Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort

By Christian Holz, Sivan Kartha, T. Athanasiou. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2017

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways (2019, methodology): “Usually, effort-sharing approaches are used to calculate emissions allowances1 or required emission reduction targets over time (BASICS experts 2011; Clarke et al. 2014; Höhne et al. 2014; Pan et al. 2014, 2017; Robiou du Pont et al. 2016; Tavoni et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2017; Holz et al. 2018).”
A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‘climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways (2020, unknown): “There are various options for apportioning a finite carbon budget between countries, including populationbased approaches, grandfathering and allocations founded on, for example, economic resouces and historical responsibility (Rose, Stevens, Edmonds, and Wise, 1998; Kanitkar, Jayaraman, D’Souza, an”
Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production (2018, background): “…sharing of the available carbon budget and ecological space, and redistribution of carbon shares from the global elites to the global poor, something that would involve a deep systemic societal transformation, beyond efficiency gains and technological advances (Holz, Kartha, and Athanasiou 2017).”