and long-distance rail are far and away the most energy-efficient means of motorized transportation for passengers, able to use in many cases over twenty times less energy per person-distance than a personal automobile. Modern energy-efficient technologies, such as electric vehicles and carbon-neutral synthetic gasoline and jet fuel may also help to reduce the consumption of petroleum, land use changes and emissions of carbon dioxide. Utilizing rail transport, especially electric rail, over the far less efficient air transport and truck transport significantly reduces emissions.[150][151] With the use of electric trains and cars in transportation there is the opportunity to run them with low-carbon power, producing far fewer emissions.

Urban planning

Effective urban planning to reduce sprawl aims to decrease Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), lowering emissions from transportation. Personal cars are extremely inefficient at moving passengers, while public transport and bicycles are many times more efficient (as is the simplest form of human transportation, walking). All of these are encouraged by urban/community planning and are an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Inefficient land use development practices have increased infrastructure costs as well as the amount of energy needed for transportation, community services, and buildings.

At the same time, a growing number of citizens and government officials have begun advocating a smarter approach to land use planning. These smart growth practices include compact community development, multiple transportation choices, mixed land uses, and practices to conserve green space. These programs offer environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and they also serve to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.

Approaches such as New Urbanism and transit-oriented development seek to reduce distances travelled, especially by private vehicles, encourage public transit and make walking and cycling more attractive options. This is achieved through "medium-density", mixed-use planning and the concentration of housing within walking distance of town centers and transport nodes.

Smarter growth land use policies have both a direct and indirect effect on energy consuming behavior. For example, transportation energy usage, the number one user of petroleum fuels, could be significantly reduced through more compact and mixed use land development patterns, which in turn could be served by a greater variety of non-automotive based transportation choices.

Building design

Emissions from housing are substantial,[152] and government-supported energy efficiency programmes can make a difference.[153]

New buildings can be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques, using renewable heat sources. Existing buildings can be made more efficient through the use of insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, external window shades, and building orientation and siting. Renewable heat sources such as shallow geothermal and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy-efficient to heat, it is possible to design buildings that are more energy-efficient to cool by using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees.[154][155] This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning.


An agriculture that mitigates climate change is generally called Sustainable agriculture defined as an agriculture that "meet society’s food and textile needs in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"[156].

One mode of agriculture considered as relatively sustainable, is Regenerative agriculture[157] It includes several methods, the main of which are: conservation tillage, diversity, rotation and cover crops, minimizing physical disturbance, minimizing the usage of chemicals. It has other benefits like improving the state of the soil and consequently yields. Some of the big agricultural companies like General Mills and a lot of farms support it.[158]

In the United States, soils account for about half of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions while agriculture, forestry and other land use emits 24%.[159] Globally, livestock is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to FAO's report called "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options"[160]

The US EPA says soil management practices that can reduce the emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils include fertilizer usage, irrigation, and tillage. Manure management and rice cultivation also produce gaseous emissions.

Important mitigation options for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock (especially ruminants) include genetic selection[161][162] introduction of methanotrophic bacteria into the rumen,[163][164] diet modification and grazing management.[165][166][167] Other options include just using ruminant-free alternatives instead, such as milk substitutes and meat analogues. Non-ruminant livestock (e.g. poultry) generates far fewer emissions.[168]

Methods that enhance carbon sequestration in soil include no-till farming, residue mulching, cover cropping, and crop rotation, all of which are more widely used in organic farming than in conventional farming.[169][170] Because only 5% of US farmland currently uses no-till and residue mulching, there is a large potential for carbon sequestration.[171]

A 2015 study found that farming can deplete soil carbon and render soil incapable of supporting life; however, the study also showed that conservation farming can protect carbon in soils, and repair damage over time.[172] The farming practice of cover crops has been recognized as climate-smart agriculture.[173] Best management practices for European soils were described to be increase soil organic carbon: conversion of arable land to grassland, straw incorporation, reduced tillage, straw incorporation combined with reduced tillage, ley cropping system and cover crops.[174]

One of the most important projects to mitigate climate change with agriculture was launched in 2019 by the "Global EverGreening Alliance". The target is to sequester carbon from the atmosphere with Agroforestry. By 2050 the restored land should sequestrate 20 billion of carbon annually[175]

Societal controls

Another method being examined is to make carbon a new currency by introducing tradeable "personal carbon credits". The idea being it will encourage and motivate individuals to reduce their 'carbon footprint' by the way they live. Each citizen will receive a free annual quota of carbon that they can use to travel, buy food, and go about their business. It has been suggested that by using this concept it could actually solve two problems; pollution and poverty, old age pensioners will actually be better off because they fly less often, so they can cash in their quota at the end of the year to pay heating bills and so forth.


Various organizations promote human population planning as a means for mitigating global warming.[176] Proposed measures include improving access to family planning and reproductive health care and information, reducing natalistic politics, public education about the consequences of continued population growth, and improving access of women to education and economic opportunities.

According to a 2017 study published in Environmental Research Letters, having one less child would have a much more substantial effect on greenhouse gas emissions compared with for example living car free or eating a plant-based diet.[81] However this has been criticised: both as a category mistake for assigning descendants emissions to their ancestors[177] and for the very long timescale of reductions.[178]

Population control efforts are impeded by there being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such efforts.[179] Also, various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control. Population size has a vastly different per capita effect on global warming in different countries, since the per capita production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases varies greatly by country.[180]

Costs and benefits

Some consider cost–benefit analysis unsuitable for analysing climate change mitigation as a whole, but still useful for analysing the difference between a 1.5 °C target and 2 °C.[181]


One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policy makers can compare the marginal abatement costs of different methods to assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.[112] Mitigation costs will vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.[112]

Many economists estimate the cost of climate change mitigation at between 1% and 2% of GDP.[181] According to the One Earth Climate Model, a global investment of approximately $1.7 trillion per year would be needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C. The method used by the One Earth Climate Model does not resort to dangerous geo-engineering methods. Whereas this is a large sum, it is still far less than the subsidies governments currently provided to the ailing fossil fuel industry, estimated at more than $5 trillion per year by the International Monetary Fund.[182][183]


Yohe et al. (2007) assessed the literature on sustainability and climate change.[184] With high confidence, they suggested that up to the year 2050, an effort to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 550 ppm would benefit developing countries significantly. This was judged to be especially the case when combined with enhanced adaptation. By 2100, however, it was still judged likely that there would be significant effects of global warming. This was judged to be the case even with aggressive mitigation and significantly enhanced adaptive capacity.


One of the aspects of mitigation is how to share the costs and benefits of mitigation policies. In terms of the politics of mitigation, the UNFCCC's ultimate objective is to stabilize concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent "dangerous" climate change (Rogner et al., 2007).[185]

Rich people tend to emit more GHG than poor people.[186] Activities of the poor that involve emissions of GHGs are often associated with basic needs, such as cooking. For richer people, emissions tend to be associated with things such as eating beef, cars, frequent flying, and home heating.[187] The impacts of cutting emissions could therefore have different impacts on human welfare according to wealth.

Distributing emissions abatement costs

There have been different proposals on how to allocate responsibility for cutting emissions (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 103–105):[186]

  • Egalitarianism: this system interprets the problem as one where each person has equal rights to a global resource, i.e., polluting the atmosphere.
  • Basic needs: this system would have emissions allocated according to basic needs, as defined according to a minimum level of consumption. Consumption above basic needs would require countries to buy more emission rights. From this viewpoint, developing countries would need to be at least as well off under an emissions control regime as they would be outside the regime.
  • Proportionality and polluter-pays principle: Proportionality reflects the ancient Aristotelian principle that people should receive in proportion to what they put in, and pay in proportion to the damages they cause. This has a potential relationship with the "polluter-pays principle", which can be interpreted in a number of ways:
    • Historical responsibilities: this asserts that allocation of emission rights should be based on patterns of past emissions. Two-thirds of the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere at present is due to the past actions of developed countries (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 29).[188]
    • Comparable burdens and ability to pay: with this approach, countries would reduce emissions based on comparable burdens and their ability to take on the costs of reduction. Ways to assess burdens include monetary costs per head of population, as well as other, more complex measures, like the UNDP's Human Development Index.
    • Willingness to pay: with this approach, countries take on emission reductions based on their ability to pay along with how much they benefit from reducing their emissions.

Specific proposals

  • Ad hoc: Lashof (1992) and Cline (1992) (referred to by Banuri et al., 1996, p. 106),[186] for example, suggested that allocations based partly on GNP could be a way of sharing the burdens of emission reductions. This is because GNP and economic activity are partially tied to carbon emissions.
  • Equal per capita entitlements: this is the most widely cited method of distributing abatement costs, and is derived from egalitarianism (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 106–107). This approach can be divided into two categories. In the first category, emissions are allocated according to national population. In the second category, emissions are allocated in a way that attempts to account for historical (cumulative) emissions.
  • Status quo: with this approach, historical emissions are ignored, and current emission levels are taken as a status quo right to emit (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 107). An analogy for this approach can be made with fisheries, which is a common, limited resource. The analogy would be with the atmosphere, which can be viewed as an exhaustible natural resource (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 27).[188] In international law, one state recognized the long-established use of another state's use of the fisheries resource. It was also recognized by the state that part of the other state's economy was dependent on that resource.

Governmental and intergovernmental action

Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (World Bank, 2010, p. 192).[190] Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. It is often argued that the results of climate change are more damaging in poor nations, where infrastructures are weak and few social services exist. The Commitment to Development Index is one attempt to analyze rich country policies taken to reduce their disproportionate use of the global commons. Countries do well if their greenhouse gas emissions are falling, if their gas taxes are high, if they do not subsidize the fishing industry, if they have a low fossil fuel rate per capita, and if they control imports of illegally cut tropical timber.

Paris agreement and Kyoto Protocol

The main current international agreement on combating climate change is the Paris agreement. The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming.[191]

It succeeds the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2020, and is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratified the Kyoto protocol committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Temperature targets

Actions to mitigate climate change are sometimes based on the goal of achieving a particular temperature target. One of the targets that has been suggested is to limit the future increase in global mean temperature (global warming) to below 2 °C, relative to the pre-industrial level.[193][194] The 2 °C target was adopted in 2010 by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.[195] Most countries of the world are Parties to the UNFCCC.[196] The target had been adopted in 1996 by the European Union Council.[197]

Feasibility of 2 °C

Temperatures have increased by 0.8 °C compared to the pre-industrial level, and another 0.5–0.7 °C is already committed.[198] The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide equivalent concentration of 400–500 ppm by volume; the current (January 2015) level of carbon dioxide alone is 400 ppm by volume, and rising at 1–3 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 °C target, CO2 levels would have to be stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current programs in place to date.[199][200] The importance of change is illustrated by the fact that world economic energy efficiency is improving at only half the rate of world economic growth.[201]

Views in the literature

There is disagreement among experts over whether or not the 2 °C target can be met.[202][203] For example, according to Anderson and Bows (2011),[204] "there is little to no chance" of meeting the target. On the other hand, according to Alcamo et al. (2013):[205]

  • Policies adopted by parties to the UNFCCC are too weak to meet a 2 or 1.5 °C target. However, these targets might still be achievable if more stringent mitigation policies are adopted immediately.
  • Cost-effective 2 °C scenarios project annual global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before the year 2020, with deep cuts in emissions thereafter, leading to a reduction in 2050 of 41% compared to 1990 levels.[206]
Discussion on other targets

Scientific analysis can provide information on the impacts of climate change and associated policies, such as reducing GHG emissions. However, deciding what policies are best requires value judgements.[10] For example, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial levels reduces climate change damages more than a 2 °C limit.[207] However, a 1.5 °C limit may be more costly to achieve than a 2 °C limit.[208]

According to some analysts, the 2 °C "guardrail" is inadequate for the needed degree and timeliness of mitigation.[209] On the other hand, some economic studies suggest more modest mitigation policies.[16] For example, the emissions reductions proposed by Nordhaus (2010)[17] might lead to global warming (in the year 2100) of around 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.

Official long-term target of 1.5 °C

In 2015, two official UNFCCC scientific expert bodies came to the conclusion that, "in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5 °C".[210] This expert position was, together with the strong diplomatic voice of the poorest countries and the island nations in the Pacific, the driving force leading to the decision of the Paris Conference 2015, to lay down this 1.5 °C long-term target on top of the existing 2 °C goal.[211]

Encouraging use changes

Emissions tax

An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere.[212] Most environmentally related taxes with implications for greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries are levied on energy products and motor vehicles, rather than on CO2 emissions directly.[212] As such, non-transport sectors as the agricultural sector (which too produces potent greenhouse gases, i.e. methane[213]) are typically left untaxed. Also, revenue of the emissions taxes are not always used to offset the emissions directly.[214][215]

Emission taxes can be both cost-effective and environmentally effective.[212] Difficulties with emission taxes include their potential unpopularity, and the fact that they cannot guarantee a particular level of emissions reduction.[212] Emissions or energy taxes also often fall disproportionately on lower income classes. In developing countries, institutions may be insufficiently developed for the collection of emissions fees from a wide variety of sources.[212]


Another indirect method of encouraging uses of renewable energy, and pursue sustainability and environmental protection, is that of prompting investment in this area through legal means, something that is already being done at national level as well as in the field of international investment.[216]

Carbon emissions trading

With the creation of a market for trading carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that London financial markets will be the centre for this potentially highly lucrative business; the New York and Chicago stock markets may have a lower trade volume than expected as long as the US maintains its rejection of the Kyoto.[217]

However, emissions trading may delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.[218]

In the north-east United States, a successful cap and trade program has shown potential for this solution.[219]

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)[220] is the largest multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It commenced operation on 1 January 2005, and all 28 member states of the European Union participate in the scheme which has created a new market in carbon dioxide allowances estimated at 35 billion Euros (US$43 billion) per year.[221] The Chicago Climate Exchange was the first (voluntary) emissions market, and is soon to be followed by Asia's first market (Asia Carbon Exchange). A total of 107 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent have been exchanged through projects in 2004, a 38% increase relative to 2003 (78 Mt CO2e).[222]

Twenty three multinational corporations have come together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group includes Ford, Toyota, British Airways, and BP. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement[223] stating that there was a need to act on climate change and claiming that market-based solutions can help. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed carbon trading scheme being created by nine North-eastern and Mid-Atlantic American states; Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The scheme was due to be developed by April 2005 but has not yet been completed.


Implementation puts into effect climate change mitigation strategies and targets. These can be targets set by international bodies or voluntary action by individuals or institutions. This is the most important, expensive and least appealing aspect of environmental governance.[224]


Funding, such as the Green Climate Fund, is often provided by nations, groups of nations and increasingly NGO and private sources. These funds are often channelled through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). This is an environmental funding mechanism in the World Bank which is designed to deal with global environmental issues.[224] The GEF was originally designed to tackle four main areas: biological diversity, climate change, international waters and ozone layer depletion, to which land degradation and persistent organic pollutant were added. The GEF funds projects that are agreed to achieve global environmental benefits that are endorsed by governments and screened by one of the GEF's implementing agencies.[225]


There are numerous issues which result in a current perceived lack of implementation.[224] It has been suggested that the main barriers to implementation are Uncertainty, Fragmentation, Institutional void, Short time horizon of policies and politicians and Missing motives and willingness to start adapting. The relationships between many climatic processes can cause large levels of uncertainty as they are not fully understood and can be a barrier to implementation. When information on climate change is held between the large numbers of actors involved it can be highly dispersed, context specific or difficult to access causing fragmentation to be a barrier. Institutional void is the lack of commonly accepted rules and norms for policy processes to take place, calling into question the legitimacy and efficacy of policy processes. The Short time horizon of policies and politicians often means that climate change policies are not implemented in favour of socially favoured societal issues. Statements are often posed to keep the illusion of political action to prevent or postpone decisions being made. Missing motives and willingness to start adapting is a large barrier as it prevents any implementation.[226] The issues that arise with a system which involves international government cooperation, such as cap and trade, could potentially be improved with a polycentric approach where the rules are enforced by many small sections of authority as opposed to one overall enforcement agency.[227] Concerns about metal requirement and/or availability for essential decarbonization technoloqies such as photovoltaics, nuclear power, and (plug-in hybrid) electric vehicles have also been expressed as obstacles.[228]


Despite a perceived lack of occurrence, evidence of implementation is emerging internationally. Some examples of this are the initiation of NAPA's and of joint implementation. Many developing nations have made National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) which are frameworks to prioritize adaption needs.[229] The implementation of many of these is supported by GEF agencies.[230] Many developed countries are implementing 'first generation' institutional adaption plans particularly at the state and local government scale.[229] There has also been a push towards joint implementation between countries by the UNFCCC as this has been suggested as a cost-effective way for objectives to be achieved.[231]

Territorial policies

Many countries are aiming for net zero emissions, and many have either carbon taxes or carbon emission trading.

United States

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States include energy policies which encourage efficiency through programs like Energy Star, Commercial Building Integration, and the Industrial Technologies Program.[233]

In the absence of substantial federal action, state governments have adopted emissions-control laws such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in California.[234] In 2019 a new climate change bill was introduced in Minnesota. One of the targets, is making all the energy of the state carbon free, by 2030.[235]


As to 2019, China implements more than 100 policies to fight climate change. China said in the Paris Agreement that its emission will begin to fall by 2030, but it will possibly occur by 2026. This can position China as a leader on the issue because it is the biggest emitter of GHG emissions, so if it really reduces them, the significance will be large.[236]

European Union

The climate commitments of the European Union are divided into 3 main categories: targets for the year 2020, 2030 and 2050. The European Union claim that his policies are in line with the goal of the Paris Agreement[237][238].

Targets for the year 2020[239]:

  • Reduce GHG emissions by 20% from the level in 1990.
  • Produce 20% of energy from renewable sources.
  • Increase Energy Efficiency by 20%.

Targets for the year 2030[240]:

  • Reduce GHG emission by 40% from the level of 1990. In 2019 The European Parliament adopted a resolution upgrading the target to 55%[241]
  • Produce 32% of energy from renewables.
  • Increase energy efficiency by 32.5%.

Targets for the year 2050[242]:

  • Became climate neutral.


The European Union claims that he has already achieved the 2020 target for emission reduction and have the legislation needed to achieve the 2030 targets. Already in 2018, its GHG emissions were 23% lower that in 1990[243].

New Zealand

New Zealand made significant pledges on climate change mitigation in the year 2019: reduce emissions to zero by 2050, plant 1 billion trees by 2028, and made high taxes on farmers who will not reduce emissions in 2025. Already in 2019 New Zealand banned new offshore oil and gas drilling and decided the climate change issues will be examined before every important decision[244].

Developing countries

In order to reconcile economic development with mitigating carbon emissions, developing countries need particular support, both financial and technical. One of the means of achieving this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund[245] is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM.

An important point of contention, however, is how overseas development assistance not directly related to climate change mitigation is affected by funds provided to climate change mitigation.[246] One of the outcomes of the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Conference was the Copenhagen Accord, in which developed countries promised to provide US$30 million between 2010 and 2012 of new and additional resources.[246] Yet it remains unclear what exactly the definition of additional is and the European Commission has requested its member states to define what they understand to be additional, and researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have found four main understandings:[246]

  1. Climate finance classified as aid, but additional to (over and above) the '0.7%' ODA target;
  2. Increase on previous year's Official Development Assistance (ODA) spent on climate change mitigation;
  3. Rising ODA levels that include climate change finance but where it is limited to a specified percentage; and
  4. Increase in climate finance not connected to ODA.

The main point being that there is a conflict between the OECD states budget deficit cuts, the need to help developing countries adapt to develop sustainably and the need to ensure that funding does not come from cutting aid to other important Millennium Development Goals.[246]

However, none of these initiatives suggest a quantitative cap on the emissions from developing countries. This is considered as a particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse emissions. Critics of mitigation often argue that, the developing countries' drive to attain a comparable living standard to the developed countries would doom the attempt at mitigation of global warming. Critics also argue that holding down emissions would shift the human cost of global warming from a general one to one that was borne most heavily by the poorest populations on the planet.

In an attempt to provide more opportunities for developing countries to adapt clean technologies, UNEP and WTO urged the international community to reduce trade barriers and to conclude the Doha trade round "which includes opening trade in environmental goods and services".[247]

In 2019 week of climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean result in a declaration in which leaders says that they will act to reduce emissions in the sectors of transportation, energy, urbanism, industry, forest conservation and land use and "sent a message of solidarity with all the people of Brazil suffering the consequences of the rainforest fires in the Amazon region, underscoring that protecting the world’s forests is a collective responsibility, that forests are vital for life and that they are a critical part of the solution to climate change".[248][249]

Non-governmental approaches

While many of the proposed methods of mitigating global warming require governmental funding, legislation and regulatory action, individuals and businesses can also play a part in the mitigation effort.

Choices in personal actions and business operations

Environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer. Common recommendations include lowering home heating and cooling usage, burning less gasoline, supporting renewable energy sources, buying local products to reduce transportation, turning off unused devices, and various others.

A geophysicist at Utrecht University has urged similar institutions to hold the vanguard in voluntary mitigation, suggesting the use of communications technologies such as videoconferencing to reduce their dependence on long-haul flights.[250]

Air travel and shipment

In 2008, climate scientist Kevin Anderson raised concern about the growing effect of rapidly increasing global air transport on the climate in a paper,[251] and a presentation,[252] suggesting that reversing this trend is necessary to reduce emissions.

Part of the difficulty is that when aviation emissions are made at high altitude, the climate impacts are much greater than otherwise. Others have been raising the related concerns of the increasing hypermobility of individuals, whether traveling for business or pleasure, involving frequent and often long distance air travel, as well as air shipment of goods.[253]

Business opportunities and risks

Investor response

Climate change is also a concern for large institutional investors who have a long term time horizon and potentially large exposure to the negative impacts of global warming because of the large geographic footprint of their multi-national holdings. Socially responsible investing funds allow investors to invest in funds that meet high ESG (environmental, social, governance) standards as such funds invest in companies that are aligned with these goals.[254] Proxy firms can be used to draft guidelines for investment managers that take these concerns into account.[255]

In some countries, those affected by climate change may be able to sue major producers. Attempts at litigation have been initiated by entire peoples such as Palau[256] and the Inuit,[257] as well as non-governmental organizations such as the Sierra Club.[258] Although proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming may never be possible,[259] methodologies have been developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.[260]

For a legal action for negligence (or similar) to succeed, "Plaintiffs ... must show that, more probably than not, their individual injuries were caused by the risk factor in question, as opposed to any other cause. This has sometimes been translated to a requirement of a relative risk of at least two."[261] Another route (though with little legal bite) is the World Heritage Convention, if it can be shown that climate change is affecting World Heritage Sites like Mount Everest.[262][263]

Besides countries suing one another, there are also cases where people in a country have taken legal steps against their own government. Legal action for instance has been taken to try to force the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,[264] and against the Export-Import Bank and OPIC for failing to assess environmental impacts (including global warming impacts) under NEPA.

In the Netherlands and Belgium, organisations such as Urgenda[265][266][267] and the vzw Klimaatzaak in Belgium[268][269] have also sued their governments as they believe their governments aren't meeting the emission reductions they agreed to. Urgenda have already won their case against the Dutch government.

According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil, and its predecessors caused 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between 1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for eventual legal action.[270]

In 2015, Exxon received a subpoena. According to the Washington Post and confirmed by the company, the attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, opened an investigation into the possibility that the company had misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change.[271] In October 2019 begun the trial.[272] Massachusetts sued Exxon also, for hiding the impact of climate change.[273]

In 2019, 22 states, six cities and Washington DC in United States, sued the Trump administration for blocking the repealing of Clean power plan.[274]


Environmental organizations organize different actions such as Peoples Climate Marches and Divestment from fossil fuels. 1,000 organizations with a worth of 8 trillion dollars, made commitments to divest from fossil fuel to 2018.[275] Another form of action is climate strike.[276] In January 2019 12,500 students marched in Brussels demanding Climate action.[277] In 2019 The organization Extinction Rebellion organized massive protests demanding "tell the truth about climate change, reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2025, and create a citizens' assembly to oversee progress", including blocking roads. Many were arrested.[278] In many cases, activism brings positive results.[279]

In 20 – 27 September 2019, a global climate strike is planned. The main organizers are Fridays For Future and Earth Strike. Trade unions will support the strike.[280][281] The Universities and College Union (UCU) will propose in the next Trades Union Congress (TUC) of England in September to make a workday solidarity stoppage on September 20 in support of the strike. Any walkout would cooperate with the student protest.[282] The target is to influence the climate action summit organized by the UN on September 23.[283] According to the organizers four million people participated in the strike on September 20.[284]

See also

By country


  1. Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2007. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., US.
  2. Fisher, B.S.; et al., "Ch. 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, 3.5 Interaction between mitigation and adaptation, in the light of climate change impacts and decision-making under long-term uncertainty, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  3. IPCC, "Summary for policymakers", Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change, Table SPM.3, C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (until 2030), in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  4. Oppenheimer, M., et al., Section 19.7.1: Relationship between Adaptation Efforts, Mitigation Efforts, and Residual Impacts, in: Chapter 19: Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities (archived July 8 2014), pp. 46–49, in IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014
  5. "Social, Economic, and Ethical Concepts and Methods, Executive Summary" (PDF), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, in IPCC AR5 WG3 2014, p. 211
  6. "Sec 5.5 Technology flows and development", Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007, p. 68
  7. UK Royal Society 2009
  8. UNFCCC (5 March 2013), Introduction to the Convention, UNFCCC
  9. UNFCCC (2002), Full Text of the Convention, Article 2: Objectives, UNFCCC
  10. Oppenheimer, M., et al., FAQ 19.1, in: Chapter 19: Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities (archived July 8 2014), p. 52, in IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014
  11. UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties (COP) (15 March 2011), Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session (PDF), Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, p. 3, paragraph 4. Document available in UN languages and text format.
  12. Sutter, John D.; Berlinger, Joshua (12 December 2015). "Final draft of climate deal formally accepted in Paris". CNN. Cable News Network, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
  13. Harvey, Fiona (26 November 2019). "UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  14. "Cut Global Emissions by 7.6 Percent Every Year for Next Decade to Meet 1.5°C Paris Target - UN Report". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  15. Victor, D., et al., Executive summary, in: Chapter 1: Introductory Chapter, p. 4 (archived 3 July 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG3 2014
  16. van Vuuren & others 2009, pp. 29–33
  17. Figure 3, in: Nordhaus 2010, p. 4
  18. "One Earth Climate Model". One Earth Climate Model. University of Technology, Climate and Energy College, German Aerospace Center. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
  19. Chow, Lorraine (21 January 2019). "DiCaprio-Funded Study: Staying Below 1.5ºC is Totally Possible". Ecowatch. Retrieved 22 January 2019.
  20. Meehl, G.A.; et al., "Ch. 10: Global Climate Projections", Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, FAQ 10.3: If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007, pp. 824–825
  21. Rogner, H.-H.; et al. (2007). "1.2 Ultimate objective of the UNFCCC". In B. Metz et al. (eds.). Introduction. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 2014-09-23. Retrieved 2011-06-07.CS1 maint: uses editors parameter (link)
  22. Forster, P.; et al., "Ch. 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing", Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, FAQ 2.1 How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007, p. 135
  23. IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007
  24. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (January 2009). Granger Morgan; H. Dowlatabadi; M. Henrion; D. Keith; R. Lempert; S. McBride; M. Small; T. Wilbanks (eds.). "Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington D.C., USA. pp. 10–11. Archived from the original on 2010-05-27. Retrieved 2010-06-07.
  25. Sterman, J.D.; L.B. Sweeney (2007). "Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter" (PDF). Climatic Change. 80 (3–4): 221–22. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5. Retrieved 2011-05-10.
  26. 2. Stabilization and Climate Change of the Next Few Decades and Next Several Centuries, p. 21, in: Summary, in US NRC 2011
  27. Anderson, Kevin; Bows, Alice (13 January 2011). "Beyond 'dangerous' climate change: emission scenarios for a new world". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 369 (1934): 20–44. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369...20A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0290. PMID 21115511.
  28. Anderson, Kevin; Bows, Alice (2012). "A new paradigm for climate change". Nature Climate Change. 2 (9): 639–40. Bibcode:2012NatCC...2..639A. doi:10.1038/nclimate1646.
  29. Anderson K. (2012). Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change. The Cabot annual lecture, Univ. of Bristol. Video, Transcript
  30. The Radical Emission Reduction Conference: 10–11 December 2013 Archived 27 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine, sponsored by the Tyndall Centre. Video proceedings Archived 2017-03-24 at the Wayback Machine on-line.
  31. Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Richardson, Katherine; M. Lenton, Timothy; Folke, Carl; Liverman, Diana; P. Summerhayes, Colin; D. Barnosky, Anthony; E. Cornell, Sarah; Crucifix, Michel; F. Donges, Jonathan; Fetzer, Ingo; J. Lade, Steven; Scheffer, Marten; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Hans (August 6, 2018). "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  32. Harvey, Fiona (26 November 2019). "UN calls for push to cut greenhouse gas levels to avoid climate chaos". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  33. "Cut Global Emissions by 7.6 Percent Every Year for Next Decade to Meet 1.5°C Paris Target - UN Report". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  34. "Global climate action from cities, regions and businesses – 2019". New Climate Institute. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
  35. Farland, Chloe (02/10/2019). "This is what the world promised at the UN climate action summit". Climate Home News. Retrieved 15 December 2019. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  36. "Global Climate Action Presents a Blueprint for a 1.5-Degree World". UNFCCC. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
  37. "Global Data Community Commits to Track Climate Action". UNFCCC. Retrieved 15 December 2019.
  38. Fisher, B.S.; et al., "Ch 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Sec 3.1 Emissions scenarios, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  39. Rogner, H.-H.; et al., "Ch 1: Introduction", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Sec Total GHG emissions, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007, p. 111
  40. Fisher, B.S.; et al., "Ch 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Sec 3.3 Mitigation scenarios, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  41. Fisher, B.S.; et al., "Ch 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Table 3.5, in: Sec 3.3.5 Long-term stabilization scenarios, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
  42. BP: Statistical Review of World Energy Archived 2013-05-16 at the Wayback Machine, Workbook (xlsx), London, 2012
  43. 'We cannot be radical enough': Attenborough on climate crisis action. 2019-07-09. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
  44. Figure 4.10, in: Chapter 4: Stabilization Scenarios, in Clarke & others 2007, p. 103
  45. "Sec 5.5 Technology flows and development", Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
  46. Issues in Science Archived 2013-09-27 at the Wayback Machine & Technology Online; "Promoting Low-Carbon Electricity Production"
  47. "How Reforming Fossil Fuel Subsidies Can Go Wrong: A lesson from Ecuador". IISD. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
  48. "Sec 4.3 Mitigation options", Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
  49. "Table 4.2, in: Sec 4.3 Mitigation options", Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
  50. Sathaye, J.; et al., "Ch 12: Sustainable Development and mitigation", Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Sec Development paths as well as climate policies determine GHG emissions, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007, pp. 701–703
  51. Morita, T.; et al., "Ch 2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Scenarios and Implications", Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation, Sec Storylines of Post-SRES Mitigation Scenarios, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001, pp. 149–150
  52. "Global Emissions". Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
  53. Times, The New York (2019-10-07). "Climate and Energy Experts Debate How to Respond to a Warming World". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
  54. "Switching from coal, oil to natural gas accelerates climate change – study". Balkan Green Energy News. 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
  55. Statistical Review of World Energy, Workbook (xlsx), London, 2016
  56. Edwin Cartlidge (18 November 2011). "Saving for a rainy day". Science (Vol 334). pp. 922–24. Missing or empty |url= (help)
  57. IEA Renewable Energy Working Party (2002). Renewable Energy... into the mainstream, p. 9.
  58. New UN report points to power of renewable energy to mitigate carbon emissions UN News Centre, 8 December 2007.
  59. REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report Archived 2012-05-13 at the Wayback Machine p. 15.
  60. Paul Gipe (4 April 2013). "100 Percent Renewable Vision Building". Renewable Energy World.
  61. IPCC (2011). "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation" (PDF). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. p. 17. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-01-11.
  62. Donald W. Aitken. Transitioning to a Renewable Energy Future, International Solar Energy Society, January 2010, p. 3.
  63. REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report Archived April 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine pp. 9, 34.
  64. REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report Archived 2012-05-13 at the Wayback Machine p. 53.
  65. "May: Steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals". Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  66. Gallup International 2011, pp. 9–10
  67. Ipsos 2011, p. 4
  68. "Beyond ITER". The ITER Project. Information Services, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Archived from the original on 7 November 2006. Retrieved 5 February 2011. – Projected fusion power timeline
  69. Air-source heat pumps National Renewable Energy Laboratory June 2011
  70. Staffell Iain; et al. (2012). "A review of domestic heat pumps". Energy and Environmental Science. 5 (11): 9291–9306. doi:10.1039/c2ee22653g.
  71. Carvalho; et al. (2015). "Ground source heat pump carbon emissions and primary energy reduction potential for heating in buildings in Europe—results of a case study in Portugal". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 45: 755–768. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.034.
  72. Sternberg André, Bardow André (2015). "Power-to-What? – Environmental assessment of energy storage systems". Energy and Environmental Science. 8 (2): 389–400. doi:10.1039/c4ee03051f.
  73. pg 7
  74. Dodge, Edward (December 6, 2014). "Power-to-Gas Enables Massive Energy Storage". Retrieved 25 May 2015.
  75. Ground, Lukas; Schulze, Paula; Holstein, Johan (June 20, 2013). Systems Analysis Power to Gas (PDF). Groningen: DNV, KEMA Nederland B.V. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 24, 2015. Retrieved 25 May 2015.
  76. "Shell Pearl GTL – Andy Brown" Royal Dutch Shell Company video, March 18, 2011.
  77. Scott, Mark (October 7, 2014). "Energy for a Rainy Day, or a Windless One". New York Times. Retrieved 26 May 2015.
  78. Randall, Tom (January 30, 2015). "Seven Reasons Cheap Oil Can't Stop Renewables Now". BloombergBusiness. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 26 May 2015.
  79. "Home – 5th Conference on Carbon Dioxide as Feedstock for Fuels, Chemistry and Polymers". 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2016-05-06.
  80. Edenhofer, Ottmar; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; et al. (2014). "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). In IPCC (ed.). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-65481-5. Retrieved 2016-06-21.
  81. Wynes, Seth; Nicholas, Kimberly A (12 July 2017). "The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions". Environmental Research Letters. 12 (7): 074024. Bibcode:2017ERL....12g4024W. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.
  82. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul P; Dirzo, Rodolfo (23 May 2017). "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 114 (30): E6089–E6096. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704949114. PMC 5544311. PMID 28696295. Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly.
  83. Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection" (PDF). Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501. Retrieved 15 December 2016. The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
  84. Fleurbaey, Marc; Kartha, Sivan; et al. (2014). "Chapter 4: Sustainable Development and Equity" (PDF). In IPCC (ed.). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-65481-5. Retrieved 2016-06-21.
  85. Harvey, Fiona (21 March 2016). "Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-06-20.
  86. Milman, Oliver (20 June 2016). "China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-06-20.
  87. Carrington, Damian (7 November 2016). "Tax meat and dairy to cut emissions and save lives, study urges". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  88. Springmann, Marco; Mason-D'Croz, Daniel; Robinson, Sherman; Wiebe, Keith; Godfray, H Charles J; Rayner, Mike; Scarborough, Peter (7 November 2016). "Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities". Nature Climate Change. 7 (1): 69. Bibcode:2017NatCC...7...69S. doi:10.1038/nclimate3155. ISSN 1758-678X.
  89. "Loading Order White Paper" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  90. Diesendorf, Mark (2007). Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy, UNSW Press, p. 87.
  91. Sophie Hebden (2006-06-22). "Invest in clean technology says IEA report". Retrieved 2010-07-16.
  92. "Climate Change". California Air Resources Board. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
  93. "Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050 – European Commission". Archived from the original on 2015-05-11. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
  94. Wei, Max; Nelson, James H; Greenblatt, Jeffery B; Mileva, Ana; Johnston, Josiah; Ting, Michael; Yang, Christopher; Jones, Chris; McMahon, James E; Kammen, Daniel M (2013-03-01). "Deep carbon reductions in California require electrification and integration across economic sectors". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (1): 014038. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8a4038W. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014038. ISSN 1748-9326.
  95. Williams, James H. (2012). "The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity" (PDF). Science. 335 (6064): 53–9. Bibcode:2012Sci...335...53W. doi:10.1126/science.1208365. PMID 22116030. Retrieved 2015-03-21.
  96. "Natural Gas and the Environment". Archived from the original on 2009-05-03. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
  97. "OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, Climate Change Chapter, pre-release version" (PDF). OECD. 2011. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  98. "IEA Technology Roadmap Carbon Capture and Storage 2009" (PDF). OECD/IEA. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-04. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  99. "Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty". The Royal Society. 2009. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  100. Hare, B.; Meinshausen, M. (2006). "How Much Warming are We Committed to and How Much can be Avoided?". Climatic Change. 75 (1–2): 111–49. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9027-9.
  101. Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Larson, E.D. and Möllersten, K.: (2006)"Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – Costs and potential role in stabilising the atmosphere", Climatic Change, 74, 47–79.
  102. "OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, Climate Change Chapter, pre-release version" (PDF). OECD. 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
  103. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on August 11, 2013. Retrieved July 21, 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  104. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 14, 2013. Retrieved July 21, 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  105. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on August 11, 2013. Retrieved July 21, 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  106. Global count reaches 3 trillion trees
  107. The most effective way to tackle climate change? Plant 1 trillion trees
  108. We Have Room to Add 35% More Trees Globally to Store 580–830 Billion Tons of CO2
  109. UN trillion-tree-campaign
  110. Restoring forests could capture two-thirds of the carbon humans have added to the atmosphere
  111. Restoring forests as a means to many ends
  112. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change: Part III: The Economics of Stabilisation. HM Treasury, London:
  113. Lena R. Boysen, Wolfgang Lucht, Dieter Gerten, Vera Heck, Timothy M. Lenton, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth's Future, 2017; DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000469
  114. "India should follow China to find a way out of the woods on saving forest people". The Guardian. 22 July 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
  115. "How Conservation Became Colonialism". Foreign Policy. 16 July 2018. Retrieved 30 July 2018.
  116. "China's forest tenure reforms". Retrieved 7 August 2016.
  117. Ding, Helen; Veit, Peter; Gray, Erin; Reytar, Katie; Altamirano, Juan-Carlos; Blackman, Allen; Hodgdon, Benjamin (October 2016). "Climate benefits, tenure costs: The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon". World Resources Institute (WRI). Washington DC, USA. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  118. Ding, Helen; Veit, Peter G; Blackman, Allen; Gray, Erin; Reytar, Katie; Altamirano, Juan-Carlos; Hodgdon, Benjamin (2016). Climate benefits, tenure costs: The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon (PDF). Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute (WRI). ISBN 978-1-56973-894-8. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  119. "New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests". New York Times. 29 January 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  120. Young, E. (2008). IPCC Wrong On Logging Threat to Climate. New Scientist, August 5, 2008. Retrieved on August 18, 2008, from
  121. "In Latin America, Forests May Rise to Challenge of Carbon Dioxide". New York Times. 16 May 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  122. Sengupta, Somini (2019-07-05). "Restoring Forests Could Help Put a Brake on Global Warming, Study Finds". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-07.
  123. RESTORATION ECOLOGY:The global tree restoration potential, 5 July 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  124. "How cows could repair the world". March 6, 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
  125. "How fences could save the planet". January 13, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
  126. "Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming, desertification and biodiversity". February 21, 2008. Archived from the original on June 25, 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
  127. "How eating grass-fed beef could help fight climate change". January 25, 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2013.
  128. P. Falkowski; et al. (13 October 2000). "The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System". Science. 290 (5490): 291–6. doi:10.1126/science.290.5490.291. PMID 11030643.
  129. K. M. Walter, S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla, F.S. Chapin III (7 September 2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature. Retrieved 4 February 2015.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  130. "CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough". The Guardian. 9 June 2016. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  131. Robinson, Simon (2010-01-22). "How to Reduce Carbon Emissions: Capture and Store it?". Retrieved 2010-08-26.
  133. Drajem, Mark (April 14, 2014). "Coal's Best Hope Rising With Costliest U.S. Power Plant". Bloomberg Business.
  134. IPCC (2007). C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (until 2030). In (book section): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, US. This version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Archived from the original on 2010-05-02. Retrieved 2010-05-15.
  135. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)
  136. GAO (2011). Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. July 2011. GAO-11-71
  137. The Royal Society, (2009) "Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty". Retrieved 2009-09-12.
  138. Statoil, Shell in plan to raise oil output by injecting CO
    – report
    , AFX News via Forbes, March 8, 2006, checked 2009-01-15
  139. Launder B.; J.M.T. Thompson (2008). "Global and Arctic climate engineering: numerical model studies". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 366 (1882): 4039–4056. Bibcode:2008RSPTA.366.4039C. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0132. PMID 18757275.
  140. Shindell, Drew (2012-01-13). "Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security | Science". Retrieved 2016-05-06.
  141. Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). World Economics. 4 (3): 146–47. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-17. Retrieved 2010-03-25.
  142. "Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown". One Green Planet. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
  143. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2013-07-21.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  145. Burp vaccine cuts greenhouse gas emissions Rachel Nowak for NewScientist September 2004
  146. Albrittion, D.L.; et al. (2001). "Halocarbons and related compounds". In J.T. Houghton; et al. (eds.). Technical summary. Climate Change 2001: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: GRID-Arendal website. p. 43. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
  147. Glossary: A.P.M. Baede. of the main report: S. Solomon et al., eds. (2007). "Definition of "Global Warming Potential"". Annex I: Glossary. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 2011-06-08. Retrieved 2011-06-07.CS1 maint: uses editors parameter (link)
  148. Velders, G.J.M.; et al. (20 March 2007). "The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate". PNAS. 104 (12): 4814–19. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.4814V. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610328104. PMC 1817831. PMID 17360370.
  149. "The Future of the Canals" (PDF). London Canal Museum. Retrieved 8 September 2013.
  150. Lowe, Marcia D. (April 1994). "Back on Track: The Global Rail Revival". Archived from the original on 2006-12-04. Retrieved 2007-02-15. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  151. Schwartzman, Peter. "TRUCKS VS. TRAINS—WHO WINS?". Retrieved 2007-02-15. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  152. "Energy Saving Trust: Home and the environment". Energy Saving Trust. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
  153. Osborne, Hilary (2005-08-02). "Energy efficiency 'saves £350m a year'". Guardian Unlimited. London.
  154. Rosenfeld, Arthur H.; Romm, Joseph J.; Akbari, Hashem; Lloyd, Alan C. (February–March 1997). "Technology Review". Painting the Town White – and Green. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on 2005-11-08. Retrieved 2005-11-21.
  155. Committee on Science, Engineering; Public Policy (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 978-0-309-04386-1.
  156. "What is sustainable agriculture | Agricultural Sustainability Institute". Retrieved 2019-01-20.
  157. Scanlon, Kerry. "Trends in Sustainability: Regenerative Agriculture". Rainforest Alliance. Retrieved 29 October 2019.
  158. "What Is Regenerative Agriculture?". Ecowatch. The Climate Reality Project. July 2, 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  159. "Agriculture: Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector". EPA. 2019.
  160. FAO Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department (2006). "Livestock impacts on the environment". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 28, 2015. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
  161. Bovine genomics project at Genome Canada
  162. Canada is using genetics to make cows less gassy
  163. The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review
  164. Parmar, N.R.; Nirmal Kumar, J.I.; Joshi, C.G. (2015). "Exploring diet-dependent shifts in methanogen and methanotroph diversity in the rumen of Mehsani buffalo by a metagenomics approach". Frontiers in Life Science. 8 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1080/21553769.2015.1063550.
  165. Boadi, D (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84 (3): 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
  166. Martin, C. et al. 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4 : pp 351-365.
  167. Eckard, R. J.; et al. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
  168. Livestock Farming Systems and their Environmental Impact
  169. Susan S. Lang (13 July 2005). "Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds". Retrieved 8 July 2008.
  170. Pimentel, David; Hepperly, Paul; Hanson, James; Douds, David; Seidel, Rita (2005). "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems". BioScience. 55 (7): 573–82. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2.
  171. Lal, Rattan; Griffin, Michael; Apt, Jay; Lave, Lester; Morgan, M. Granger (2004). "Ecology: Managing Soil Carbon". Science. 304 (5669): 393. doi:10.1126/science.1093079. PMID 15087532.
  172. A. N. (Thanos) Papanicolaou; Kenneth M. Wacha; Benjamin K. Abban; Christopher G. Wilson; Jerry L. Hatfield; Charles O. Stanier; Timothy R. Filley (2015). "Conservation Farming Shown to Protect Carbon in Soil". Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 120 (11): 2375–2401. Bibcode:2015JGRG..120.2375P. doi:10.1002/2015JG003078.
  173. "Cover Crops, a Farming Revolution With Deep Roots in the Past". The New York Times. 2016.
  174. Lugato, Emanuele; Bampa, Francesca; Panagos, Panos; Montanarella, Luca; Jones, Arwyn (2014-11-01). "Potential carbon sequestration of European arable soils estimated by modelling a comprehensive set of management practices". Global Change Biology. 20 (11): 3557–3567. Bibcode:2014GCBio..20.3557L. doi:10.1111/gcb.12551. ISSN 1365-2486. PMID 24789378.
  175. Hoffner, Erik (October 25, 2019). "Grand African Savannah Green Up': Major $85 Million Project Announced to Scale up Agroforestry in Africa". Ecowatch. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  176. Population Connection Archived 2015-01-11 at the Wayback Machine Statement of Policy
  177. Roberts, David (2017-07-14). "The best way to reduce your personal carbon emissions: don't be rich". Vox. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  178. editor, Damian Carrington Environment (2017-07-12). "Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
  179. To the point of farce: a martian view of the hardinian taboo—the silence that surrounds population control Maurice King, Charles Elliott BMJ
  180. Who is Heating Up the Planet? A Closer Look at Population and Global Warming Archived 2011-08-22 at the Wayback Machine from Sierra Club
  181. "Can cost benefit analysis grasp the climate change nettle? And can we…". Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
  182. One Earth Climate Model
  183. Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement goals
  184. Yohe, G.W.; et al. (2007). Executive summary. In (book chapter): Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry et al., (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, US. Web version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7. Archived from the original on 2010-05-02. Retrieved 2010-05-15.
  185. Rogner, H.-H.; et al. (2007). Executive Summary. In (book chapter): Introduction. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. (eds)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. Web version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
  186. Banuri, T.; et al. (1996). Equity and Social Considerations. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.) (PDF). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, US. PDF version: IPCC website. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
  187. "Behaviour change, public engagement and Net Zero (Imperial College London)". Committee on Climate Change. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  188. Goldemberg, J.; et al. (1996). Introduction: scope of the assessment. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.) (PDF). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, US. Web version: IPCC website. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
  189. Article "Adaptation. If you can't stand the heat", The Economist, special report on "Climate change", 28 November 2015, page 10-12.
  190. World Bank (2010). World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-7987-5. ISBN 978-0-8213-7987-5. Retrieved 2010-04-06.
  191. "UNFCCC eHandbook: Summary of the Paris Agreement". Retrieved 2019-11-12.
  192. PBL Netherlands Environment Agency (15 June 2012), "Figure 6.14, in: Chapter 6: The energy and climate challenge" (PDF), in van Vuuren, D.; M. Kok (eds.), Roads from Rio+20, ISBN 978-90-78645-98-6, p. 177, Report no: 500062001. Report website.
  193. Jaeger, C.C.; J. Jaeger (2011), "Three views of two degrees" (PDF), Regional Environmental Change, 11 (1): 15–26, doi:10.1007/s10113-010-0190-9, ISSN 1436-3798
  194. Rijsberman, F.J.; R.J. Stewart, eds. (1990), Targets and Indicators of Climate Change, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute, ISBN 978-91-88116-21-5. Summary available from the Climate Emergency Institute.
  195. UNFCCC (15 March 2011), FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session (PDF), Geneva, Switzerland: UN Office. Available as a PDF in English, Spanish, French, Arabic, and Russian.
  196. UNFCCC (3 May 2012), Essential Background, UNFCCC
  197. Oliver Geden (2013), Modifying the 2°C Target. Climate Policy Objectives in the Contested Terrain of Scientific Policy Advice, Political Preferences, and Rising Emissions, SWP Research Paper 5/13
  198. Oliver Geden (2010), What Comes After the Two-Degree Target?, SWP Comments 19
  199. "EU climate change target "unfeasible"". 2006-02-01. Retrieved 2007-02-21.
  200. Adam, David (14 April 2009). "World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree". London: Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2009-04-14.
  201. United States Department of Energy World Trends Archived 2007-06-08 at the Wayback Machine
  202. Oppenheimer, M., et al., Section 19.7.2: Limits to Mitigation, in: Chapter 19: Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities (archived July 8 2014), pp. 49–50, in IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014
  203. Oliver Geden/Silke Beck: Renegotiating the global climate stabilization target. In: Nature Climate Change, 4, 2014, pp. 747–48
  204. Anderson, K. & Bows, A., 2011. Beyond 'dangerous' climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philos. Trans. Royal Society A.
  205. Alcamo & others 2013, p. xi
  206. Alcamo & others 2013, pp. xiii–xiv
  207. "Implication for Carbon Emissions Target," in: Hansen & others 2013, p. 15
  208. "4. Discussion and conclusions," in: Luderer & others 2013, p. 6
  209. "Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013–2015 review" (PDF). UNFCCC, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice & Subsidiary Body for Implementation. 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2016-06-21.
  210. "1.5°C temperature limit – key facts". Climate Analytics. Archived from the original on 2016-06-30. Retrieved 2016-06-21.
  211. Gupta, S.; et al. (2007). " Taxes and charges". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 2010-10-29. Retrieved 2010-03-18.
  212. LIVESTOCK'S LONG SHADOW: environmental issues and options
  213. Vourc'h, A.; M. Jimenez (2000). "Enhancing Environmentally Sustainable Growth in Finland. Economics Department Working Papers No. 229" (PDF). OECD website. Retrieved 2010-04-21.
  214. Hyun-cheol, Kim (August 22, 2008). "Carbon Tax to Be Introduced in 2010". The Korea Times. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  215. Farah, Paolo Davide (2015). "Sustainable Energy Investments and National Security: Arbitration and Negotiation Issues". Journal of World Energy Law and Business. 8 (6). SSRN 2695579.
  216. How high-pressure politics threatens action on climate The Observer June 2005
  217. (2009) "The Story of Cap and Trade" Archived 2010-07-22 at the Wayback Machine
  218. "Success of Northeast Cap-and-Trade System Shows Market-Based Climate Policy Is Well Within Reach".
  219. Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) from
  220. The $20,000,000,000,000 question Archived 2005-06-15 at the Wayback Machine Robins, Nick for Opendemocracy
  221. State and Trends of the Carbon Market International Emissions Trading Association 2005
  222. Statement of G8 Climate Change Roundtable Archived May 8, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Convened by the World Economic Forum June 2005
  223. Evans. J (forthcoming 2012) Environmental Governance, Routledge, Oxon
  224. Mee. L. D, Dublin. H. T, Eberhard. A. A (2008) Evaluating the Global Environment Facility: A goodwill gesture or a serious attempt to deliver global benefits?, Global Environmental Change 18, 800–810
  225. Biesbroek. G.R, Termeer. C.J.A.M, Kabat. P, Klostermann.J.E.M (unpublished) Institutional governance barriers for the development and implementation of climate adaptation strategies, Working paper for the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) conference "Earth System Governance: People, Places, and the Planet", December 2–4, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  226. Elinor Ostrom (October 2009). "A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change" (PDF). Policy Research Working Paper Series. World Bank. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-01.
  227. Tokimatsu, Koji; Wachtmeister, Henrik; McLellan, Benjamin; Davidsson, Simon; Murakami, Shinsuke; Höök, Mikael; Yasuoka, Rieko; Nishio, Masahiro (December 2017). "Energy modeling approach to the global energy-mineral nexus: A first look at metal requirements and the 2 °C target". Applied Energy. 207: 494–509. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.151.
  228. Preston. B. L, Westaway. R. M, Yuen. E. Y (2004) Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations, European Management Journal, 22(3) 304–314
  229. UNFCCC (2011) Report on the twentieth meeting of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Subsidiary Body for Implementation, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  230. UNFCCC (2011) Annual report of the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  231. World Bank Group (2019-06-06), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019
  232. "Industrial Technologies Program: BestPractices". Retrieved 2010-08-26.
  233. Barringer, Felicity (2012-10-13). "In California, a Grand Experiment to Rein in Climate Change". The New York Times.
  234. Kahn, Brian (April 13, 2019). "Minnesota Introduces Bold New Climate Change Bill Crafted by Teens". Gizmodo. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  235. Sims Gallagher, Kelly; Zhang, Fang. "China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies". The Conversation. Retrieved 13 September 2019.
  236. "2050 long-term strategy". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  237. "Paris Agreement". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  238. "2020 climate & energy package". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  239. "2030 climate & energy framework". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  240. "The European Parliament declares climate emergency". European Parliament. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  241. "2050 long-term strategy". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  242. "Progress made in cutting emissions". European Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  243. Ainge Roy, Eleanor (4 December 2019). "Climate change to steer all New Zealand government decisions from now on". The Dunedin. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 December 2019.
  244. Prototype Carbon Fund from the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit
  245. Jessica Brown, Neil Bird and Liane Schalatek (2010) Climate finance additionality: emerging definitions and their implications Overseas Development Institute
  246. Free trade can help combat global warming, finds UN report UN News Centre, 26 June 2009
  247. "Latin America and Caribbean Climate Week 2019 Key Messages for the UN Climate Action Summit" (PDF). Latin America and Caribbean Climate Week 2019. Retrieved 25 August 2019.
  248. "Latin American & Caribbean Climate Week Calls for Urgent, Ambitious Action". United Nations Climate Change. Retrieved 25 August 2019.
  249. Andrew Biggin (16 August 2007). "Scientific bodies must take own action on emissions". Nature. 448 (7155): 749. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..749B. doi:10.1038/448749a. PMID 17700677.
  250. Anderson, K; Bows, A (2008). "Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 366 (1882): 3863–82. Bibcode:2008RSPTA.366.3863A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0138. PMID 18757271.
  251. Anderson, K (June 17, 2008). "Reframing climate change: from long-term targets to emission pathways". (esp. slide 24 onward)
  252. Gössling S, Ceron JP, Dubois G, Hall CM, Gössling IS, Upham P, Earthscan London (2009). Hypermobile travellers. and Implications for Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction. In: Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions, London. The chapter: Chapter 6 Archived 2010-06-19 at the Wayback Machine
  253. "5 Mutual Funds for Socially Responsible Investors". Kiplinger.
  254. "Investing to Curb Climate Change" (PDF). USSIF. p. 2.
  255. "Video: Paradise lost? – Need to Know". PBS. Palau suing the industrialized countries over global warming
  256. Inuit suing the US in regards to global warming Archived August 25, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  257. "Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club Announce Plans to Sue EPA Unless It Revises Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Standard, Curbs Nitrous Oxide Pollution Linked to Global Warming – – Tulsa, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports – -". Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2013-02-19.
  258. Edward Lorenz (1982): "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"
  259. Stott, et al. (2004), "Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003", Nature, Vol. 432, 2 December 2004
  260. Grossman, Columbia J. of Env. Law, 2003
  261. "Climate change 'ruining' Everest". 2004-11-17. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
  262. Climate change 'ruining' Belize BBC November 2004
  263. Climate Justice Ongoing Cases
  264. Hague, Arthur Neslen The (24 June 2015). "Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling". The Guardian.
  265. "Klimaat en Energie – Thema's – Urgenda – Samen Sneller Duurzaam".
  266. "VPRO Tegenlicht".
  267. "Klimaatzaak".
  268. "Over ons – Klimaatzaak".
  269. Press release (29 January 2004). Archived press release: Exxonmobil's contribution to global warming revealed. Friends of the Earth Trust. Retrieved May 25, 2015.
  270. "New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change". The Washington Post. November 5, 2015. Retrieved December 29, 2015.
  271. Cook, John; Supran, Geoffrey; Oreskes, Naomi; Maibach, Ed; Lewandowsky, Stephan (24 October 2019). "Exxon has misled Americans on climate change for decades. Here's how to fight back". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  272. Hirji, Zahra (October 24, 2019). "Massachusetts Is Now The Second State Suing The Oil Giant Exxon Over Climate Change". Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  273. Rosane, Olivia (14 August 2019). "29 States and Cities Sue to Block Trump's 'Dirty Power' Rule". Ecowatch. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  274. "Major milestone: 1000+ divestment commitments". Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  275. Josh Gabbatiss, Josh (15 December 2018). "Teenage activist inspires school strikes to protest climate change after telling leaders they are 'not mature enough'". The Independent. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  276. Conley, Julia. "I'm Sure Dinosaurs Thought They Had Time, Too': Over 12,000 Students Strike in Brussels Demanding Bold Climate Action". Common Dreams. Retrieved 20 January 2019.
  277. "Extinction Rebellion: Climate protesters block roads". BBC. 16 April 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  278. Ruiz, Irene Banos (June 22, 2019). "Climate Action: Can We Change the Climate From the Grassroots Up?". Ecowatch. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 23 June 2019.
  279. Zoe Low, Zoe (18 July 2019). "Asia's young climate activists on joining the worldwide campaign for government action on global warming". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  280. "Working people encourage students to take climate strike action 20 – 27 September". Mirage News. 30 July 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  281. CHILLINGSWORTH, LUKE (August 1, 2019). "Britain set for strike chaos as five million plan 'solidarity stoppage' for Greta Thunberg". Express. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  282. Korte, Kate (July 10, 2019). "Elizabeth May holds nonpartisan town hall at UVic for constituents". Martlet Publishing Society. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  283. Conley, Julia (23 September 2019). "4 Million Attend Biggest Climate Protest in History, Organizers Declare 'We're Not Through'". Ecowatch. Retrieved 23 September 2019.


AR5 Working Group III Report

Countries and regions


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.