• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• DE close
• GB close
• Leibniz Association close

{"references": ["UNSD Demographic Statistics, available at http://data.un.org", "The World Bank GDP data, available at https://data.worldbank.org/", "UNFCCC: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, available at https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/what-is-greenhouse-gas-data"]} Dataset containing all greenhouse gas emissions data submitted by countries under climate change convention (including CRF data) as published by the UNFCCC secretariat at 2021-12-03. The dataset is also available via datalad. To obtain the dataset with datalad, see the instructions at https://github.com/mikapfl/unfccc_di_data .

This climate change impact data (future scenarios on temperature-induced GDP losses) and climate change mitigation cost data (REMIND model scenarios) is published under doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3541809 and used in this paper: Ueckerdt F, Frieler K, Lange S, Wenz L, Luderer G, Levermann A (2018) The economically optimal warming limit of the planet. Earth System Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-741-2019 Below the individual file contents are explained. For further questions feel free to write to Falko Ueckerdt (ueckerdt@pik-potsdam.de). Climate change impact data File 1: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-RCP_all-SSP_4GCM.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario), SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). Negative (positive) values indicate losses (gains) due to climate change. For figure 1a of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries. File 2: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-SSP_4GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). File 3: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_SSP2_12GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Same as file 2, but only for the SSP2 (chosen default scenario for the study) and for all 12 GCMs. Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP-2 and 12 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). In addition, reference GDP and population data (without climate change) for each country until 2100 was downloaded from the SSP database, release Version 1.0 (March 2013, https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/, last accessed 15Nov 2019). Climate change mitigation cost data The scenario design and runs used in this paper have first been conducted in [1] and later also used in [2]. File 4: REMIND_scenario_results_economic_data.csv File 5: REMIND_scenarios_climate_data.csv Content: A broad range of climate change mitigation scenarios of the REMIND model. File 4 contains the economic data of e.g. GDP and macro-economic consumption for each of the countries and world regions, as well as GHG emissions from various economic sectors. File 5 contains the global climate-related data, e.g. forcing, concentration, temperature. In the scenario description “FFrunxxx” (column 2), the code “xxx” specifies the scenario as follows. See [1] for a detailed discussion of the scenarios. The first dimension specifies the climate policy regime (delayed action, baseline scenarios): 1xx: climate action from 2010 5xx: climate action from 2015 2xx climate action from 2020 (used in this study) 3xx climate action from 2030 4x1 weak policy baseline (before Paris agreement) The second dimension specifies the technology portfolio and assumptions: x1x Full technology portfolio (used in this study) x2x noCCS: unavailability of CCS x3x lowEI: lower energy intensity, with final energy demand per economic output decreasing faster than historically observed x4x NucPO: phase out of investments into nuclear energy x5x Limited SW: penetration of solar and wind power limited x6x Limited Bio: reduced bioenergy potential p.a. (100 EJ compared to 300 EJ in all other cases) x6x noBECCS: unavailability of CCS in combination with bioenergy The third dimension specifies the climate change mitigation ambition level, i.e. the height of a global CO2 tax in 2020 (which increases with 5% p.a.). xx1 0$/tCO2 (baseline) xx2 10$/tCO2 xx3 30$/tCO2 xx4 50$/tCO2 xx5 100$/tCO2 xx6 200$/tCO2 xx7 500$/tCO2 xx8 40$/tCO2 xx9 20$/tCO2 xx0 5$/tCO2 For figure 1b of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries and regions. Relative changes of GDP are calculated relative to the baseline (4x1 with zero carbon price). [1] Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Meinshausen, M. and Edenhofer, O.: Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets, Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 034033, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033, 2013a. [2] Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V. and Riahi, K.: Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C, Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 519–527, doi:10.1038/nclimate2572, 2015.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.AerChemMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.CMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM.historical' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

Mit einem Anteil von rund 30% am Endenergieverbrauch und etwa 20% an den CO2-Emissionen haben private Haushalte in Deutschland einen großen Einfluss auf die Umwelt. Gleichzeitig sind private Haushalte ein zentraler Adressat für politische Interventionen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Politik zahlreiche Maßnahmen zur Verringerung des Energiekonsums und zur Förderung regenerativer Energietechnologien ergriffen. Diese politischen Maßnahmen bedürfen einer sorgfältigen Evaluierung ihrer Effektivität und Kosteneffizienz, um kostspielige Redundanzen durch sich überlappende Instrumente zu vermeiden. Eine solche Evaluation umwelt- und energiepolitischer Maßnahmen erfordert eine umfangreiche Datenbasis. Besonders im Bereich der privaten Haushalte waren solche Daten in Deutschland bislang nicht verfügbar. Die Reagibilität deutscher Haushalte auf Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels war daher weitgehend unbekannt. Das Sozial-Ökologische Panel stellt zu diesem Zweck umfangreiche, frei verfügbare Informationen zum Energieverbrauch und Umweltverhalten privater Haushalte bereit. Die Befragung wurde in vier Wellen durchgeführt. Es liegen Daten für die Jahre 2012, 2013, 2014 und 2015 vor. Diese Daten können anhand einer ID aneinander gespielt werden. Darauf aufbauend können ökonometrische Schätzungen und Analysen verschiedener Präferenzindikatoren sowie des Anpassungsverhaltens privater Haushalte an den Klimawandel durchgeführt werden. Dieser Datensatz umfasst die Daten der Erhebung im Jahr 2012. With a share of 30% in total final energy consumption and around 20% in CO2 emissions, private households in Germany strongly affect the environment. At the same time private households are an important target group for policy interventions to fight climate change. Against this background, numerous policy measures that intend to decrease energy consumption and to support renewable energy technologies have been introduced. These policy measures call for accurate evaluation to avoid expensive redundancies due to overlapping policy instruments. The evaluation of energy and environmental policy measures requires comprehensive and reliable data. So far such data was unavailable in Germany, especially in the context of private households. Hence, the responsiveness of German households to climate protection policies was unknown. For this purpose, the Socio-Ecological Panel offers rich information on household’s energy consumption and environmental behavior. The data was gathered in four household surveys conducted in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The survey waves can be merged using the household ID. The data builds the basis for empirical analyses of households’ adaptation to climate change and the evaluation of environmental and climate policy measures. This data set comprises the information gathered in the 2012 survey wave and is labelled in German. It is available in German and English. Offline Rekrutierung für das repräsentative forsa omninet panel Selbst ausgefüllter Fragebogen Self-completed questionnaire 10.000 deutsche Haushalte Green-SÖP Green-SÖP

Dynamics of societal material stocks such as buildings and infrastructures and their spatial patterns drive surging resource use and emissions. Building up and maintaining stocks requires large amounts of resources; currently stock-building materials amount to almost 60% of all materials used by humanity. Buildings, infrastructures and machinery shape social practices of production and consumption, thereby creating path dependencies for future resource use. They constitute the physical basis of the spatial organization of most socio-economic activities, for example as mobility networks, urbanization and settlement patterns and various other infrastructures. This dataset features a detailed map of material stocks for the whole of Germany on a 10m grid based on high resolution Earth Observation data (Sentinel-1 + Sentinel-2), crowd-sourced geodata (OSM) and material intensity factors. Temporal extent The map is representative for ca. 2018. Data format Per federal state, the data come in tiles of 30x30km (see shapefile). The projection is EPSG:3035. The images are compressed GeoTiff files (*.tif). There is a mosaic in GDAL Virtual format (*.vrt), which can readily be opened in most Geographic Information Systems. The dataset features area and mass for different street types area and mass for different rail types area and mass for other infrastructure area, volume and mass for different building types Masses are reported as total values, and per material category. Units area in m² height in m volume in m³ mass in t for infrastructure and buildings Further information For further information, please see the publication or contact Helmut Haberl (helmut.haberl@boku.ac.at). A web-visualization of this dataset is available here. Visit our website to learn more about our project MAT_STOCKS - Understanding the Role of Material Stock Patterns for the Transformation to a Sustainable Society. Publication Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Schug, F., Frantz, D., Virág, D., Plutzar, C., Gruhler, K., Lederer, J., Schiller, G. , Fishman, T., Lanau, M., Gattringer, A., Kemper, T., Liu, G., Tanikawa, H., van der Linden, S., Hostert, P. (accepted): High-resolution maps of material stocks in buildings and infrastructures in Austria and Germany. Environmental Science & Technology Funding This research was primarly funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (MAT_STOCKS, grant agreement No 741950). ML and GL acknowledge funding by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (CityWeight, 6111-00555B), ML thanks the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC; project Multi-Scale, Circular Economic Potential of Non-Residential Building Scale, EP/S029273/1), JL acknowledges funding by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF), project ESR17-067, TF acknowledges the Israel Science Foundation grant no. 2706/19.

Global mitigation pathways play a critical role in informing climate policies and targets that are in line with international climate goals. However, it is not possible to directly compare modelled results with national inventories used to assess progress under the UNFCCC due to differences in how land-based fluxes are accounted for.National inventories consider carbon flux on managed land using an area-based approach with managed land-areas determined by nations. Emissions scenarios consider a different managed land area and are calibrated against data from detailed global carbon cycle models that account for natural (indirect) and anthropogenic (direct) fluxes separately by design. To disentangle the direct and indirect components of land-based carbon fluxes, we use a reduced complexity climate model with explicit treatment of the land-use sector, OSCAR, one of the models used by the Global Carbon Project. We find the discrepancy between model and NGHGI-based accounting methods globally to be 4.4 ± 1.0 Gt CO2 yr-1 averaged over the 2000-2020 time period, which is in line with existing estimates. We then apply OSCAR to the set of pathways assessed by the IPCC to quantify how this gap evolves over time and estimate how key mitigation benchmarks change.Across both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, LULUCF emissions pathways aligned with NGHGI accounting practices show a strong increase in the total land sink until around mid-century. However, the ‘NGHGI alignment gap’  decreases over this period, converging in the 2050-2060s for 1.5°C scenarios and 2070s-2080s for 2°C scenarios. The convergence is primarily a result of the simulated stabilization and then decrease of the CO2-fertilization effect as well as background climate warming reducing the overall effectiveness of the land sink, which in turn reduces the indirect removals considered by NGHGIs. These dynamics lead to land-based emissions reversing their downward trend in most NGHGI-aligned scenarios by mid-century, and result in the LULUCF sector becoming a net-source of emissions by 2100 in about 25% of both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.Assessing emission pathways using LULUCF definitions from national inventory accounting results in downward revisions to emissions benchmarks derived from scenarios. NGHGI-aligned pathways result in earlier net-zero CO2 emissions by around 2-5 years for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, and 2030 emission reductions relative to 2020 are enhanced by about 5 percentage points for both pathway categories. When incorporating the additional land removals considered by NGHGIs, the assessed cumulative net CO2 emissions to global net-zero CO2 also decreases systematically by 15-18% for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.We find that increasing removals from direct fluxes in 1.5C scenarios overtake estimated removals using NGHGI conventions in the near term. However, by midcentury, the strengthening of direct removals is balanced by weakening of indirect removals, meaning that, on average, carbon removal on land accounted for using NGHGI conventions in 1.5C scenarios results in about half of the LULUCF removals in current policy scenarios. We discuss the implications of our results for future Global Stocktakes and market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement.

The aim of this paper is to describe and discuss the weak and strong sustainability approach of assessing climate change and to show reasonable applications, weaknesses, possible improvements and linkages of both approaches. Main features of “weak” and “strong” sustainability approaches are characterised. Damage cost studies of global warming representing weak sustainability indicators are discussed. Further, the examples of the “inverse scenario” approach of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) and the environmental space concept of the Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment (RMNO) are described and discussed for illustrating advantages and weaknesses of strong sustainability indicators. Finally, the integration of damage cost modules into a broader methodological framework of strong sustainability is recommended.