{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["van der Wijst KI"],"funding":["EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme"],"pagination":["2575"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8102498"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["12(1)"],"pubmed_abstract":["Determining international climate mitigation response strategies is a complex task. Integrated Assessment Models support this process by analysing the interplay of the most relevant factors, including socio-economic developments, climate system uncertainty, damage estimates, mitigation costs and discount rates. Here, we develop a meta-model that disentangles the uncertainties of these factors using full literature ranges. This model allows comparing insights of the cost-minimising and cost-benefit modelling communities. Typically, mitigation scenarios focus on minimum-cost pathways achieving the Paris Agreement without accounting for damages; our analysis shows doing so could double the initial carbon price. In a full cost-benefit setting, we show that the optimal temperature target does not exceed 2.5 °C when considering medium damages and low discount rates, even with high mitigation costs. With low mitigation costs, optimal temperature change drops to 1.5 °C or less. The most important factor determining the optimal temperature is the damage function, accounting for 50% of the uncertainty."],"journal":["Nature communications"],"pubmed_title":["On the optimality of 2°C targets and a decomposition of uncertainty."],"pmcid":["PMC8102498"],"funding_grant_id":["776479"],"pubmed_authors":["Hof AF","van Vuuren DP","van der Wijst KI"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"On the optimality of 2°C targets and a decomposition of uncertainty.","description":"Determining international climate mitigation response strategies is a complex task. Integrated Assessment Models support this process by analysing the interplay of the most relevant factors, including socio-economic developments, climate system uncertainty, damage estimates, mitigation costs and discount rates. Here, we develop a meta-model that disentangles the uncertainties of these factors using full literature ranges. This model allows comparing insights of the cost-minimising and cost-benefit modelling communities. Typically, mitigation scenarios focus on minimum-cost pathways achieving the Paris Agreement without accounting for damages; our analysis shows doing so could double the initial carbon price. In a full cost-benefit setting, we show that the optimal temperature target does not exceed 2.5 °C when considering medium damages and low discount rates, even with high mitigation costs. With low mitigation costs, optimal temperature change drops to 1.5 °C or less. The most important factor determining the optimal temperature is the damage function, accounting for 50% of the uncertainty.","dates":{"release":"2021-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2021 May","modification":"2024-02-14T20:27:16.566Z","creation":"2022-02-10T09:50:41.996Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC8102498","cross_references":{"pubmed":["33958594"],"doi":["10.1038/s41467-021-22826-5"]}}