Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

Abstract

The Paris Climate Agreement defined an ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. This has triggered research on stringent emission reduction targets and corresponding mitigation pathways across energy economy and societal systems. Driven by methodological considerations, supply side and carbon dioxide removal options feature prominently in the emerging pathway literature, while much less attention has been given to the role of demand-side approaches. This special issue addresses this gap, and aims to broaden and strengthen the knowledge base in this key research and policy area. This editorial paper synthesizes the special issue's contributions horizontally through three shared themes we identify: policy interventions, demand-side measures, and methodological approaches. The review of articles is supplemented by insights from other relevant literature. Overall, our paper underlines that stringent demand-side policy portfolios are required to drive the pace and direction of deep decarbonization pathways and keep the 1.5°C target within reach. It confirms that insufficient attention has been paid to demand-side measures, which are found to be inextricably linked to supply-side decarbonization and able to complement supply-side measures. The paper also shows that there is an abundance of demand-side measures to limit warming to 1.5°C, but it warns that not all of these options are Bseen^or captured by current quantitative tools or progress indicators, and some remain insufficiently represented in the current policy discourse. Based on the set of papers presented in the special issue, we conclude that demand-side mitigation in line with the 1.5°C goal is possible; however, it remains enormously challenging and dependent on both innovative technologies and policies, and behavioral change. Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires, more than ever, a plurality of methods and integrated behavioral and technology approaches to better support policymaking and resulting policy interventions.

Assessment of Sectoral Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Potentials for 2030

“…In contrast, studies that start with the (technology) options per sector can typically provide more detail in terms of emission reduction options-these are often referred to as bottom-up studies. They provide a more disaggregated characterization and analysis but are generally less concerned with systemic effects [6]. Such sectoral studies can provide, at a fairly detailed level, how much emission reduction is feasible within certain sectors or for specific emission categories.…”

Findings from a Pilot Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Bulb Exchange Program at a Neighborhood Scale

“…Solutions to addressing climate change require both technical and behavioral change to diminish energy use [1], with energy efficiency paving a pathway for participation for all income levels. Energy efficiency has the potential to assist low-and moderate-income homes to save an estimated $13 billion annually in the United States due to energy cost savings through energy efficiency action [2].…”

“…Calculations are based on a 2%, 5%, and 7.5% participation rate in the targeted ZIP codes. 1 The value of electricity savings listed for each year corresponds to only the savings associated with the bulbs exchanged in that year.…”

Recommendations for IUCN Red List Conservation Status of the “Dryophytes immaculatus Group” in North East Asia

“…The three clades are impacted by climate change in similar ways. The current global warming was called to be limited to 1.5 • C above preindustrial levels by the Paris Climate Agreements [69], a challenging request unlikely to be held despite calls for more stringent regulations [70]. Even if limited to 1.5 • C above preindustrial levels, the environmental changes to the ecosystems are estimated to severely impact water resources and ecosystems, in addition to posing a moderate-to-high-risk to natural systems [71,72].…”