English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global-mean temperature increase is roughly proportional to cumulative emissions of carbon-dioxide (CO2). Limiting global  warming to any level thus implies a finite CO2 budget. Due to geophysical uncertainties, the size of such budgets can only be  expressed in probabilistic terms and is further influenced by non-CO2 emissions. We here explore how societal choices related to energy demand and specific mitigation options influence the size of carbon budgets for meeting a given temperature objective. We find that choices that exclude specific CO2 mitigation technologies (like Carbon Capture and Storage) result in greater costs, smaller compatible CO2 budgets until 2050, but larger CO2 budgets until 2100. Vice versa, choices that lead to a larger CO2  mitigation potential result in CO2 budgets until 2100 that are smaller but can be met at lower costs.In most cases, these budget  variations can be explained by the amount of non-CO2 mitigation that is carried out in conjunction wih CO2, and associated global carbon prices that also drive mitigation of non-CO2 gases. Budget variations are of the order of 10% round their central value. In  all cases, limiting warming to below 2 degrees C thus still implies that CO2 emissions need to be reduced raidly in the coming decades

Mitigation choices impact carbon budget size compatible with low temperature goals