A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios
Environmental Research Letters, ISSN: 1748-9326, Vol: 16, Issue: 6
2021
- 95Citations
- 125Captures
- 10Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
Balancing technology and governance are key to achieving climate goals
Despite advancements in clean energy, global CO2 emissions continue to rise. IIASA researchers contributed to a new international study that underscores the importance of integrating
Article Description
Long-term mitigation scenarios developed by integrated assessment models underpin major aspects of recent IPCC reports and have been critical to identify the system transformations that are required to meet stringent climate goals. However, they have been criticized for proposing pathways that may prove challenging to implement in the real world and for failing to capture the social and institutional challenges of the transition. There is a growing interest to assess the feasibility of these scenarios, but past research has mostly focused on theoretical considerations. This paper proposes a novel and versatile multidimensional framework that allows evaluating and comparing decarbonization pathways by systematically quantifying feasibility concerns across geophysical, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions. This framework enables to assess the timing, disruptiveness and scale of feasibility concerns, and to identify trade-offs across different feasibility dimensions. As a first implementation of the proposed framework, we map the feasibility concerns of the IPCC 1.5 C Special Report scenarios. We select 24 quantitative indicators and propose feasibility thresholds based on insights from an extensive analysis of the literature and empirical data. Our framework is, however, flexible and allows evaluations based on different thresholds or aggregation rules. Our analyses show that institutional constraints, which are often not accounted for in scenarios, are key drivers of feasibility concerns. Moreover, we identify a clear intertemporal trade-off, with early mitigation being more disruptive but preventing higher and persistent feasibility concerns produced by postponed mitigation action later in the century.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85108692525&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0ce; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0ce; https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0ce; https://validate.perfdrive.com/fb803c746e9148689b3984a31fccd902/?ssa=7256f075-4434-4086-b449-712e475141b3&ssb=03682210232&ssc=https%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Fabf0ce&ssi=76cc903d-8427-4f1c-8a3f-cfb1dbcb6252&ssk=support@shieldsquare.com&ssm=851099084751446061129992670714147904&ssn=a042bd84fe22edc22212032a17cf90ec12f787516380-2ef0-41fb-af99a8&sso=cff94582-9ca0d869996821ae85d7ec1d2289aa1e82d20e0f2aad8d69&ssp=98191489441721418063172167130816330&ssq=68483146075504587238028364282962897555333&ssr=NTIuMy4yMTcuMjU0&sst=com.plumanalytics&ssu=&ssv=&ssw=&ssx=eyJfX3V6bWYiOiI3ZjYwMDAwMjBhYWEwYS00NTQ4LTQ3N2UtYjhmZS01YjYxNjE1MDljNjIxNzIxNDI4MzY0MzY4MjMyMzkxMTQ3LTc1MzQzMGJiMmU3ZTk5YjAxMTI5ODQiLCJyZCI6ImlvcC5vcmciLCJ1em14IjoiN2Y5MDAwODIxNGUxOWMtOWM1ZS00Y2U1LTljYjktYmZhM2JjZGZlMDAxNC0xNzIxNDI4MzY0MzY4MjMyMzkxMTQ3LWQ3MzBmZGY5ZWZjMDliZGIxMTI5NzgifQ==
IOP Publishing
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know