@article{BertramBrutschinDrouetetal.2024,
  author    = {Bertram, Christoph and Brutschin, Elina and Drouet, Laurent and Luderer, Gunnar and van Ruijven, Bas and Aleluia Reis, Lara and Baptista, Luiz Bernardo and de Boer, Harmen-Sytze and Cui, Ryna and Daioglou, Vassilis and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Dimitris and Fricko, Oliver and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Hultman, Nate and Iyer, Gokul and Keramidas, Kimon and Krey, Volker and Kriegler, Elmar and Lamboll, Robin D. and Mandaroux, Rahel and Rochedo, Pedro and Rogelj, Joeri and Schaeffer, Roberto and Silva, Diego and Tagomori, Isabela and van Vuuren, Detlef and Vrontisi, Zoi and Riahi, Keywan},
  title     = {Feasibility of peak temperature targets in light of institutional constraints},
  series = {Nature climate change},
  journal   = {Nature climate change},
  publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1758-678X},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41558-024-02073-4},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C ('low overshoot') with around 50\% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5-45\%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.},
  language  = {en}
}