This chapter focuses on accelerating mitigation and on shifting development pathways to increased sustainability, based on literature particularly at national scale. While previous WGIII assessments have discussed mitigation pathways, focus on development pathways is more recent. The timeframe is the near term (now up to 2030) to mid-term (2030 to 2050), complementing Chapter 3 on the long term (from 2050 onward).

An emissions gap persists, exacerbated by an implementation gap, despite mitigation efforts including those in near-universal nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The ‘emissions gap’ is understood as the difference between the emissions with NDCs in 2030, and mitigation pathways consistent with the temperature goals. In general, the term ‘implementation gap’ refers to the difference between goals on paper and how they are achieved in practice. In this report, the term refers to the gap between mitigation pledges contained in national determined contributions, and the expected outcome of existing policies. There is considerable literature on country-level mitigation pathways, including but not limited to NDCs. Country distribution of this literature is very unequal (robust evidence, high agreement). Current policies lead to median global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 57 GtCO2-eq with a full range of 52–60 by 2030. NDCs with unconditional and conditional elements 1 lead to 53 (50–57) and 50 (47–55) GtCO2-eq, respectively (medium evidence, medium agreement) (Table 4.3). This leaves estimated emissions gaps in 2030 between projected outcomes of unconditional elements of NDCs and emissions in scenarios that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot of 19–26 GtCO2-eq, and 10–16 GtCO2-eq for scenarios that limit warming to 2°C (>67%) with immediate action. When conditional elements of NDCs are included, these gaps narrow to 16–23 GtCO2-eq and 6–14 GtCO2-eq, respectively. {Cross-Chapter Box 4, Figure 1}

Studies evaluating up to 105 updated NDCs submitted by October 2021 indicate that emissions in conditional NDCs have been reduced by 4.5 (2.7–6.3) GtCO2-eq, but only closes the emission gaps by about one-third to 2°C and about 20% to 1.5°C compared to the original NDCs submitted in 2015/16 (medium evidence, medium agreement). The magnitude of these emission gaps calls into question whether current development pathways and efforts to accelerate mitigation are adequate to achieve the Paris mitigation objectives. In addition, an implementation gap exists between the projected emissions of ‘current policies’ and the projected emissions resulting from the implementation of the unconditional and conditional elements of NDCs, and is estimated to be around and 7 GtCO2-eq in 2030, respectively (medium evidence, medium agreement), with many countries requiring additional policies and associated climate action to meet their autonomously determined mitigation targets as specified under the first NDCs (limited evidence). There is, furthermore, a potential difference between mitigation targets set in NDCs ex ante and what is achieved ex post . A limited number of studies assess the implementation gaps of conditional NDCs in terms of finance, technology and capacity building support. The disruptionstriggered by the COVID-19 epidemic increase uncertainty over range of projections relative to pre-COVID-19 literature. As indicated by a growing number of studies at the national and global level, how large near- to mid-term emissions implications of the COVID-19 pandemic are, to a large degree depends on how stimulus or recovery packages are designed. {4.2, 4.2.2.5, Cross-Chapter Box 4}

Given the gaps, there is a need to explore accelerated mitigation (relative to NDCs and current policies). There is increasing understanding of the technical content of accelerated mitigation pathways, differentiated by national circumstances, with considerable though uneven literature at country-level (medium evidence, high agreement). Transformative technological and institutional changes for the near term include demand reductions through efficiency and reduced activity, rapid decarbonisation of the electricity sector and low-carbon electrification of buildings, industry and transport (robust evidence, medium agreement). A focus on energy use and supply is essential, but not sufficient on its own – the land sector and food systems deserve attention. The literature does not adequately include demand-side options and systems analysis, and captures the impact from non-CO2GHGs with medium confidence. Countries and regions will have different starting points for transition pathways. Some factors include climate conditions resulting in different heating and cooling needs, endowments with different energy resources, patterns of spatial development, and political and economic conditions. {4.2.5}

Accelerated mitigation alone may run into obstacles. If such obstacles are rooted in underlying structural features of society, then transforming such structures helps remove obstacles, which amounts to shifting development pathways. Various actors have developed an increasing number of mitigation strategies up to 2050 (mid-term). A growing number of such strategies aim at net zero GHG or CO2 emissions, but it is not yet possible to draw global implications due to the limited size of sample (medium evidence, low agreement). Non-state actors are also engaging in a wide range of mitigation initiatives. When adding up emission reduction potentials, sub-national and non-state international cooperative initiatives could reduce up to about 20 GtCO2-eq in 2030 (limited evidence, medium agreement). Yet perceived or real conflicts between mitigation and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can impede such action. If undertaken without precaution, accelerated mitigation is found to have significant implications for development objectives and macroeconomic costs at country level. For example, most country-level mitigation modelling studies in which GDP is an endogenous variable report negative impacts of mitigation on GDP in 2030 and 2050, relative to the reference. In all reviewed studies, however, GDP continues to grow even with mitigation(robust evidence, high agreement). The literature finds that employment effect of mitigation policies tends to be limited on aggregate, but can be significant at sectoral level (limited evidence, medium agreement). Detailed design of mitigation policies is critical for distributional impacts and avoiding lock-in (robust evidence, high agreement), though further research is needed in that direction. {4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.6}

Shifting development pathways towards sustainability offers ways to (i) broaden the range of levers and enablers that a society can use to provide enabling conditions and accelerate mitigation; and (ii) increase the chances of advancing at the same time towards mitigation and towards other development goals. The way countriesdevelop determines their capacity to accelerate mitigation and achieve other sustainable development objectives simultaneously (medium-robust evidence, medium agreement). Yet meeting ambitious mitigation and development goals cannot be achieved through incremental change, hence the focus on shifting development pathways (robust evidence, medium agreement). Though development pathways result from the actions of a wide range of actors, it is possible to shift development pathways through policies and enhancing enabling conditions (limited evidence, medium agreement). For example, policies such as those listed in Table 4.12 are typically associated with broader objectives than greenhouse gas mitigation. They are generally conceived and implemented in the pursuit of overall societal development objectives, such as job creation, macroeconomic stability, economic growth, and public health and welfare. In some countries, such policies are framed as part of a just transition. However, they can have major influence on mitigative capacity, and hence can be seen as tools to broaden mitigation options, as illustrated by the Illustrative Mitigation Pathway ‘Shifting Pathways’ (medium evidence, medium agreement). There are practical options to shift development pathways in ways that advance mitigation and other sustainable development objectives, supporting political feasibility, increase resources to meet multiple goals, and reduce emissions (limited evidence, high agreement). Concrete examples assessed in this chapter include high employment and low emissions structural change, fiscal reforms for mitigation and social contract, combining housing policies to deliver both housing and transport mitigation, and change economic, social and spatial patterns of development of the agriculture sector provide the basis for sustained reductions in emissions from deforestation. These examples differ by context. Examples in other chapters include transformations in energy, urban, building, industrial, transport, and land-based systems, changes in behaviour and social practices, as well as transformational changes across whole economies and societies. Coordinated policy mixes would need to coordinate multiple actors – individuals, groups and collectives, corporate actors, institutions and infrastructure actors – to deepen decarbonisation and shift pathways towards sustainability. Shifts in one country may spill over to other countries. Shifting development pathways can jointly support mitigation and adaptation. Some studies explore the risks of high complexity and potential delay attached to shifting development pathways. {4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.1.7–4.4.1.10, Figure 4.7, Cross-Chapter Box 5, 5.8, Box 6.2, 8.2, 8.3.1, 8.4, 9.8.1, 9.8.2, 10.4.1, Cross-Chapter Box 5, Cross-Chapter Box 7, Cross-Chapter Box 12}

The literature identifies a broad set of enabling conditions that can both foster shifting development pathways and accelerated mitigation, along five categories (medium evidence, high agreement). Policy integration is a necessary component of shifting development pathways, addressing multiple objectives. To this aim, mobilising a range of policies is preferable to single policy instruments (robust evidence, high agreement). Governance for climate mitigation and shifting development pathways is enhanced when tailored to national and local contexts. Improved institutions and governance enable ambitious climate action and help bridge implementation gaps (medium evidence, high agreement). Given that strengthening institutions may be a long term endeavour, it needs attention in the near ter m. Accelerated mitigation and shifting development pathways necessitates both redirecting existing financial flows from high- to low-emissions technologies and systems and to provide additional resources to overcome current financial barriers (robust evidence, high agreement). Opportunities exist in the near term to close the finance gap. At the national level, public finance for actions promoting the SDG agenda helps broaden the scope of mitigation (medium evidence, medium agreement). Changes in behaviour and lifestyles are important to move beyond mitigation as incremental change, and when supporting shifts to more sustainable development pathways will broadening the scope of mitigation (medium evidence, medium agreement). The direction of innovation matters (robust evidence, high agreement). The necessary transformational changes are likely to be more acceptable if rooted in the development aspirations of the economy and society within which they take place. {4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.4.1.4, 4.4.1.5, 4.4.1.6, Figure 4.8, 15.2.2}

Equity can be an important enabler of deeper ambition for accelerated mitigation, dealing with the distribution of costs and benefits and how these are shared as per social contracts, national policy and international agreements. Transition pathways have distributional consequences such as large changes in employment and economic structure (robust evidence, high agreement). In that regard, the just transition concept has become an international focal point tying together social movements, trade unions, and other key stakeholders to ensure equity is better accounted for in low-carbon transitions. Effectiveness of cooperative action and the perception of fairness of such arrangements are closely related, in that pathways that prioritise equity and allow broad stakeholders participation can enable broader consensus for the transformational change implied by deeper mitigation efforts (robust evidence, medium agreement). Hence, equity is a concept that is instrumentally important. {4.5, Figure 4.9}

In sum, this chapter suggests that the immediate tasks are to broaden and deepen mitigation in the near term if the global community is to deliver emission reductions at the scale required to keep temperature well below 2°C and pursue efforts at 1.5°C. Deepening mitigation means more rapid decarbonisation. Shifting development pathways to increased sustainability (SDPS) broadens the scope of mitigation. Putting the enabling conditions above in place supports both. Depending on context, some enabling conditions such as shifting behaviour may take time to establish, underscoring the importance of early action. Other enabling conditions, such as improved access to financing, can be put in place in a relatively short time frame, and can yield results rapidly.

Accelerating mitigation: The literature points to well-understood policy measures and technologies for accelerating mitigation, though the balance depends on country specificities: (i) decarbonising electricity supply to produce net zero CO2, including renewable energy, (ii) radically more efficient use of energy than today; (iii) electrification of end-uses including transport; (iv) dramatically lower use of fossil fuels than today; (v) converting other uses to low- or zero-carbon fuels (e.g., hydrogen, bioenergy, ammonia) in hard-to-decarbonise sectors; (vi) promote bioenergy, demand reduction, dietary changes, and policies, incentives, and rules for mitigation in the land sector; and (vii) setting and meeting ambitious targets to reduce methane and other short-lived climate forcers. Charting just transitions to net zero may provide a vision, which policy measures can help achieve. Though there is increasing experience with pricing carbon directly or indirectly, decision-makers might consider a broader toolbox of enablers and levers that is available in domains that have not traditionally been considered climate policy. {4.5, Annex II.IV.11}

Broadening opportunities by focusing on development pathways and considering how to shift them: Some of the policy measures may yield rapid results, whereas other, larger transformations may take longer. If we are to overcome obstacles, a near-term priority is to put in place the enabling conditions to shifting development pathways to increased sustainability. Learning from the examples above, focusing on SDPS also provides a broader set of tools to accelerating mitigation and achieve other sustainable development goals. Consider climate whenever you make choices about development, and vice versa. {4.4.1}

The recent IPCC Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) made clear that the next three decades are critical if we are to achieve the long-term mitigation goal of the Paris Agreement (IPCC 2018a). The present chapter assesses the literature on mitigation and development pathways over that timeframe, in the near (up to 2030) and mid-term (up to 2050).

It considers three questions: (i) Where are we heading now? That is, what is the current state of affairs with respect to climate mitigation and how did we get here? (ii) Where do we want to go? For example, what state of affairs would meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? and (iii) How do we bring about this shift? In other words, what interventions are at societies’ disposal to bring about the necessary change in an equitable manner?

Where are we heading now?Despite the drop in emissions due to the COVID-19 crisis, the gap between projected emissions based on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2030 and emissions pathways compatible with the long term temperature goal set in the Paris Agreement remains large (Section 4.2.2). In addition to this persistent emissions gap, we face an implementation gap, as current policies are insufficient to achieve mitigation targets in NDCs, and sufficient international support is not yet available to developing countries who have requested and quantified support needs. Continuing along a development pathway characterised by the same underlying drivers, structural obstacles and insufficient enabling conditions that led to high emissions will not address the problem (robust evidence, high agreement).

The analysis of the gap is conducted together with Chapter 3 (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in this chapter). Chapter 3 is working backward, assessing mitigation in the long term (beyond 2050 up to 2100) to draw the near- and mid-term implications of long-term temperature and mitigations goals. Chapter 4, on the other hand, works forward from current and planned mitigation (including NDCs) (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) and from current development paths to assess the implications for near- and mid-term greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and development goals. Some countries, regions, cities, communities and non-state actors are taking leadership in implementing more ambitious action (Section 4.2.3). This chapter also assesses national low emission development strategies (Section 4.2.4).

Where do we want to go? Technical alternatives and policy options exist to bridge the emissions and implementation gaps, and the literature illustrates these with a wide range of accelerated techno-economic pathways that deepen decarbonisation closer to the pace and scale required (Section 4.2.5), and examines their impacts on other development objectives (Section 4.2.6). In practice, however, scaling up at the broader, deeper, and faster level required to meet climate goals while advancing other development objectives regularly faces prohibitive obstacles (Section 4.2.7). Mitigation policies grafted on to existing development pathways are unlikely to achieve rapid and deep emission reductions.

Secondly, even if carefully designed, climate policies to accelerate mitigation may have adverse consequences for other development objectives. As a complement to mitigation action, taking action to shift development pathways towards sustainability broadens the range of mitigation options, while increasing the possibility to meet other development priorities at the same time (medium evidence, high agreement).

Development pathways and shifting them to increased sustainability are introduced in Chapter 1, and constitute a thread throughout the report (see ‘development pathways’ in Annex I: Glossary). The AR6 WGII Report highlights the related concept of climate resilient development pathways (AR6 WGII, Chapter 18). Cross-Chapter Box 5 in this chapter – on shifting sustainable pathway towards sustainability – elaborates on the concept. The influence of development pathways on emissions and mitigative capacity is discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 assesses modelling of shifts in development pathways, illustrated by the illustrative mitigation pathway called ‘shifting pathways’. The importance of behavioural change as societies make decisions that intentionally shift their future development pathway is emphasised in Chapter 5. The systems Chapters (6–12) take sectoral perspectives, while pathways that are sustainable are the specific focus of Chapter 17.

How can one shift development pathway and accelerate mitigation? The literature does not provide a complete handbook for shifting development pathways and accelerating mitigation. The literature does, however, shed light on some of the underlying dynamics. Shifting development pathways can be necessitated by the existence of pervasive obstacles that prove prohibitive to reaching mitigation and other development objectives (Section 4.2.7). Deliberate measures taken to facilitate the shifting of development pathways and accelerated mitigation involve putting in place key enabling conditions that help overcome those obstacles (Figure 4.6) – improving governance and institutional capacity, fostering behavioural change and technological innovation, designing and implementing adequate policy, and finance. Just transitions, while they will differ by context, are critical to identifying and avoiding or addressing inequitable distributive consequences (robust evidence, high agreement).

Enabling conditions necessary to accelerate mitigation and shift development pathways are discussed in depth in Chapters 5, 13, 14, 15 and 16. In addition, Chapters 13 and 14 detail the policy instruments that could help shift development pathways and accelerate the scale and pace of mitigation, while Chapter 4 describes those in broad strategies terms. Chapter 13 adds more texture on institutional and governance machinery; policy choice, design and implementation; as well as policy formulation processes, actors and structure across scales.

Since development pathways and mitigation options depend to large extent on national objectives and circumstances, this chapter is primarily concerned with literature at national level (or in the case of the European Union, at regional level), while Chapter 3 is primarily concerned with literature at global scale. The national scale selected in this chapter requires attention as national mitigation pathways cannot be linked directly to global mitigation goals (Box 4.2). This chapter is also concerned mostly with economy-wide development and mitigation pathways, as distinct from detailed sectoral work that is assessed in the systems Chapters 6 to 12. The present chapter also assesses literature on non-state action.

Chapter 4 draws on five major strands of literature: (i) an emerging literature on development pathways – conceptual, empirical, and model-based, including at the national and sub-national scales; (ii) a rapidly expanding, model-based, literature on mitigation pathways in the near- and mid-term (Lepault and Lecocq 2021); (iii) studies of NDCs and mid-century strategies; (iv) a broader literature on transformation and shifts in development pathways, including from non-climate literatures; and (v) a significant literature on equity, including just transitions. This is supported by a database of country-level mitigation scenarios at country level assembled for the preparation of this chapter (Annex III, Table I.10 and I.11).

The chapter builds on past IPCC reports. In AR5, all mitigation pathways were assessed in a single chapter (Clarke et al. 2014), which focused mostly on the long term. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) included a chapter on mitigation pathways compatible with the temperature goal in the Paris Agreement (Rogelj et al. 2018a), mostly at the global level. It also considered strengthening mitigation (de Coninck et al. 2018) in the context of poverty, inequality and sustainable development (Roy et al. 2018). Development pathways have also been explored, albeit less frequently, in past IPCC reports starting with the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). Some early framing of development pathways was included in the Third Assessment Report (Banuri et al. 2001), further developed in the Fourth Assessment Report (Sathaye et al. 2007). An extended discussion of climate change and equity was conducted in AR5 (Fleurbaey et al. 2014).

Chapter 4 examines mitigation within the broader context of development pathways, and examines how shifting development pathways can have a major impact on mitigative capacity and broadening mitigation options. It is organised as follows.

Section 4.2 demonstrates that collective mitigation actions fall short of pathways that keep in reach the Paris temperature goals in the long term. Section 4.3 introduces development pathways (given its relative novelty in IPCC assessments), considers the implications of mitigation for development and vice versa, and articulates an approach on both accelerating mitigation and shifting development pathways.

Section 4.4 discusses how to shift development pathway and accelerate the scale and pace of mitigation, what levers are available to policymakers, and how policies may intersect with adaptation goals. It points out that development pathways also drive adaptation and adaptative capacity, and discusses various risks associated with shifting development pathways and accelerated mitigation strategies.

Finally, equity and just transitions are recurring themes in the chapter, specifically in relation to accelerating mitigation and shifting development pathways toward sustainability. In Section 4.2.2.7, equity is discussed in the context of Parties’ assertions regarding the fairness of their NDCs, alongside reflections from academic scholarship on the ethical underpinnings of these assertions and of various quantitative analyses of equitable effort-sharing. Section 4.2.6 discusses certain distributional implications of domestic mitigation efforts, such as shifts in employment. Sections 4.2.7 and 4.3 note the relevance of potential distributional impacts as an obstacle to climate action, as well as the inequitable distribution of decision-making authority. Finally, Section 4.5 recognises the structural relationship between equity and climate, explores just transitions as an international focal point tying together social movements, trade unions, and other stakeholders, and thus an instrumental role in establishing consensus.

Equity is an ethical and at times economic imperative, but it is also instrumentally an enabler of deeper ambition for accelerated mitigation (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). The literature supports a range of estimates of the net benefits – globally or nationally – of low-carbon transformation, and it identifies a number of difficulties in drawing definitive quantitative conclusions (e.g., comparisons of costs and benefits among different actors, the existence of non-economic impacts, comparison across time, uncertainty in magnitude) (Section 3.6). One of the most important of these dimensions is the distributional consequences of mitigation, as well as a range of equity considerations arising from the uncertainty in net benefits, as well as from the distribution of costs and benefits among winners and losers (Rendall 2019; Caney 2016; Lahn and Bradley 2016; Lenferna 2018a; Kartha et al. 2018b; Robiou Du Pont et al. 2017). Some equity approaches are even just seeking corrective justice including for historical emissions (Adler 2007). For an assessment of literature on fairness in NDCs, see Section 4.2.2.7.

Equity issues are often discussed in the literature via frameworks that are well-founded in the ethical literature and that have a strong bearing on effort-sharing, but have not yet been quantitatively modelled and expressed in the form of an emissions allocation quantified framework. These include, for example, ethical perspectives based in human rights (Johl and Duyck 2012), human capabilities (Klinsky et al. 2017b), environmental justice (Mohai et al. 2009; Schlosberg 2009), ecological debt (Srinivasana et al. 2008; Warlenius et al. 2015), transitional justice (Klinsky 2017; Klinsky and Brankovic 2018), and planetary boundaries (Häyhä et al. 2016).

While there is extensive literature on equity frameworks for national emissions allocations (CSO Equity Review 2015, 2017, 2018; Holz et al. 2018; Kemp-Benedict et al. 2018; Robiou du Pont and Meinshausen 2018; Fyson et al. 2020; Pozo et al. 2020; Pye et al. 2020), such studies have tended to focus on allocation of a global carbon budget among countries based on quantified equity frameworks. The implicit normative choices made in these analysis have limitations (Kartha et al. 2018a). Moreover, there are many ethical parameters that could be introduced to enrich the existing quantitative frameworks, such as progressivity (Holz et al. 2018), consumption-based accounting (Afionis et al. 2017), prioritarianism (Adler and Treich 2015 ), and a right to development (Moellendorf 2020). Introducing these ethical frames into conventional quantification approaches generally implies greater allocations for poorer and lower-emitting populations, suggesting that the approaches that are typically highlighted in emissions allocation analyses tends to favour wealthier and higher-emitting countries. Broader, more inclusive sharing of costs and burdens is seen as a way to enhance equity in procedures and outcomes.

Ultimately, equity consequences depend on how costs and benefits are initially incurred and how they are shared as per social contracts (Combet and Hourcade 2017), national policy, and international agreements. The literature suggests a relationship between the effectiveness of cooperative action and the perception of fairness of such arrangements. Winkler et al. (2018) demonstrate that countries have put forward a wide variety of indicators and approaches for explaining the fairness and ambition of their NDCs, reflecting the broader range of perspectives found in the moral philosophical literature cited above. Mbeva and Pauw (2016) further find that adaptation and financing issues take on greater salience in the national perspectives reflected in the NDCs.

Topics of equity and fairness have begun to receive a greater amount of attention within the energy and climate literature, namely through the approaches of gender and race (Pearson et al. 2017; Lennon 2017; Allen et al. 2019), climate justice (Roberts and Parks 2007; Routledge et al. 2018) (Roberts & Parks, 2006; Routledge et al. 2018), and energy justice (Sovacool and Dworkin 2014). While such approaches frequently envision justice and equity as an ethical imperative, justice also possesses the instrumental value of enabling deeper and more socially acceptable mitigation efforts (Klinsky and Winkler 2018 ).

A concrete focal point on these issues has been that of ‘just transition’. Getting broad consensus for the transformational changes entailed in moving from a high- to a low-carbon economy means ‘leaving no one behind’, in other words, ensuring (sufficiently) equitable transition for the relevant affected individuals, workers, communities, sectors, regions and countries (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013; Jasanoff 2018). The concept of a ‘just transition’ owes its origin to the USA trade union movement of the 1980s. The earliest version of a just transition was called the ‘Superfund for Workers’ modelled on the 1980 Superfund program that designed federal funds for the clean-up of toxic substances from chemicals, mining and energy production (Stevis and Felli 2015). It was further taken up, for example in the collaboration of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in promoting ‘green jobs’ as integral elements of a just transition (ILO 2015; Rosemberg 2010). In recent years the concept of a ‘just transition’ has gained increased traction, for example incorporated in the outcome of the Rio+20 Earth Summit and more recently recognised in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, which states ‘the imperative of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities’ (UNFCCC 2015a). Some heads of state and government signed a Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration first introduced at COP24 in Poland (HoSG 2018).

The literature identifies targeted and proactive measures from governments, agencies, and authorities to ensure that any negative social, environmental or economic impacts of economy-wide transitions are minimised, while benefits are maximised for those disproportionally affected (Healy and Barry 2017). While the precise definition varies by source, core elements tend to include: (i) investments in establishing low-emission and labour-intensive technologies and sectors (Mijn Cha et al. 2020); (ii) research and early assessment of the social and employment impacts of climate policies (Green and Gambhir 2020; Mogomotsi et al. 2018); (iii) social dialogue and democratic consultation of social partners and stakeholders (Swilling and Annecke 2012; Smith 2017); (iv) the creation of decent jobs; active labour markets policies; and rights at work (ILO 2015; UNFCCC 2016c); (v) fairness in energy access and use (Carley and Konisky 2020); (vi) economic diversification based on low-carbon investments; (vii) realistic training/retraining programs that lead to decent work; (viii) gender specific politics that promote equitable outcomes (Allwood 2020); (ix) the fostering of international cooperation and coordinated multilateral actions (Lenferna 2018b; Newell and Simms 2020); (x) redressing of past harms and perceived injustices (Setzer and Vanhala 2019; UNHRC 2020); and (xi) consideration of inter-generational justice concerns, such as the impacts of policy decisions on future generations (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013).

A just transition could therefore entail that the state intervenes more actively in the eradication of poverty, and creates jobs in lower-carbon sectors, in part to compensate for soon-to-be abandoned fossil-fuel-based sectors, and that governments, polluting industries, corporations and those more able to pay higher associated taxes pay for transition costs, provide a welfare safety net and adequate compensation for people, communities, places, and regions that have been impacted by pollution, marginalised or negatively impacted by a transition from a high- to low-carbon economy and society (Muttitt and Kartha 2020; Le Billon and Kristoffersen 2020; Kartha et al. 2018b). Reducing climate impacts is another important dimension of equity, in that the poor who are least responsible for climate change are most vulnerable to its impacts (AR6 WGII, Chapter 8). Focusing on financial losses alone however can obscure an important distinction between losses incurred by corporations and states and losses experienced by workers and communities. Processes established in the name of a just transition are also at risk of being co-opted by incumbent interests and powerful/wealthy agents (Green and Gambhir, 2020). Policy interventions associated with good governance, democratic oversight, and legal recourse can help overcome attempted co-optation of just transition, or use of COVID-19 recovery packages for continued carbon lock-in (Hepburn et al. 2020; SEI et al. 2020).

The just transition concept has thus become an international focal point tying together social movements, trade unions, and other key stakeholders to ensure equity is better accounted for in low-carbon transitions and to seek to protect workers and communities. It also forms a central pillar of the growing movement for a ‘Green New Deal’ – a roadmap for a broad spectrum of policies, programs, and legislation that aims to rapidly decarbonise the economy while significantly reducing economic inequality (Allam et al. 2021; Galvin and Healy 2020). The US Green New Deal Resolution (Ocasio-Cortez 2019) for example, positions structural inequality, poverty mitigation, and a just transition at its centre. The European Green Deal proposed in 2019 (European Commission 2019), including a €100 billion ‘Just Transition Mechanism’ to mitigate the social effects of transitioning away from jobs in fossil-based industries. National level green new deals with strong just transition components have been proposed in South Korea, Australia, Spain, UK, Puerto Rico, Canada, as well as regional proposals across Latin America and the Caribbean (Pollin 2020).

A just transition at national, regional and local scales can help to ensure that workers, communities, frontline communities and the energy-poor are not left behind in the transition. Moreover, a just transition necessitates that rapid decarbonisation does not perpetuate asymmetries between richer and poorer states and people (UNHRC 2020). Alliances around a just transition in countries across the world take many forms (Box 4.6).

As Figure 4.9 shows, no fewer than seven national commissions or task forces on a just transition existed as of 2020 as well as seven other sets of national policies and a multitude of other actors, networks, and movements. For instance, the German phase-out of coal subsidies involved a savings package for unemployed miners. Subsidy reform packages introduced by Iran, Namibia, the Philippines, Turkey, and United Kingdom provide similar compensating measures to affected groups (Sovacool 2017). Spain’s just transition plan for coal miners includes early retirement, redundancy packages, silicosis compensation, retraining for green jobs, and priority job placement for former miners.

This section summarises knowledge gaps that require further research:

•Literature on mitigation pathways at the national level remains skewed towards large emitters. Many low-income countries have very few or no studies at all (Lepault and Lecocq 2021) (Section 4.2) (Annex III). Development of new studies and inclusion of associated scenarios in updated mitigation national mitigation pathway database would enhance understanding of mitigation at national level.

•Ex ante and ex post analysis of mitigation action and of mitigation plans by non-state actors, and their relationship with mitigation action and plans by governments is limited (Section 4.2.3).

• System analysis solutions are only beginning to be recognised in current literature on deep mitigation pathways, and rarely included in existing national policies or strategies (Section 4.2.5).

•While the technology elements of accelerated mitigation pathways at national level are generally well documented, studies of the economic and social implications of such pathways remain scarce (Section 4.2.6).

•Literature on the implication of development choices for emissions and for capacity to mitigate is limited (Section 4.3.2). In particular, more contributions from the research community working on development issues would be very useful here.

•Literature describing shifts in development pathways, and the conditions for such shifts (based on past experience or on models) remains scarce (Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.3 and 4.4.1). Studying shifts in development pathways requires new ways of thinking with interdisciplinary research and use of alternative frameworks and methods suited for understanding of change agents, determinants of change and adaptive management among other issues (Winkler 2018). Research is not only expected to produce knowledge and boost innovation, but also to help identify transformation pathways and to enlighten public debate and public decision-making on related political choices.

•Other research gaps concern the open ocean and blue carbon. There is limited knowledge about quantification of the blue carbon stocks. Research is required into what happens if the sequestration capacity of the ocean and marine ecosystems is damaged by climate change to the tipping point until the sink becomes an emitter, and on how to manage blue carbon (Section 4.4.2).

•Knowledge is limited on: (i) linking equity frameworks on mitigation with adaptation and most importantly with loss and damage, (ii) applying ethical parameters to enrich many of the existing quantitative frameworks, to assess fairness and ambition of NDCs; (iii) extending equity frameworks to quantify equitable international support, as the difference between equity-based national emissions scenarios and national domestic emissions scenarios (Sections 4.2.2.7 and 4.5).

Abadie, L.M., I. Galarraga, and D. Rübbelke, 2013: An analysis of the causes of the mitigation bias in international climate finance. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 18(7) , 943–955, doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9401-7.

Acar, S. and A.E. Yeldan, 2016: Environmental impacts of coal subsidies in Turkey: A general equilibrium analysis. Energy Policy, 90, 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.003.

Adler, M., 2007: Corrective Justice and Liability for Global Warming. Univ. PA. Law Rev. , 155 (6) , 1859–1867.

Adler, M.D. and N. Treich, 2015: Prioritarianism and Climate Change. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 62(2) , 279–308, doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9960-7.

Adenle, A.A., H. Azadi, and J. Arbiol, 2015: Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world. J. Environ. Manage. , 161, 261–275, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.040.

Adenle, A.A., D.T. Manning, and J. Arbiol, 2017: Mitigating Climate Change in Africa: Barriers to Financing Low-Carbon Development. World Dev. , 100, 123–132, doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.033.

Adeoti, J., L. Chete, C. Beaton, and K. Clarke, 2016: Compensation Mechanisms for Fuel Subsidy Removal in Nigeria. The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Global Subsidies Initiative, Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Winnipeg, Canada, Geneva, Switzerland and Lagos, Nigeria, 68 pp.

Adler, M.D. and N. Treich, 2015: Prioritarianism and Climate Change. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 62(2) , 279–308, doi:10.1007/s10640-015-9960-7.

Adshead, D., S. Thacker, L.I. Fuldauer, and J.W. Hall, 2019: Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals through long-term infrastructure planning. Glob. Environ. Change, 59, 101975, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101975.

Afionis, S., M. Sakai, K. Scott, J. Barrett, and A. Gouldson, 2017: Consumption-based carbon accounting: Does it have a future?Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 8(1) , e438, doi:10.1002/WCC.438.

Agénor, P.-R.R. and O. Canuto, 2015: Middle-income growth traps. Res. Econ. , 69(4) , 641–660, 10.1016/j.rie.2015.04.003.

Aggarwal, P., 2017: 2°C target, India’s climate action plan and urban transport sector. Travel Behav. Soc. , 6, 110–116, doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2016.11.001.

Ai, Z., N. Hanasaki, V. Heck, T. Hasegawa, and S. Fujimori, 2021: Global bioenergy with carbon capture and storage potential is largely constrained by sustainable irrigation. Nat. Sustain. , 4(10) , 884–891, doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00740-4.

Aldy, J.E., W.A. Pizer, and K. Akimoto, 2017: Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries. Clim. Policy, 17(4) , 501–515, doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1119098.

Allam, Z., A. Sharifi, D. Giurco, and S.A. Sharpe, 2021: On the Theoretical Conceptualisations, Knowledge Structures and Trends of Green New Deals. Sustainability, 13(22) , 12529, doi:10.3390/su132212529.

Allen, E., H. Lyons, and J.C. Stephens, 2019: Women’s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: Redistributing power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 57, 101233, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233.

Allwood, G., 2020: Mainstreaming Gender and Climate Change to Achieve a Just Transition to a Climate-Neutral Europe. J. Common Mark. Stud. , 58(S1) , 173–186, doi:10.1111/jcms.13082.

Alongi, D.M., 2008: Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. , 76(1) , 1–13, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2007.08.024.

Alongi, D.M., 2015: The Impact of Climate Change on Mangrove Forests. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1(1) , 30–39, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x.

Altenburg, T. and D. Rodrik, 2017: Green Industrial Policy: Accelerating Structural Change Towards Wealthy Green Economies. In: Green Industrial Policy. Concept, Policies, Country Experiences[Altenburg, T. and C. Assmann, (eds.)], UN Environment; German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 2–20.

Altieri, K. et al., 2015: Pathways to deep decarbonisation in South Africa. Part of DDPP 2015 final report of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project . Energy Research Centre, Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, Cape Town, New York, Paris, 52 pp.

Altieri, K.E. et al., 2016: Achieving development and mitigation objectives through a decarbonization development pathway in South Africa. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S78–S91, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1150250.

Alton, T. et al., 2014: Introducing carbon taxes in South Africa. Appl. Energy, 116, 344–354, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2013.11.034.

Álvarez-Espinosa, A.C. et al., 2018: Evaluación económica de los compromisos de Colombia en el marco de COP21. Rev. Desarro. y Soc. , (79), 15–54, doi:10.13043/dys.79.1.

Ameli, N., P. Drummond, A. Bisaro, M. Grubb, and H. Chenet, 2020: Climate finance and disclosure for institutional investors: Why transparency is not enough. Clim. Change, 160(4) , 565–589, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02542-2.

Amjath-Babu, T.S., P.K. Aggarwal, and S. Vermeulen, 2019: Climate action for food security in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture in nationally determined contributions to the Paris agreement. Clim. Policy, 19(3) , 283–298, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1501329.

Andersen, I. et al., 2021: Defining ‘science-based targets’. Natl. Sci. Rev. , 8(7) , doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa186.

Andersson, M., P. Bolton, and F. Samama, 2016: Hedging Climate Risk. Financ. Anal. J. , 72(3) , 13–32, doi:10.2469/faj.v72.n3.4.

Andrijevic, M., J. Crespo Cuaresma, T. Lissner, A. Thomas, and C.F. Schleussner, 2020: Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nat. Commun. , 11(1) , 1–8, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19856-w.

Ansar, A., B. Caldecott, and J. Tilbury, 2013: Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 81 pp.

Antimiani, A., V. Costantini, O. Kuik, and E. Paglialunga, 2016: Mitigation of adverse effects on competitiveness and leakage of unilateral EU climate policy: An assessment of policy instruments. Ecol. Econ. , 128, 246–259, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.003.

Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land Use Policy, 49, 203–212, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.007.

Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, T.P. Agyekum, and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Alignment between nationally determined contributions and the sustainable development goals for West Africa. Clim. Policy, 18(10) , 1296–1312, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1431199.

APERC, 2019: APEC Energy Demand and Supply. Outlook, vol. 1, 7th ed., Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat (APERC), Singapore, 198 pp.

Arango-Aramburo, S. et al., 2019: Climate impacts on hydropower in Colombia: A multi-model assessment of power sector adaptation pathways. Energy Policy, 128 (July 2018), 179–188, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.057.

Arndt, C., R. Davies, K. Makrelov, and J. Thurlow, 2013: Measuring the Carbon Intensity of the South African Economy. South African J. Econ. , 81(3) , 393–415, doi:10.1111/j.1813-6982.2012.01324.x.

Arneth, A. et al., 2021: Restoring Degraded Lands. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. , 46(1) , doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809.

Asakawa, K., K. Kimoto, S. Takeda, and T.H. Arimura, 2021: Double Dividend of the Carbon Tax in Japan: Can We Increase Public Support for Carbon Pricing? In: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific, Springer Japan, pp. 235–255.

Asensio, O.I., and M.A. Delmas, 2016: The dynamics of behavior change: Evidence from energy conservation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. , 126, 196–212, doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2016.03.012.

Asher, M.G. and A.S. Bali, 2017: Creating fiscal space to pay for pension expenditure in Asia. Econ. Polit. Stud. , 5(4) , 501–514, doi:10.1080/20954816.2017.1384625.

Ashina, S., J. Fujino, T. Masui, T. Ehara, and G. Hibino, 2012: A roadmap towards a low-carbon society in Japan using backcasting methodology: Feasible pathways for achieving an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. Energy Policy, 41, 584–598, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.020.

Auffhammer, M. and C.D. Wolfram, 2014: Powering up China: Income distributions and residential electricity consumption. Am. Econ. Rev. , 104(5) , 575–580, doi:10.1257/aer.104.5.575.

Ayers, J.M. and S. Huq, 2009: Supporting adaptation to climate change: What role for official development assistance?Dev. Policy Rev. , 27(6) , 675–692, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00465.x.

Bachus, K., L. Van Ootegem, and E. Verhofstadt, 2019: ‘No taxation without hypothecation’: Towards an improved understanding of the acceptability of an environmental tax reform J. Environ. Policy Plan. , 21 (4) , 321–332, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623654.

Baek, J. and G. Gweisah, 2013: Does income inequality harm the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States. Energy Policy, 62, 1434–1437, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.097.

Bahn, O. and K. Vaillancourt, 2020: Implications of EMF 34 scenarios on renewable deployment and carbon abatement in Canada: Insights from a regionalized energy model. Energy Policy, 142 (April), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111518.

Bain, P.G., M.J. Hornsey, R. Bongiorno, and C. Jeffries, 2012: Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat. Clim. Change, 2(8) , 600–603, doi:10.1038/nclimate1532.

Bankwatch, 2019: The transformation action plan for the Slovakia’s Upper Nitra coal region. Bankwatch Network. https://bankwatch.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/Transformation-Action-Plan-Upper-Nitra.pdf (Accessed June 15, 2020).

Banuri, T. and J.P. Weyant, 2001: Setting the Stage: Climate change and sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation: Contribution of WGIII to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [Banuri, T. and J.P. Weyant, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 74–114.

Bappenas, 2019: Low Carbon Development Report: A paradigm shift towards a green economy in Indonesia. Minister (2001) of National Development Planning/ Head of National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas), Indonesia. Jakarta, https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/sites/default/files/downloads/policy-database//indonesia_lowcarbon_development_full%20report.pdf .

Bataille, C., H. Waisman, M. Colombier, L. Segafredo, and J. Williams, 2016a: The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP): Insights and emerging issues. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S1–S6, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1179620.

Bataille, C. et al., 2016b: The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S7–S26, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1173005.

Bataille, C. et al., 2018: A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization pathway options for making energy-intensive industry production consistent with the Paris Agreement. J. Clean. Prod. , 187, 960–973, doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.107.

Bataille, C. et al., 2020: Net-zero deep decarbonization pathways in Latin America: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Strateg. Rev. , 30, doi:10.1016/j.esr.2020.100510.

Bataille, C. G.F., 2020: Physical and policy pathways to net‐zero emissions industry. WIREs Clim. Change, 11 (2) , doi:10.1002/wcc.633.

Baum, A., A. Hodge, and A. Mineshima, 2017: Can They Do It All? Fiscal Space in Low-Income Countries. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA, 41 pp.

Baumstark, L. et al., 2021: REMIND2.1: Transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits. Geosci. Model Dev. , 14(10) , 6571–6603, doi:10.5194/gmd-14-6571-2021.

Beck, B., T. Surridge, and S. Hietkamp, 2013: The South African centre for carbon capture and storage delivering CCS in the developing world. Energy Procedia, 37, 6502–6507, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.580.

Beegle, K., A. Coudouel, and E. Monsalve, eds., 2018: Realizing the Full Potential of Social Safety Nets in Africa. The World Bank, San Francisco, USA 385 pp, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29789/9781464811647.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Beiser-McGrath, L.F. and T. Bernauer, 2019: Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible?Sci. Adv. , 5(9) , doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax3323.

Benavides, C. et al., 2015: The impact of a carbon tax on the Chilean electricity generation sector. Energies, 8, 2674–2700, doi:10.3390/en8042674.

Benner, C. and A. Karner, 2016: Low-wage jobs-housing fit: identifying locations of affordable housing shortages. Urban Geogr. , 37(6) , 883–903, doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1112565.

Bento, A.M., 2013: Equity Impacts of Environmental Policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. , 5(1) , 181–196, doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-091912-151925.

Bento, A.M., M.L. Cropper, A.M. Mobarak, and K. Vinha, 2005: The effects of Urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. , 87(3) , 466–478, doi:10.1162/0034653054638292.

Benveniste, H., O. Boucher, C. Guivarch, H. Le Treut, and P. Criqui, 2018: Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: Uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(1) , doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa0b9.

Bergquist, P., M. Mildenberger, and L.C. Stokes, 2020: Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15(5) , doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1.

Berry, A., 2019: The distributional effects of a carbon tax and its impact on fuel poverty: A microsimulation study in the French context. Energy Policy, 124, 81–94, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.09.021.

Berthe, A. and L. Elie, 2015: Mechanisms explaining the impact of economic inequality on environmental deterioration. Ecol. Econ. , 116, 191–200, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.026.

Bertram, C. et al., 2015: Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 90 (PA) , 62–72, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.001.

Bertram, C. et al., 2018: Targeted policies can compensate most of the increased sustainability risks in 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(6) , 064038, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aac3ec.

Biagini, B., L. Kuhl, K.S. Gallagher, and C. Ortiz, 2014: Technology transfer for adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(9) , 828–834, doi:10.1038/nclimate2305.

Biardeau, L.T., L.W. Davis, P. Gertler, and C. Wolfram, 2020: Heat exposure and global air conditioning. Nat. Sustain. , 3(1) , 25–28, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0441-9.

Bindoff, N.L., W.W.L. Cheung, J.G. Kairo, J. Arístegui, V.A. Guinder, R. Hallberg, N. Hilmi, N. Jiao, M.S. Karim, L. Levin, S. O’Donoghue, S.R. Purca Cuicapusa, B. Rinkevich, T. Suga, A. Tagliabue, and P. Williamson, 2019: Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate[H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 447–588.

Birmingham Energy Institute, 2018: A Cool World Defining the Energy Conundrum of Cooling for All. University of Bringham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-eps/energy/Publications/2018-clean-cold-report.pdf .

Blazquez, J., L.C. Hunt, and B. Manzano, 2017: Oil subsidies and renewable energy in Saudi Arabia: A general equilibrium approach. Energy J. , 38(1) , 29–45, doi:10.5547/01956574.38.SI1.jbla.

BloombergNEF, 2017: Global Storage Market to Double Six Times by 2030, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, London, UK, https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-storage-market-double-six-times-2030/ (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Bodnar, P. et al., 2018: Underwriting 1.5°C: competitive approaches to financing accelerated climate change mitigation. Clim. Policy, 18(3) , 368–382, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1389687.

Böhringer, C., S. Peterson, T.F. Rutherford, J. Schneider, and M. Winkler, 2021: Climate policies after Paris: Pledge, Trade and Recycle: Insights from the 36th Energy Modeling Forum Study (EMF36). Energy Econ. , 103, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105471.

Bolderdijk, J.W., L. Steg, E.S. Geller, P.K. Lehman, and T. Postmes, 2013: Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Clim. Change, 3(4) , 413–416, doi:10.1038/nclimate1767.

Boomsma, C. and L. Steg, 2014: The effect of information and values on acceptability of reduced street lighting. J. Environ. Psychol. , 39, 22–31, doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.004.

Borba, B.S.M.C. et al., 2012: Energy-related climate change mitigation in Brazil: Potential, abatement costs and associated policies. Energy Policy, 49, 430–441, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.040.

Borenstein, S. and L.W. Davis, 2016: The Distributional Effects of US Clean Energy Tax Credits. Tax Policy Econ. , 30(1) , 191–234, doi:10.1086/685597.

Boulle, M. et al., 2015: MAPS approach: learning and doing in the Global South. The MAPS Programme. Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS), Cape Town, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308899738_The_MAPS_approach_learning_and_doing_in_the_global_south.

Bowen, A., K. Kuralbayeva, and E.L. Tipoe, 2018: Characterising green employment: The impacts of ‘greening’ on workforce composition. Energy Econ. , 72, 263–275, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.015.

Boysen, L.R. et al., 2017: The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth’s Futur. , 5(5) , 463–474, doi:10.1002/2016EF000469.

Broekhoff, D., P. Erickson, and C.M. Lee, 2015: What cities do best: Piecing together an efficient global climate governance. Stockholm Environment Institute, Seattle, USA, https://www.sei.org/publications/what-cities-do-best-piecing-together-an-efficient-global-climate-governance/ (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Brown, T., D. Schlachtberger, A. Kies, S. Schramm, and M. Greiner, 2018: Synergies of sector coupling and transmission reinforcement in a cost-optimised, highly renewable European energy system. Energy, 160, 720–739, doi:10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.06.222.

Bruegge, C., T. Deryugina, and E. Myers, 2019: The Distributional Effects of Building Energy Codes. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 6(S1) , S95–S127, doi:10.1086/701189.

Brunner, S. and K. Enting, 2014: Climate finance: A transaction cost perspective on the structure of state-to-state transfers. Glob. Environ. Change, 27(1) , 138–143, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.005.

Buchner, B. et al., 2019: Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019 – CPI.https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2019/ (Accessed December 18, 2019).

Büchs, M. et al., 2020: Wellbeing economies post-covid – Wellbeing Economy Alliance, Wellbeing Economy Alliance, BARNSTAPLE, United Kingdom, 10 pp., https://wellbeingeconomy.org/ten-principles-for-building-back-better- to-create-wellbeing-economies-post-covid.

Bulavskaya, T. and F. Reynès, 2018: Job creation and economic impact of renewable energy in the Netherlands. Renew. Energy, 119, 528–538, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.039.

Burch, S., A. Shaw, A. Dale, and J. Robinson, 2014: Triggering transformative change: A development path approach to climate response in communities. Clim. Policy, 14(4) , 467–487.

Bureau, D., F. Henriet, and K. Schubert, 2019: Pour le climat: Une taxe juste, pas juste une taxe. Notes du Cons. d’analyse économique, 50(2) , 1, doi:10.3917/ncae.050.0001.

Busch, T., H. Klee, and V.H. Hoffmann, 2008: Curbing greenhouse gas emissions on a sectoral basis: the Cement Sustainability Initiative. In: Corporate Responses to Climate Change, Routledge [Sullivan, R. (ed.)]. Routledge, Oxon, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 204–219.

Bustamante, M.M.C. et al., 2018: Engagement of scientific community and transparency in C accounting: The Brazilian case for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(5) , 055005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabb37.

Butnar, I. et al., 2020: A deep dive into the modelling assumptions for biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a transparency exercise. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15(8) , 084008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5c3e.

Caetano, T., H. Winker, and J. Depledge, 2020: Towards zero carbon and zero poverty: Integrating national climate change mitigation and sustainable development goals. Clim. Policy, 20(7) , 773–778, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1791404.

Cain, M. et al., 2019: Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. , 2 (1) , 29, doi:10.1038/s41612-019-0086-4.

Calfucoy, P., M. Torres Gunfaus, and H. Blanco, 2019: Building capacities for long-term planning: The Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) program, Washington, DC, https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/building-capacities-long-term-planning-mitigation-action-plan-and-scenarios-maps-program-updated.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Calvin, K. et al., 2021: Bioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability. GCB Bioenergy, 13(9) , 1346–1371, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12863.

Campagnolo, L. and M. Davide, 2019: Can the Paris deal boost SDGs achievement? An assessment of climate mitigation co-benefits or side-effects on poverty and inequality. World Dev. , 122, 96–109, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.015.

Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: ScienceDirect Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture?Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. , 8, 39–43, doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.002.

Caney, S., 2016: The Struggle for Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World. Midwest Stud. Philos. , 40(1) , 9–26, doi:10.1111/misp.12044.

Canzler, W. and D. Wittowsky, 2016: The impact of Germany’s Energiewende on the transport sector – Unsolved problems and conflicts. Util. Policy, 41, 246–251, doi:10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.011.

Cao, S. et al., 2010: Damage caused to the environment by reforestation policies in arid and semi-arid areas of China. Ambio, 39(4) , 279–283, doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0038-z.

Capros, P. et al., 2019: Energy-system modelling of the EU strategy towards climate-neutrality. Energy Policy, 134, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.110960.

Carley, S. and D.M. Konisky, 2020: The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy, 5, 569–577, doi:10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

Carrara, S., 2020: Reactor ageing and phase-out policies: Global and regional prospects for nuclear power generation. Energy Policy, 147, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111834.

Cartwright, A., 2015: Better Growth, Better Cities: Rethinking and Redirecting Urbanisation in Africa. Working Pa. New Climate Economy, Washington, DC, USA, 44 pp, https://newclimateeconomy.report/workingpapers/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/NCE-APP-final.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

CCFLA, 2017: Localizing Climate Finance, Mapping Gaps and Opportunities, Designing Solutions, New York, USA, https://ccacoalition.org/en/resources/ localizing-climate-finance-mapping-gaps-and-opportunities-designing-solutions-0.

Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2016: The 13th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China. Cent. Compil. Transl. Press, 97–99.

Chadwick, A.E., 2017: Climate Change Communication. Oxford Res. Encycl. Commun. , doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.22.

Chai, Q.-M. and H.-Q. Xu, 2014: Modeling an emissions peak in China around 2030: Synergies or trade-offs between economy, energy and climate security. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. , 5(4) , 169–180, doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2015.06.001.

Chan, S., R. Falkner, M. Goldberg, and H. van Asselt, 2018: Effective and geographically balanced? An output-based assessment of non-state climate actions. Clim. Policy, 18(1) , 24–35, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1248343.

Charlier, D., B. Legendre, and A. Risch, 2019: Fuel poverty in residential housing: Providing financial support versus combatting substandard housing. Appl. Econ. , 51(49) , 5369–5387, doi:10.1080/00036846.2019.1613501.

Chateau, J., R. Bibas, and E. Lanzi, 2018: Impacts of Green Growth Policies on Labour Markets and Wage Income Distribution: A General Equilibrium Application to Climate and Energy Policies-Environment, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, doi: 10.1787/5jz2qck2b2vd-en.

Chen, J., P. Wang, L. Cui, S. Huang, and M. Song, 2018a: Decomposition and decoupling analysis of CO2 emissions in OECD. Appl. Energy, 231, 937–950, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.179.

Chen, J., X. Yin, and L. Mei, 2018b: Holistic Innovation: An Emerging Innovation Paradigm. Int. J. Innov. Stud. , 2(1) , 1–13, doi:10.1016/J.IJIS.2018.02.001.

Chen, Y.-H.H., G.R. Timilsina, and F. Landis, 2013: Economic implications of reducing carbon emissions from energy use and industrial processes in Brazil. J. Environ. Manage. , 130, 436–446, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.049.

Chen, Y., 2018: Comparing North-South technology transfer and South-South technology transfer: The technology transfer impact of Ethiopian Wind Farms. Energy Policy, 116, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.051.

Chen, Y. and M.A.C. Hafstead, 2019: Using a Carbon Tax to Meet US International Climate Pledges. Clim. Chang. Econ. , 10(1) , doi:10.1142/S2010007819500027.

Chenet, H., A. Hilke, and W. Duan, 2019: Finance Sector Alignment with International Climate Goals Reviewing Optionsand Obstacles.

Cheshmehzangi, A., 2016: China’s New-type Urbanisation Plan (NUP) and the Foreseeing Challenges for Decarbonization of Cities: A Review. Energy Procedia, 104, 146–152, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.026.

Chester, M.V., 2019: Sustainability and infrastructure challenges. Nat. Sustain. , 2(4) , 265–266, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0272-8.

Child, M., C. Kemfert, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, 2019: Flexible electricity generation, grid exchange and storage for the transition to a 100% renewable energy system in Europe. Renew. Energy, 139, 80–101, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.077.

Chilvers, J. et al., 2017: Realising transition pathways for a more electric, low-carbon energy system in the United Kingdom: Challenges, insights and opportunities. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy, 231(6) , 440–477, doi:10.1177/0957650917695448.

Chimhowu, A.O., D. Hulme, and L.T. Munro, 2019: The ‘New’ national development planning and global development goals: Processes and partnerships. World Dev. , 120, 76–89, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.013.

China National Renewable Energy Centre, 2019: China Renewable Energy Outlook 2019. Energy Research Institute of Academy of Macroeconomic Research/NDRC China National Renewable Energy Centre, Beijing, China

Chiodi, A. et al., 2013: Modelling the impacts of challenging 2050 European climate mitigation targets on Ireland’s energy system. Energy Policy, 53, 169–189, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.045.

Chunark, P. and B. Limmeechokchai, 2018: Thailand Energy System Transition to Keep Warming Below 1.5 Degrees. Carbon Manag. , 9(5) , 515–531, doi:10.1080/17583004.2018.1536169.

Chunark, P., B. Limmeechokchai, S. Fujimori, and T. Masui, 2017: Renewable energy achievements in CO2 mitigation in Thailand’s NDCs. Renew. Energy, 114, 1294–1305, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.017.

Clack, C.T.M. et al., 2017: Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 114(26) , 6722–6727, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1610381114.

Clark, R., J. Reed, and T. Sunderland, 2018: Bridging funding gaps for climate and sustainable development: Pitfalls, progress and potential of private finance. Land Use Policy, 71, 335–346, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.013.

Clarke, L. et al., 2016: Long-term abatement potential and current policy trajectories in Latin American countries. Energy Econ. , 56, 513–525, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.01.011.

Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B. van der Zwaan, and D. P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 413–510.

Clayton, S. et al., 2015: Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(7) , 640–646, doi:10.1038/nclimate2622.

Climate Action Tracker, 2019: Climate Action Tracker: Country Assessments, NewClimate – Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability gGmbH, Cologne, Germany and Climate Analytics gGmbH, Berlin, Germany, https://climateactiontracker.org/documents/698/CAT_2019-12-10_ BriefingCOP25_WarmingProjectionsGlobalUpdate_Dec2019.pdf (updated November 2018 – June 2019).

Climate Action Tracker, 2020: Pandemic recovery: Positive intentions vs policy. Climate Action Tracker, Climate Analytics, NewClimate Institute, 25 pp., NewClimate – Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability gGmbH, Cologne, Germany and Climate Analytics gGmbH, Berlin, Germany, https://climateactiontracker.org/documents/790/CAT_2020-09-23_ Briefing_GlobalUpdat e_Sept2020.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Climate Action Tracker, 2021: Warming Projections Global Update, NewClimate – Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability gGmbH, Cologne, Germany and Climate Analytics gGmbH, Berlin, Germany, https://climateactiontracker.org/documents/853/CAT_2021-05-04_Briefing_Global-Update_Climate-Summit-Momentum.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Colander, D.C. and R. Kupers, (eds.), 2016: Complexity and the art of public policy: Solving society’s problems from the bottom up. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 320 pp.

Collier, P., 2007: The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 224 pp.

Combet, E. and J.C. Hourcade, 2014: Taxe carbone, retraites et déficits publics: Le coût caché du cloisonnement des expertises. Rev. Econ. Polit. , 124(3) , 291, doi:10.3917/redp.243.0291.

Combet, E. and J.C. Hourcade, 2017: Fiscalité carbone et finance climat, Un contrat social pour notre temps. Les Petits Matins, Paris, France, 150 pp.

Commission on Growth Structural Change and Employment, 2019: Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment – Final Report . Berlin, Germany, 128 pp., https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Publikationen/commission-on-growth-structural-change-and-employment.pdf?__blob=publication File&v=3.

COMMIT, 2019: Deliverable 2.2: Long-term, Low-emission Pathways in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia, and United States. The Hague, the Netherlands,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heleen-Van-Soest/publication/ 329521902_Long-term_Low-emission_Pathways_in_Australia_Brazil_ Canada_China_EU_India_Indonesia_Japan_Republic_of_Korea_ Russian_Federation_and_the_United_States/links/5c0d387e299 bf139c74d4792/Long-term-Low-emission-Pathways-in-Australia-Brazil-Canada-China-EU-India-Indonesia-Japan-Republic-of-Korea-Russian-Federation-and-the-United-States.pdf?origin=publication_detail, 77 pp (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Committee on Climate Change, 2019: Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming, Committee on Climate Change, London, United Kingdom, 275 pp., www.theccc.org.uk/publications (Accessed December 18, 2019).

Conley, T.G. and C.R. Udry, 2010: Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Am. Econ. Rev. , 100 (1) , 35–69, doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.35.

Cook, G. and J.P. Ponssard, 2011: A proposal for the renewal of sectoral approaches building on the cement sustainability initiative. Clim. Policy, 11(5) , 1246–1256, doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.602552.

Cosbey, A., S. Droege, C. Fischer, and C. Munnings, 2019: Developing Guidance for Implementing Border Carbon Adjustments: Lessons, Cautions, and Research Needs from the Literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 13(1) , 3–22, doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey020.

CPC-CC, 2015: Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on further promoting the development of Ecological Civilization, Communist Party of China Central Committee, Beijing, China.

CPLC, 2017: Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, 2–3, Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, Washington D.C., USA 10 pp., https://www.connect4climate.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/CarbonPricingReortFinal.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Crippa, M. et al., 2021: EDGAR v6.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. European Commission, Joint Research Center (JRC), Brussels, Belgium,http://data.europa.eu/89h/97a67d67-c62e-4826-b873-9d972c4f670b (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Criqui, P., M. Jaccard, and T. Sterner, 2019: Carbon taxation: A tale of three countries. Sustainability, 11(22) , 6280, doi:10.3390/su11226280.

Cronin, J.A., D. Fullerton, and S. Sexton, 2019: Vertical and Horizontal Redistributions from a Carbon Tax and Rebate. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 6(S1) , S169–S208, doi:10.1086/701191.

Crooks, S. et al., 2018: Coastal wetland management as a contribution to the US National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(12) , 1109–1112, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0345-0.

Cruz-Martinez, G., 2018: Revenue-Generating Potential of Taxation for Older-Age Social Pensions. Ageing Int. , 43(4) , 415–437, doi:10.1007/s12126-017-9298-2.

CSO Equity Review, 2015: Fair Shares: A Civil Society Equity Review of INDCs. CSO Equity Review Coalition, Manila, London, Cape Town, Washington, et al., https://static1.squarespace.com/static/620ef5326bbf2d7627553dbf/t/622827f61f2e1746062ebec6/1646798856616/CSO.Equity.Review--2015--Fair.Shares.A.Civil.Society.Equity.Review.of.INDCs.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

CSO Equity Review, 2017: Equity and the Ambition Ratchet Towards a Meaningful 2018 Facilitative Dialogue Report . CSO Equity Review Coalition, Manila, London, Cape Town, Washington, et al., https://static1.squarespace.com/static/620ef5326bbf2d7627553dbf/t/622827f61f2e1746062ebec6/1646798856616/CSO.Equity.Review--2015--Fair.Shares.A.Civil.Society.Equity.Review.of.INDCs.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

CSO Equity Review, 2018: After Paris: Inequality, Fair Shares, and the Climate Emergency. CSO Equity Review Coalition, Manila, London, Cape Town, Washington, et al., https://static1.squarespace.com/static/620ef5326bbf2d7627553dbf/t/622827f61f2e1746062ebec6/1646798856616/CSO.Equity.Review--2015--Fair.Shares.A.Civil.Society.Equity.Review.of.INDCs.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Cui, L., R. Li, M. Song, and L. Zhu, 2019: Can China achieve its 2030 energy development targets by fulfilling carbon intensity reduction commitments?Energy Econ. , 83, 61–73, doi:10.1016/J.ENECO.2019.06.016.

Cui, Z. et al., 2018: Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature, 555(7696) , 363–366, doi:10.1038/nature25785.

Cunliffe, G.E., C. Holz, K.L. Mbeva, P. Pauw, and H. Winkler, 2019: Comparative analysis of the NDCs of Canada, the European Union, Kenya and South Africa from an equity perspective. Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 85 pp.

Da Silveira Bezerra, P.B. et al., 2017: The power of light: Socio-economic and environmental implications of a rural electrification program in Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. , 12(9) , doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7bdd.

Dafnomilis, I. et al., 2020: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global emission projections: Assessment of green vs ‘not green’ recoveryPBL Netherlandz Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands and NewClimate – Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability gGmbH, Cologne, Germany, 44 pp., https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/COVID-19_Global_Emissions_Projections_Sept2020.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Dafnomilis, I. et al., 2021: Targeted green recovery measures in a post-COVID-19 world enable the energy transition, Working paper, 20 pp,. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-667715/v1.

Dagnet, Y. et al., 2017: Designing the enhanced transparency framework part 2: Review under the Paris Agreement . World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA., https://www.wri.org/research/designing-enhanced-transparency-framework-part-2-review-under-paris-agreement .

Dai, H.-C., H.-B. Zhang, and W.-T. Wang, 2017: The impacts of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and mitigation cost of China, EU, and Japan under the constraints of the global carbon emission space. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. , 8(4) , 226–234, doi:10.1016/j.accre.2017.09.003.

Dai, H., X. Xie, Y. Xie, J. Liu, and T. Masui, 2016: Green growth: The economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy development in China. Appl. Energy, 162, 435–449, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.049.

Daioglou, V. et al., 2020: Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international bioenergy trade. Clim. Change, 163(3) , 1639–1658, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02877-1.

Davis, L.W. and C.R. Knittel, 2019: Are Fuel Economy Standards Regressive?J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 6(S1) , S37–S63, doi:10.1086/701187.

de Coninck, H., A. Revi, M. Babiker, P. Bertoldi, M. Buckeridge, A. Cartwright, W. Dong, J. Ford, S. Fuss, J.-C. Hourcade, D. Ley, R. Mechler, P. Newman, A. Revokatova, S. Schultz, L. Steg, and T. Sugiyama, 2018: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 313–443.

Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, 2015: Pathways to deep decarbonsiation: 2015 report. Published by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI). Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), Paris and New York, 44 pp., https://www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/import/publications/ddpp_2015synthetisreport.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Deetman, S. et al., 2013: Deep greenhouse gas emission reductions in Europe: Exploring different options. Energy Policy, 55, 152–164, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.047.

Delgado, R., A.I. Cadena, M. Espinosa, C. Peña, and M. Salazar, 2014: A case study on Colombian mitigation actions. Clim. Dev. , 6(sup1) , 12–24, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.857587.

Delgado, R., T.B. Wild, R. Arguello, L. Clarke, and G. Romero, 2020: Options for Colombia’s mid-century deep decarbonization strategy. Energy Strateg. Rev. , 32, 100525, doi:10.1016/J.ESR.2020.100525.

den Elzen, M. et al., 2016: Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris agreement climate proposals. Clim. Change, 137(3–4) , 655–665, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1700-7.

den Elzen, M. et al., 2019: Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets?Energy Policy, 126, 238–250, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.027.

den Elzen, M., I. Dafnomilis, and H. van Soest, 2021: PBL Climate Pledge NDC tool. PBL Netherlands Environ. Assess. Agency, https://themasites.pbl.nl/o/climate-ndc-policies-tool/ (Accessed October 7, 2021).

Deutscher Bundestag, 2002: Enquete Commission on sustainable energy supply against the background of globalisation and liberalisation. Summary of final report . Berlin, Germany, http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2007/0206/parlament/gremien/kommissionen/archiv14/ener/schlussbericht/engl.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Devarajan, S., D.S. Go, S. Robinson, and K. Thierfelder, 2011: Tax Policy to Reduce Carbon Emissions in a Distorted Economy: Illustrations from a South Africa CGE Model. B.E.J. Econom. Anal. Policy, 11(1) , doi:10.2202/1935-1682.2376.

Dhar, S., M. Pathak, and P.R.R. Shukla, 2018: Transformation of India’s transport sector under global warming of 2°C and 1.5°C scenario. J. Clean. Prod. , 172, 417–427, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.076.

Di Gregorio, M. et al., 2016: Integrating mitigation and adaptation in climate and land use policies in Brazil: a policy document analysis. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Sustainability Research Institute, Leeds and London, United Kingdom, 54 pp., https://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Working-Paper-257-Di-Gregorio-et-al-2016.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Diao, X., M. McMillan, and D. Rodrik, 2019: The Recent Growth Boom in Developing Economies: A Structural-Change Perspective. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Development Economics[Nissanke M. and J.A. Ocampo (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 281–334.

Díaz, S., J. Settele, and E. Brondízio, 2019: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Summary for policymakers. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem (IPBES), Bonn, Germany, 56 pp.

Diffenbaugh, N.S. and M. Burke, 2019: Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(20) , 9808–9813, doi:10.1073/pnas.1816020116.

Dioha, M.O. and A. Kumar, 2020: Exploring sustainable energy transitions in sub-Saharan Africa residential sector: The case of Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 117, 109510, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109510.

Dioha, M.O., N.V. Emodi, and E.C. Dioha, 2019: Pathways for low carbon Nigeria in 2050 by using NECAL2050. Renew. Energy Focus, 29 (June), 63–77, doi:10.1016/j.ref.2019.02.004.

Doelle, M., 2019: The heart of the Paris rulebook: Communicating ndcs and Accounting for Their Implementation. Clim. Law, 9(1–2) , 3–20, doi:10.1163/18786561-00901002.

Dong, B., W. Wei, X. Ma, and P. Li, 2018: On the impacts of carbon tax and technological progress on China. Appl. Econ. , 50(4) , 389–406, doi:10.1080/00036846.2017.1316826.

Dooley, K. and S. Kartha, 2018: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 18(1) , 79–98, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9.

Dorband, I.I., M. Jakob, M. Kalkuhl, and J.C. Steckel, 2019: Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries – A global comparative analysis. World Dev. , 115, 246–257, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.015.

Dorin, B., 2017: India and Africa in the global agricultural system (1961-2050): Towards a new socio-technical regime?Econ. Polit. Wkly. , 52(25–26) , 5–13.

Douenne, T., 2020: The Vertical and Horizontal Distributive Effects of Energy Taxes: A Case Study of a French Policy. Energy J. , 41(3) , doi:10.5547/01956574.41.3.tdou.

Douenne, T. and A. Fabre, 2020: French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies. Ecol. Econ. , 169, doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106496.

Doumax-Tagliavini, V. and C. Sarasa, 2018: Looking towards policies supporting biofuels and technological change: Evidence from France. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 94, 430–439, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.020.

Dreborg, K.H., 1996: Essence of backcasting. Futures, 28(9) , 813–828, doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00044-4.

Dreyfus, G., Borgford-Parnell, J. Fahey, B. Peters, and Xu, 2020: Assessment of Climate and Development Benefits of Efficient and Climate-Friendly Cooling[Molina, M. and Zaelke, D. (eds.)], https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/assessment-climate-and-development-benefits-efficient-and-climate-friendly-cooling.

Druckman, A. and T. Jackson, 2015: Understanding households as drivers of carbon emissions. In: Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology[Clift, R. and A. Druckman (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 181–203.

Duan, H., J. Mo, Y. Fan, and S. Wang, 2018: Achieving China’s energy and climate policy targets in 2030 under multiple uncertainties. Energy Econ. , 70, 45–60, doi:10.1016/J.ENECO.2017.12.022.

Dubash, N., R. Khosla, N.D.N. D. Rao, and A. Bhardwaj, 2018: India’s energy and emissions future: An interpretive analysis of model scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13 (074018), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aacc74.

Dubash, N.K., 2012: Toward Enabling and Inclusive Global Environmental Governance. J. Environ. Dev. , 21(1) , 48–51, doi:10.1177/1070496511435550.

Dubash, N.K., 2021: Varieties of climate governance: The emergence and functioning of climate institutions. Env. Polit. , 30(sup1) , 1–25, doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1979775.

Dubois, G. et al., 2019: It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 52, 144–158, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.001.

Dulal, H.B., 2017: Making cities resilient to climate change: Identifying ‘win–win’ interventions. Local Environ. , 22(1) , 106–125, doi:10.1080/13549839.2016.1168790.

Duscha, V., J. Wachsmuth, J. Eckstein, and B. Pfluger, 2019: GHG-neutral EU2050 – a scenario of an EU with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and its implications. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, 81 pp., https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/ghg-neutral-eu2050 (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Ebi, K.L. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: Background, process, and future directions. Clim. Change, 122(3) , doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0912-3.

Edwards, P.E.T., A.E. Sutton-Grier, and G.E. Coyle, 2013: Investing in nature: Restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Mar. Policy, 38, 65–71, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.020.

EFC, 2020: Synthesis Report 2020 on China’s carbon neutrality: China’s new growth pathway: from the 14th Five Year Plan to carbon neutrality, Energy Foundation China, Beijing, China, https://www.efchina.org/Reports-en/report-lceg-2020121 (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Ekholm, T., H. Ghoddusi, V. Krey, and K. Riahi, 2013: The effect of financial constraints on energy-climate scenarios. Energy Policy, 59, 562–572, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.001.

Elizondo, A., V. Pérez-Cirera, A. Strapasson, J.C. Fernández, and D. Cruz-Cano, 2017: Mexico’s low-carbon futures: An integrated assessment for energy planning and climate change mitigation by 2050. Futures, 93, 14–26, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.08.003.

Elliott, C., K. Levin, J. Thwaites, K. Mogelgaard, and Y. Dagnet, 2017: Designing the enhanced transparency framework part 1: Reporting under the Paris Agreement . World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Energy Transitions Commission and Rocky Mountain Institute, 2019: China 2050 : A Fully Developed Rich Zero-Carbon Economy. https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/china-2050-a-fully-developed-rich-zero-carbon-economy/#download-form.

Erb, K.H. et al., 2016: Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. , 7, doi:10.1038/ncomms11382.

Erickson, P., S. Kartha, M. Lazarus, and K. Tempest, 2015: Assessing carbon lock-in. Environ. Res. Lett. , 10(8) , 084023, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084023.

Esquivel, V., 2016: Power and the Sustainable Development Goals: a feminist analysis. Gend. Dev. , 24(1) , 9–23, doi:10.1080/13552074.2016.1147872.

Esteban, M. and J. Portugal-Pereira, 2014: Post-disaster resilience of a 100% renewable energy system in Japan. Energy, 68, 756–764, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.045.

Esteban, M. et al., 2018: 100% renewable energy system in Japan: Smoothening and ancillary services. Appl. Energy, 224, 698–707, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.067.

European Commission, 2013: Summary report on the analysis of the responses received to the Consultative Communication on the future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe – Energía y Sociedad. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2014-10/20130702_ccs_consultation_report_0.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2021).

European Commission, 2019: The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium., https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN (Accessed November 1, 2021).

European Union, 2019: Structural Support Action for Coal and Carbon Intensive Regions. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium,https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/EU-coal-regions/coal-regions-transition_en (Accessed June 15, 2020).

European Union, 2020: Financing the green transition: The European Green Deal Investment Plan and Just Transition Mechanism– Regional Policy – European Commission. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2020/01/14-01-2020-financing-the-green-transition-the-european-green-deal-investment-plan-and-just-transition-mechanism (Accessed December 15, 2020).

Fagerberg, J., S. Laestadius, and B.R. Martin, 2016: The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance. Challenge, 59(3) , 178–204, doi:10.1080/05775132.2016.1171668.

Fankhauser, S. and T.K.J. McDermott, 2016: Chapter 1: Climate-resilient development: an introduction. In: The Economics of Climate-Resilient Development [Fankhauser, S. and T.K.J. McDermott, (eds.)]. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 1–14pp.

Fankhauser, S., A. Sahni, A. Savvas, and J. Ward, 2016: Where are the gaps in climate finance?Clim. Dev. , 8(3) , 203–206, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1064811.

FAO, 2016: The agricultural sectors in nationally determined contributions (NDCs): Priority areas for international support . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6400e.pdf , 23 pp (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Fargione, J.E. et al., 2018: Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. , 4(11) , doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869.

Faria, P.C.S. and N. Labutong, 2019: A description of four science-based corporate GHG target-setting methods. Sustain. Accounting, Manag. Policy J. , 11(3) , 591–612, doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2017-0031.

Farrow, K., G. Grolleau, and L. Ibanez, 2017: Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ. , 140, 1–13, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017.

Fekete, H. et al., 2015: How can the new climate agreement support robust national mitigation targets? Opportunities up to Paris and beyond. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/climate_change_25_2015_how_can_the_climate_agreement_support_robust_national_mitigation_targets.pdf , 26 pp (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Fennessy, M.S. et al., 2019: Environmental controls on carbon sequestration, sediment accretion, and elevation change in the Ebro River Delta: Implications for wetland restoration. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. , 222, 32–42, doi:10.1016/J.ECSS.2019.03.023.

Ferleger, L., 2000: Arming American Agriculture for the Twentieth Century: How the USDA’s Top Managers Promoted Agricultural Development. Agricult . Hist ., 74(2) , 211–226.

Fernandez, M.A. and A.J. Daigneault, 2018: Money does grow on trees: Impacts of the Paris agreement on the New Zealand economy. Clim. Chang. Econ. , 9(3) , 1850005, doi:10.1142/S2010007818500057.

Ferrante, L. and P.M. Fearnside, 2019: Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. , 46(4) , 261–263, doi:10.1017/S0376892919000213.

Figueres, C. et al., 2017: Three years to safeguard our climate. Nature, 546(7660) , 593–595, doi:10.1038/546593a.

Finnish Government, 2020: A fair transition towards a carbon neutral Finland – Roadmap for achieving the carbon neutrality target . Government of Finland, Helsinki, Finland https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10616/20764082/hiilineutraaliuden+tiekartta+03022020+en.pdf/e791931c-90e1-f74b-3be4-3dc0994f67f1/hiilineutraaliuden+tiekartta+03022020+en.pdf , 6 pp (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Fleischman, F. et al., 2020: Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions. Bioscience, 70(11) , 947–950, doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa094.

Fleurbaey, M. and D. Blanchet, 2013: Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability. J. Reg. Sci. , 54(1) , 323, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199767199.001.0001.

Fleurbaey M., S. Kartha, S. Bolwig, Y.L. Chee, Y. Chen, E. Corbera, F. Lecocq, W. Lutz, M.S. Muylaert, R.B. Norgaard, C. Okereke, and A.D. Sagar, 2014: Sustainable Development and Equity. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 283–350.

Fleurbaey, M. et al., 2018: A Manifesto for Social Progress. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 248 pp.

Forouli, A., A. Nikas, D.J. Van de Ven, J. Sampedro, and H. Doukas, 2020: A multiple-uncertainty analysis framework for integrated assessment modelling of several sustainable development goals. Environ. Model. Softw. , 131, 104795, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2020.104795.

Forster, P.M. et al., 2020: Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(10) , 913–919, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0883-0.

Fouquet, R., 2010: The slow search for solutions: Lessons from historical energy transitions by sector and service. Energy Policy, 38(11) , 6586–6596, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.029.

Fouquet, R., 2016a: Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nat. Energy, 1(8) , 16098, doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.98.

Fouquet, R., 2016b: Historical energy transitions: Speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 22, 7–12, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.014.

Fourqurean, J.W. et al., 2012: Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat. Geosci. , 5(7) , 505–509, doi:10.1038/ngeo1477.

Fragkos, P., N. Tasios, L. Paroussos, P. Capros, and S. Tsani, 2017: Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050. Energy Policy, 100, 216–226, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.023.

Fragkos, P. et al., 2021: Energy system transitions and low-carbon pathways in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU-28, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States. Energy, 216, 119385, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.119385.

Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?Environ. Res. Lett. , 12(10) , 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.

Fridahl, M. and L. Johansson, 2017: An assessment of the potential for spurring transformational change through Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 25, 35–46, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.11.003.

Fuhrman, J. et al., 2020: Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5°C future. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(10) , 920–927, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0876-z.

Fujimori, S., K. Oshiro, H. Shiraki, and T. Hasegawa, 2019: Energy transformation cost for the Japanese mid-century strategy. Nat. Commun. , 10(1) , 4737, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12730-4.

Fullerton, D. and E. Muehlegger, 2019: Who Bears the Economic Burdens of Environmental Regulations?Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 13(1) , 62–82, doi:10.1093/reep/rey023.

Fuso Nerini, F. et al., 2019: Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. , 2(8) , 674–680, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y.

Fyson, C.L. and M.L. Jeffery, 2019: Ambiguity in the Land Use Component of Mitigation Contributions Toward the Paris Agreement Goals. Earth’s Futur. , 7(8) , 873–891, doi:10.1029/2019EF001190.

Fyson, C.L., S. Baur, M. Gidden, and C.-F. Schleussner, 2020: Fair-share carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(9) , 836–841, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0857-2.

Gable, S., H. Lofgren, and I.O. Rodarte, 2015: Trajectories for Sustainable Development Goals: Framework and Country Applications. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23122 (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Galer, G., 2004: Preparing the ground? Scenarios and political change in South Africa. Development , 47(4) , 26–34, doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100092.

Galgóczi, B., 2014: The long and winding road from black to green: Decades of structural change in the Ruhr region. Int. J. Labour Res. , 6(2) , 217–268.

Galgóczi, B., 2019: Phasing out Coal – A Just Transition Approach. European Trade Union Institute , Brussels, Belgium, https://etui.org/sites/default/files/19%20WP%202019%2004%20Phasing%20out%20coal%20Galgoczi%20Web%20version.pdf , 45 pp (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Galvin, R. and N. Healy, 2020: The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 67, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101529.

Gambhir, A., F. Green, and P. Pearson, 2018: Towards a just and equitable low-carbon energy transition. Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK, 18 pp.

Garg, A. and S. S.Vishwanathan., 2021: Climate policies post Paris. In: Climate ambition beyond emission numbers: Taking stock of progress by looking inside countries and sectors[Waisman, H. et al., (eds.)]. Deep Decarbonization Pathways (DDP) Initiative-IDDRI. Paris, France, pp. 71–76.

Gass, P. and D. Echeverria, 2017: Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform and the Just Transition: Integrating approaches for complementary outcomes GSI REPORT. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/fossil-fuel-subsidy-reform-just-transition.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2020).

Gattuso, J.P. et al., 2018: Ocean solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. , 5 (Oct), doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00337.

Geels, F.W., B.K. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell, 2017: Socio-technical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357) , 1242–1244, doi:10.1126/science.aao3760.

Geels, F.W., T. Schwanen, S. Sorrell, K. Jenkins, and B.K. Sovacool, 2018: Reducing energy demand through low-carbon innovation: A socio-technical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 40 (June 2017), 23–35, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.003.

Giannousakis, A. et al., 2020: How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways. Energy, 216, 119253, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.119253.

Gilbert, A., B.K. Sovacool, P. Johnstone, and A. Stirling, 2017: Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: A critical appraisal. Energy Policy, 102, 644–649, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.001.

Gillingham, K.T., C.R. Knittel, J. Li, M. Ovaere, and M. Reguant, 2020: The Short-run and Long-run Effects of Covid-19 on Energy and the Environment. Joule, 4(7) , 1337–1341, doi:10.1016/j.joule.2020.06.010.

GIZ, 2017: Sectoral implementation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Bonn and Eschborn, Germany, https://newclimate.org/2017/08/01/sectoral-implementation-of-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs/, 12 pp. (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Glachant, M. and A. Dechezleprêtre, 2017: What role for climate negotiations on technology transfer?Clim. Policy, 17(8) , 962–981, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1222257.

Global Cement and Concrete Association, 2020: Climate Ambition: GCCA. Global Cement and Concrete Association, London, United Kingdom, https://gccassociation.org/climate-ambition/ (Accessed October 18, 2021).

Glomsrød, S., T. Wei, B. Aamaas, M.T. Lund, and B.H. Samset, 2016: A warmer policy for a colder climate: Can China both reduce poverty and cap carbon emissions?Sci. Total Environ. , 568, 236–244, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.005.

Gomi, K., K. Shimada, and Y. Matsuoka, 2010: A low-carbon scenario creation method for a local-scale economy and its application in Kyoto city. Energy Policy, 38(9) , 4783–4796, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.026.

Gomi, K., Y. Ochi, and Y. Matsuoka, 2011: A systematic quantitative backcasting on low-carbon society policy in case of Kyoto city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 78(5) , 852–871, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.002.

Goulder, L.H., M.A.C. Hafstead, G. Kim, and X. Long, 2019: Impacts of a carbon tax across US household income groups: What are the equity-efficiency trade-offs?J. Public Econ. , 175, 44–64, doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.04.002.

Government of Canada, 2019: Task Force: Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/task-force-just-transition.html (Accessed January 8, 2020).

Government of Costa Rica, 2019: National Decarbonization Plan 2018-2050. Government of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NationalDecarbonizationPlan.pdf (Accessed 1 November 2021).

Government of India, 2015: India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: Working Towards Climate Justice. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, NewDelhi, India,.https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/India%20First/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf , 38 pp (Accessed 1 November 2021).

Government of India, 2018: Strategy for New India @ 75. Government of India, New Delhi, Indiahttps://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Strategy_for_New_India_0.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Government of Spain, 2019: The just transition strategy within the strategic energy and climate framework. Government of Spain, Madrid, Spain, 20 pp., https://www.miteco.gob.es/en/prensa/etj-english-interactive_tcm38- 505653.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Grafakos, S., K. Trigg, M. Landauer, L. Chelleri, and S. Dhakal, 2019: Analytical framework to evaluate the level of integration of climate adaptation and mitigation in cities. Clim. Change, 154(1–2) , 87–106, doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02394-w.

Grant, N., A. Hawkes, S. Mittal, and A. Gambhir, 2021: Confronting mitigation deterrence in low-carbon scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. , 16(6) , 064099, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac0749.

Grant, R., 2015: Sustainable African Urban Futures. Am. Behav. Sci. , 59(3) , 294–310, doi:10.1177/0002764214550301.

Grassi, G. et al., 2017: The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(3) , 220–226, doi:10.1038/nclimate3227.

Grassi, G. et al., 2018: Reconciling global-model estimates and country reporting of anthropogenic forest CO2 sinks. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(10) , 914–920, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0283-x.

Grassi, G. et al., 2021: Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries’ climate progress. Nat. Clim. Change, 11(5) , 425–434, doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01033-6.

Gray, L.K., T. Gylander, M.S. Mbogga, P.Y. Chen, and A. Hamann, 2011: Assisted migration to address climate change: Recommendations for aspen reforestation in western Canada. Ecol. Appl. , 21(5) , 1591–1603, doi:10.1890/10-1054.1.

Green, F. and R. Denniss, 2018: Cutting with both arms of the scissors: The economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies. Clim. Change, 150(1) , 73–87, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2162-x.

Green, F. and A. Gambhir, 2020: Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: Who, what and how?Clim. Policy, 20(8) , 902–921, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1657379.

Griliches, Z., 1957: Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change. Econometrica, 25(4) , 501, doi:10.2307/1905380.

Grin, J., J. Rotmans, and J. Schot, 2010: Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New York, USA and Oxon, UK, 397 pp.

Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114(44) , 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.

Grottera, C., A.O. Pereira, and E.L. La Rovere, 2017: Impacts of carbon pricing on income inequality in Brazil. Clim. Dev. , 9(1) , 80–93, doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1067183.

Grottera, C. et al., 2018: Linking electricity consumption of home appliances and standard of living: A comparison between Brazilian and French households. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 94 (July), 877–888, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.063.

Grubb, M., 2014: Planetary Economics. Routledge, Oxon, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 548 pp.

Grubb, M., J.C. Hourcade, and K. Neuhoff, 2015: The Three Domains structure of energy-climate transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 98, 290–302, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.009.

Grubb, M. et al., 2021: Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems a review of evidence and potential implications for CO2 mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. , 16(4) , 043007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abde07.

Grubler, A., 2010: The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy, 38(9) , 5174–5188, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.003.

Grubler, A. et al., 2018: A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5°C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy, 3(6) , 515–527, doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6.

Grunewald, N., S. Klasen, I. Martınez-Zarzoso, and C. Muris, 2017: The trade-off between income inequality and carbon dioxide emissions. Ecol. Econ. , 142, 249–256, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.034.

Guan, D. et al., 2018: Structural decline in China’s CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems. Nat. Geosci. , 11(8) , 551–555, doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0161-1.

Gupta, D., F. Ghersi, S.S. Vishwanathan, and A. Garg, 2019: Achieving sustainable development in India along low-carbon pathways: Macroeconomic assessment. World Dev. , 123, 104623, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2019.104623.

Haberl, H. et al., 2020: A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15 (6) , 065003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/AB842A.

Haines, A. et al., 2017: Short-lived climate pollutant mitigation and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(12) , 863–869, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0012-x.

Haites, E., 2018: Carbon taxes and greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: What have we learned?Clim. Policy, 18(8) , 955–966, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1492897.

Halimanjaya, A. and E. Papyrakis, 2012: Donor Characteristics and the Supply of Climate Change Aid. DEV Working Paper 42. The School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, 28 pp.

Hamilton, T.G.A. and S. Kelly, 2017: Low-carbon energy scenarios for sub-Saharan Africa: An input-output analysis on the effects of universal energy access and economic growth. Energy Policy, 105 (February), 303–319, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.012.

Hammond, W., J. Axsen, and E. Kjeang, 2020: How to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the freight sector: Policy insights from a technology-adoption model of Canada. Energy Policy, 137 (November 2019), 111093, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111093.

Hanaoka, T. and T. Masui, 2018: Co-benefit Reductions of Short-Lived Climate Pollutants and Air Pollutants by 2050 while Achieving the 2 Degree Target in Asia. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy, Water Environ. Syst. , 6(3) , 505–520, doi:10.13044/j.sdewes.d6.0218.

Hanger-Kopp, S., J. Lieu, and A. Nikas, 2019: Narratives of Low-Carbon Transitions. Routledge, Oxon, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 296 pp.

Hansen, K., B.V. Mathiesen, and I.R. Skov, 2019: Full energy system transition towards 100% renewable energy in Germany in 2050. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 102, 1–13, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.038.

Hao, Y., H. Chen, and Q. Zhang, 2016: Will income inequality affect environmental quality? Analysis based on China’s provincial panel data. Ecol. Indic. , 67, 533–542, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.025.

Harper, A.B. et al., 2018: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun. , 9 (1) , doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z.

Harrison, K., 2013: The Political Economy of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax. OECD Environment Working Papers No.63, OECD, Paris, France, 22 pp,https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment-and-sustainable-development/the-political-economy-of-british-columbia-s-carbon-tax_5k3z04gkkhkg-en.

Harvey, C.A. et al., 2014: Climate-Smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture. Conserv. Lett. , 7(2) , 77–90, doi:10.1111/conl.12066.

Hasegawa, T. et al., 2018: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(8) , 699–703, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.

Haut Conseil pour le Climat, 2019: Agir en cohérence avec les ambitions. Rapport annuel., Haut Conseil pour le Climat, Paris, France, 66 pp.,https://www.hautconseilclimat.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/hcc_rapport_annuel_2019_v2.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Häyhä, T., P.L. Lucas, D.P. van Vuuren, S.E. Cornell, and H. Hoff, 2016: From Planetary Boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space – How can the scales be bridged?Glob. Environ. Change, 40, 60-72, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.008.

He, J.-K., 2016: Global low-carbon transition and China’s response strategies. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. , 7(4) , 204–212, doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.007.

Healy, N. and J. Barry, 2017: Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a ‘just transition.’Energy Policy, 108, 451–459, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.014.

Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(2) , 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.

Heidrich, O. et al., 2016: National climate policies across Europe and their impacts on cities strategies. J. Environ. Manage. , 168, 36–45, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.043.

Hein, J., A. Guarin, E. Frommé, and P. Pauw, 2018: Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. For. Policy Econ. , 90, 7–11, doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.005.

Helgenberger, S. et al., 2019: Future skills and job creation through renewable energy in South Africa: Assessing the co-benefits of decarbonising the power sector. IASS Studies, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Pretoria and Postdam, doi: 10.2312/iass.2019.009.

Helsinki Design Lab, 2011: In Studio: Recipes for Systemic Change, SITRA, Helskinki, Finland, 335pp, http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/peoplepods/themes/hdl/downloads/In_Studio-Recipes_for_Syst emic_Change.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Hepburn, C., B. O’Callaghan, N. Stern, J. Stiglitz, and D. Zenghelis, 2020: Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 36(sup1) , S359–S381, doi:10.1093/oxrep/graa015.

Hering, J.G., D.A. Dzombak, S.A. Green, R.G. Luthy, and D. Swackhamer, 2014: Engagement at the science-policy interface. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 48(19) , 11031–11033, doi:10.1021/es504225t.

Hermwille, L., A. Siemons, H. Förster, and L. Jeffery, 2019: Catalyzing mitigation ambition under the Paris Agreement: Elements for an effective Global Stocktake. Clim. Policy, 19(8) , 988–1001, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1624494.

Herreras Martínez, S. et al., 2015: Possible energy futures for Brazil and Latin America in conservative and stringent mitigation pathways up to 2050. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 98, 186–210, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.006.

Hess, D.J., 2018: Energy democracy and social movements: A multi-coalition perspective on the politics of sustainability transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 40, 177–189, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.003.

Hickel, J. et al., 2021: Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nat. Energy, 6(8) , 766–768, doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00884-9.

Hochstenbach, C. and S. Musterd, 2018: Gentrification and the suburbanization of poverty: Changing urban geographies through boom and bust periods. Urban Geogr. , 39(1) , doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1276718.

Hodson, E.L. et al., 2018: US energy sector impacts of technology innovation, fuel price, and electric sector CO2 policy: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison study. Energy Econ. , 73, 352–370, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.027.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al., 2019: The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C. Science, 365 (6459), doi:10.1126/science.aaw6974.

Hoffman, S.G. and P. Durlak, 2018: The Shelf Life of a Disaster: Post-Fukushima Policy Change in The United States And Germany. Sociol. Forum, 33(2) , 378–402, doi:10.1111/socf.12419.

Höhne, N., H. Fekete, M.G.J.J. den Elzen, A. F. Hof, and T. Kuramochi, 2018: Assessing the ambition of post-2020 climate targets: A comprehensive framework. Clim. Policy, 18(4) , 425–441, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1294046.

Höhne, N. et al., 2019: Bridging the Gap: Enhancing Mitigation Ambition and Action at G20 Level and Globally. In UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2019. 28-38.

Höhne, N. et al., 2020: Emissions: World has four times the work or one-third of the time. Nature, 579 (7797) , 25–28, doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00571-x.

Holz, C., S. Kartha, and T. Athanasiou, 2018: Fairly Sharing 1.5: National Fair Shares of a 1.5°C – Compliant Global Mitigation Effort (D1500, Trans.). Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 18(1) , 117–134, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9371-z.

Hong, S. and B.W. Brook, 2018: A nuclear- to-gas transition in South Korea: Is it environmentally friendly or economically viable?Energy Policy, 112, 67–73, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.10.012.

Hong, S., C.J.A. Bradshaw, and B.W. Brook, 2014: South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs. Energy Policy, 74(C) , 569–578, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2014.05.054.

Hoolohan, C. et al., 2019: Stepping-up innovations in the water–energy–food nexus: A case study of anaerobic digestion in the UK. Geogr. J. , 185(4) , 391–405, doi:10.1111/geoj.12259.

Hornsey, M.J., E.A. Harris, P.G. Bain, and K.S. Fielding, 2016: Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change, 6(6) , 622–626, doi:10.1038/nclimate2943.

HoSG, 2018: Solidarity and just transition: Silesia Declaration. Supported by Heads of State and Government (HoSG) of several countries during UNFCCC COP 24. Katowice.

Howard, J. et al., 2017: Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ. , 15(1) , 42–50, doi:10.1002/fee.1451.

Hsu, A., A.J. Weinfurter, and K. Xu, 2017: Aligning subnational climate actions for the new post-Paris climate regime. Clim. Change, 142(3–4) , 419–432, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1957-5.

Hsu, A. et al., 2018: Global climate action from cities, regions, and businesses. New Climate Institute, Cologne and Berlin, Germany,106 pp., https://newclimate. org/2018/08/30/global-climate-action-from-cities-regions-and-businesses/ (Accessed December 4, 2019).

Hsu, A. et al., 2019: A research roadmap for quantifying non-state and subnational climate mitigation action. Nat. Clim. Change, 9(1) , 11–17, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0338-z.

Hsu, A., N. Höhne, T. Kuramochi, V. Vilariño, and B.K. Sovacool, 2020: Beyond states: Harnessing sub-national actors for the deep decarbonisation of cities, regions, and businesses. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 70, 101738, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101738.

Hu, W.-C., S.-M. Chung, J.-C. Lin, C.-T. Fan, and C.-A. Lien, 2017: An accelerating green growth for Taiwan’s climate ambition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 79, 286–292, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.089.

Huang, H. et al., 2019: Emissions trading systems and social equity: A CGE assessment for China. Appl. Energy, 235, 1254–1265, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.11.056.

Huenteler, J., T.S. Schmidt, and N. Kanie, 2012: Japan’s post-Fukushima challenge – implications from the German experience on renewable energy policy. Energy Policy, 45, 6–11, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.041.

Hummelbrunner, R. and H. Jones, 2013: A guide for planning and strategy development in the face of complexity. Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom, 12 pp., https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/8287.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Iacobuta, G., N.K. Dubash, P. Upadhyaya, M. Deribe, and N. Höhne, 2018: National climate change mitigation legislation, strategy and targets: A global update. Clim. Policy, 18(9) , 1114–1132, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1489772.

IADB, 2012: Room for Development: Housing Markets in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank [Patricio Bouillon, C., (ed.)]. Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 456 pp.

IEA, 2015: Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France, 75pp., https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-hydrogen-and-fuel-cells.

IEA, 2017: Energy Technology Perspectives 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 438 pp., https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a6587f9f-e56c-4b1d-96e4-5a4da78f12fa/Energy_Technology_Perspectives_2017-PDF.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2019).

IEA, 2020: World Energy Outlook 2020. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France, 461 pp.

IEA and WBSCD, 2018: Technology roadmap low-carbon transition in the cement industry. International Energy Agency, Paris, France and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/4586/61682/1 .

Iftekhar, M.S., M. Polyakov, D. Ansell, F. Gibson, and G.M. Kay, 2017: How economics can further the success of ecological restoration. Conserv. Biol. , 31(2) , 261–268, doi:10.1111/cobi.12778.

ILO, 2015: Guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all. International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, Switzerland, 23 pp., http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf .

ILO, 2018: Just Transition Towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies for All. International Labor Organization (ILO), Geneva, Switzerland, 22 pp., https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/publication/wcms_647648.pdf .

INPE, 2019a: INPE Database PRODES – Amazônia (Monitoramento do Desmatamento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite). Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos/SP, Brazilhttp://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes (Accessed December 19, 2019).

INPE, 2019b: INPE-EM database Deforestation-driven gross emissions. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos/SP, Brazil, http://inpe-em.ccst.inpe.br/en/deforestation-driven-gross-emissions-old-growth-forests-amz/ (Accessed December 19, 2019).

INPE, 2020: PRODES Amazônia. Amazon deforestation satellite monitoring (Monitoramento do Desmatamento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira por Satélite). Brasilia. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas. (Accessed November 1, 2021).

IPBES, 2019a: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services[Díaz, S.et ak. (eds.)]. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany, 1148 pp.

IPBES, 2019b: Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany.

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

IPCC, 2018a: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 616 pp.

IPCC, 2018b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 32.

IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

IPoSP, 2018: Rethinking Society for the 21st Century. International Panel on Social Progress, Volume 1: Socio-Economic Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 366 pp.

Irfany, M.I. and S. Klasen, 2017: Affluence and emission trade-offs: Evidence from Indonesian households’ carbon footprint. Environ. Dev. Econ. , 22(5) , 546–570, doi:10.1017/S1355770X17000262.

Jacobson, M.Z., 2002: Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. , 107(19) , 16-1-16–22, doi:10.1029/2001JD001376.

Jacobson, M.Z., 2010: Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. , 115(14) , doi:10.1029/2009JD013795.

Jacobson, M.Z., 2019: The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture. Energy Environ. Sci. , 12(12) , 3567–3574, doi:10.1039/C9EE02709B.

Jacobson, M.Z. et al., 2017: 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World. Joule, 1(1) , 108–121, doi:10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005.

Jacobson, M.Z. et al., 2019: Impacts of Green New Deal Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries. One Earth, 1(4) , 449–463, doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.003.

Jakob, M., R. Soria, C. Trinidad, and O. Edenhofer, 2019: Green fiscal reform for a just energy transition in Latin America. Econ. Open-Access, Open- Assess. E-Journal, 13, 1–11, 10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-17.

Jakob, M. et al., 2014: Feasible mitigation actions in developing countries. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(11) , 961–968, doi:10.1038/nclimate2370.

Jakob, M. et al., 2016: Carbon Pricing Revenues Could Close Infrastructure Access Gaps. World Dev. , 84, 254–265, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.03.001.

Jasanoff, S., 2018: Just transitions: A humble approach to global energy futures. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 35, 11–14, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.025.

Jayadev, G., B.D. Leibowicz, and E. Kutanoglu, 2020: US electricity infrastructure of the future: Generation and transmission pathways through 2050. Appl. Energy, 260 (November 2019), 114267, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114267.

Jellinek, S. et al., 2019: Integrating diverse social and ecological motivations to achieve landscape restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. , 56(1) , 246–252, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13248.

Jia, G., E. Shevliakova, P. Artaxo, N. De Noblet-Ducoudré, R. Houghton, J. House, K. Kitajima, C. Lennard, A. Popp, A. Sirin, R. Sukumar, and L. Verchot, 2019: Land–Climate Interactions. In: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M, Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 131–247 pp.

Jiang, K., X. Zhuang, R. Miao, and C. He, 2013: China’s role in attaining the global 2°C target. Clim. Policy, 13(sup1) , 55–69, doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.746070.

Jiang, K., K. Tamura, and T. Hanaoka, 2017: Can we go beyond INDCs: Analysis of a future mitigation possibility in China, Japan, EU and the US. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. , 8(2) , 117–122, doi:10.1016/j.accre.2017.05.005.

Jiang, K., C. He, H. Dai, J. Liu, and X. Xu, 2018: Emission scenario analysis for China under the global 1.5°C target. Carbon Manag. , 9(5) , 481–491, doi:10.1080/17583004.2018.1477835.

Jiang, K.J. et al., 2016: China’s low-carbon investment pathway under the 2°C scenario. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. , 7(4) , 229–234, doi:10.1016/j.accre.2016.12.004.

Johl, A. and S. Duyck, 2012: Promoting Human Rights in the Future Climate Regime. Ethics, Policy Environ. , 15(3) , doi:10.1080/21550085.2012.730240.

Johnson, N. et al., 2015: Stranded on a low-carbon planet: Implications of climate policy for the phase-out of coal-based power plants. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 90(PA) , 89–102, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.028.

Jones, C. and D.M. Kammen, 2014: Spatial distribution of US household carbon footprints reveals suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 48(2) , 895–902, doi:10.1021/es4034364.

Jones, L. et al., 2013: The political economy of local adaptation planning: Exploring barriers to Flexible and Forward-looking Decision Making in three districts in Ethiopia, Uganda and Mozambique. Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom, 29 pp., https://www.preventionweb.net/ publication/political-economy-local-adaptation-planning-exploring-barriers-flexible-and-forward.

Jonsson, S., A. Ydstedt, and E. Asen, 2020: Looking Back on 30 Years of Carbon Taxes in Sweden. Fiscal Fact No. 727. Tax Foundation, Washington, DC, USA, 4 pp.

JRC, 2021: Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2021: Advancing towards climate neutrality. Joint Research Centre (European Commission), Brussels, Belgium, 130 pp.

Ju, Y. et al., 2021: Industrial decarbonization under Japan’s national mitigation scenarios: A multi-model analysis. Sustain. Sci. , 16(2) , 411–427, doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00905-2.

Kahane, A., 2012: Transformative scenario planning. In: The Collaboratory, Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, USA, pp. 168.

Kairo, J.G., A.J. Hamza, and C. Wanjiru, 2018: Mikoko Pamoja. In: A Blue Carbon Primer[Windham-Myers, L., S. Crooks, and T.G. Troxler, (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 341–350.

Kane, L. and M. Boulle, 2018: ‘This was different’: Transferring climate mitigation knowledge practices south to south with the MAPS programme. Clim. Policy, 8(9), 1177-1188, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1421520.

Karapin, R., 2016: Political Opportunities for Climate Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK and New York, NY, USA, 344 pp.

Karlsson, M., E. Alfredsson, and N. Westling, 2020: Climate policy co-benefits: A review. Clim. Policy, 20(3) , 292–316, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1724070.

Karner, A. and R.A. Marcantonio, 2018: Achieving Transportation Equity: Meaningful Public Involvement to Meet the Needs of Underserved Communities. Public Work. Manag. Policy, 23(2) , 105–126, doi:10.1177/1087724X17738792.

Kartha, S. et al., 2018a: Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(5) , 348–349, doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0152-7.

Kartha, S., S. Caney, N.K. Dubash, and G. Muttitt, 2018b: Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a ‘right to extract’. Clim. Change, 150, 117–129, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2209-z.

Kato, E. and A. Kurosawa, 2019: Evaluation of Japanese energy system toward 2050 with TIMES-Japan – Deep decarbonization pathways. Energy Procedia, 158, 4141–4146, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.818.

Kemp-Benedict, E., 2012: Telling better stories: Strengthening the story in story and simulation. Environ. Res. Lett. , 7(4) , 41004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/041004.

Kemp-Benedict, E., C. Holz, T. Athanasiou, S. Kartha, and P. Baer, 2018: The Climate Equity Reference Calculator. Climate Equity Reference Project (EcoEquity and Stockholm Environment Institute), Berkeley and Somerville, California, USA.

Keramidas, K. et al., 2021: Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2020: A New Normal Beyond Covid-19. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Sevilla, Spain, 76 pp., https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC123203/kjna30558enn_geco2020.pdf .

Kettner, C., D. Kletzan-Slamanig, A. Köppl, B. Littig, and I. Zielinska, 2019: A Cross-Country Comparison of Sustainable Energy Development in Selected EU Members. J. Sustain. Res. , 1(2) , doi:10.20900/jsr20190017.

Khanna, N. et al., 2019: Energy and CO2 implications of decarbonization strategies for China beyond efficiency: Modeling 2050 maximum renewable resources and accelerated electrification impacts. Appl. Energy, 242 (February 2019), 12–26, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.116.

Kharas, H. and J. McArthur, 2019: Building the SDG economy: Needs, spending, and financing for universal achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Global Economy & Development Working Paper 131, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA , 38 pp., https://www.brookings.edu/research/building-the-sdg-economy-needs-spending-and-financing-for-universal-achievement-of-the-sustainable-development-goals/ (Accessed December 11, 2019).

Kharecha, P.A. and M. Sato, 2019: Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident. Energy Policy, 132, 647–653, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057.

Khosla, R. and A. Bhardwaj, 2019: Urbanization in the time of climate change: Examining the response of Indian cities. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 10(1) , e560, doi:10.1002/wcc.560.

Kikstra, J.S. et al., 2021: Climate mitigation scenarios with persistent COVID-19-related energy demand changes. Nat. Energy, doi:10.1038/s41560-021-00904-8.

Kissinger, G., A. Gupta, I. Mulder, and N. Unterstell, 2019: Climate financing needs in the land sector under the Paris Agreement: An assessment of developing country perspectives. Land Use Policy, 83, 256–269, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.007.

Kläy, A., A.B. Zimmermann, and F. Schneider, 2015: Rethinking science for sustainable development: Reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures, 65, 72–85, doi:10.1016/J.FUTURES.2014.10.012.

Klein, M., 2015: Public-private partnerships: Promise and hype. (June), Policy Research Working Paper number 7340, The World Bank, Washington, DC,18 pp., doi:10.1596/1813-9450-7340.

Klinsky, S., 2017: An initial scoping of transitional justice for global climate governance. Clim. Policy, 18(6) , 1–14, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1377594.

Klinsky, S. and J. Brankovic, 2018: The global climate regime and transitional justice. Routledge, Oxon, UK and New York, USA, 196 pp.

Klinsky, S. and H. Winkler, 2018: Building equity in: strategies for integrating equity into modelling for a 1.5°C world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A. , 376(2119) , 20160461, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0461.

Klinsky, S. et al., 2017a: Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change, 44, 170–173, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002.

Klinsky, S., D. Waskow, E. Northrop, and W. Bevins, 2017b: Operationalizing equity and supporting ambition: Identifying a more robust approach to ‘respective capabilities’. Clim. Dev. , 9(4) , 287–297, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1146121.

Köberle, A.C., P.R.R. Rochedo, A.F.P. Lucena, A. Szklo, and R. Schaeffer, 2020: Brazil’s emission trajectories in a well-below 2°C world: The role of disruptive technologies versus land-based mitigation in an already low-emission energy system. Clim. Change, 162(4) , 1823–1842, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02856-6.

Kolsuz, G. and A.E. Yeldan, 2017: Economics of climate change and green employment: A general equilibrium investigation for Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 70, 1240–1250, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.025.

Kongsager, R., B. Locatelli, and F. Chazarin, 2016: Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects. Environ. Manage. , 57(2) , 271–282, doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0605-y.

Kowarsch, M. et al., 2017: A road map for global environmental assessments. Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 379, doi:10.1038/nclimate3307.

Krakowski, V., E. Assoumou, V. Mazauric, and N. Maïzi, 2016: Feasible path toward 40–100% renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: A prospective analysis. Appl. Energy, 171, 501–522, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.094.

Kriegler, E. et al., 2018: Short term policies to keep the door open for Paris climate goals. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(7) , 074022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aac4f1.

Kroeger, K.D., S. Crooks, S. Moseman-Valtierra, and J. Tang, 2017: Restoring tides to reduce methane emissions in impounded wetlands: A new and potent Blue Carbon climate change intervention. Sci. Rep. , 7(1) , 1–12, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-12138-4.

Kuhlmann, S. and A. Rip, 2018: Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges. Sci. Public Policy, 45 (4) , 448–454, doi:10.1093/scipol/scy011.

Kuramochi, T., T. Wakiyama, and A. Kuriyama, 2017: Assessment of national greenhouse gas mitigation targets for 2030 through meta-analysis of bottom-up energy and emission scenarios: A case of Japan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 77, 924–944, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.093.

Kuramochi, T. et al., 2018: Ten key short-term sectoral benchmarks to limit warming to 1.5°C. Clim. Policy, 18(3) , 287–305, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1397495.

Kuramochi, T. et al., 2020: Beyond national climate action: The impact of region, city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions. Clim. Policy, 20(3) , 275–291, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1740150.

Kuwae, T. and M. Hori, 2019: Blue Carbon in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems: Carbon Dynamics, Policy, and Implementation. Springer, Singapore.

Kwok, T.F., Y. Xu, X. Liu, and Y. Leung, 2018: The impacts of economic structure on China’s carbon dioxide emissions: An analysis with reference to other East Asian economies. Clim. Policy, 18(10) , 1235–1245, doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1418282.

La Rovere, E.L., 2017: Low-carbon development pathways in Brazil and ‘Climate Clubs’. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 8(1) , e439, doi:10.1002/wcc.439.

La Rovere, E.L. et al., 2014a: Economic and social implications: Brazilian GHG mitigation scenarios to 2030. Brazilian Forum on Climate Change – FBMC. COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, https://www.mapsprogramme.org/wp-content/uploads/Summary_for_Decision_Makers_IES-Brasil.pdf .

La Rovere, E.L., A.O. Pereira, C.B.S. Dubeux, and W. Wills, 2014b: Climate change mitigation actions in Brazil. Clim. Dev. , 6(sup1) , 25–33, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.812952.

La Rovere, E.L., W. Wills, C. Grottera, C.B.S.S. Dubeux, and C. Gesteira, 2018: Economic and social implications of low-emission development pathways in Brazil. Carbon Manag. , 9(5) , 563–574, doi:10.1080/17583004.2018.1507413.

Lachapelle, E. and M. Paterson, 2013: Drivers of national climate policy. Clim. Policy, 13(5) , 547–571, doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.811333.

Lahn, B., 2018: In the light of equity and science: Scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 18(1) , 29–43, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9375-8.

Lahn, B. and G. Sundqvist, 2017: Science as a ‘fixed point’? Quantification and boundary objects in international climate politics. Environ. Sci. Policy, 67 (supC) , 8–15, doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.001.

Lahn, G. and S. Bradley, 2016: Left Stranded? Extractives-Led Growth in a Carbon-Constrained World. R. Inst. Int. Aff . Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, United Kingdom, 38 pp., https://www.chathamhouse.org/ sites/default/files/publications/research/2016-06-17-left-stranded-extractives-bradley-lahn-final.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Lampin, L.B.A.A., F. Nadaud, F. Grazi, and J.-C. C. Hourcade, 2013: Long-term fuel demand: Not only a matter of fuel price. Energy Policy, 62, 780–787, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.021.

Landa Rivera, G., F. Reynès, I. Islas Cortes, F.X. Bellocq, and F. Grazi, 2016: Towards a low-carbon growth in Mexico: Is a double dividend possible? A dynamic general equilibrium assessment. Energy Policy, 96, 314–327, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.012.

Lantz, V. and Q. Feng, 2006: Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on CO2 emissions in Canada: Where’s the EKC?Ecol. Econ. , 57(2) , 229–238, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.006.

Lap, T., R. Benders, F. van der Hilst, and A. Faaij, 2020: How does the interplay between resource availability, intersectoral competition and reliability affect a low-carbon power generation mix in Brazil for 2050?Energy, 195, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.116948.

Lapola, D.M. et al., 2018: Limiting the high impacts of Amazon forest dieback with no-regrets science and policy action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 115(46) , 11671–11679, doi:10.1073/pnas.1721770115.

Lave, L.B., 1991: Formulating Greenhouse Policies in a Sea of Uncertainty. Energy J. , 12(1) , doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol12-no1-2.

Le Billon, P. and B. Kristoffersen, 2020: Just cuts for fossil fuels? Supply-side carbon constraints and energy transition. Environ. Plan. A, 52(6) , 1072–1092, doi:10.1177/0308518X18816702.

Le Quéré, C. et al., 2019: Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 213–217, doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0419-7.

Le Quéré, C. et al., 2020: Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(7) , 647–653, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x.

Leach, M. et al., 2018: Equity and sustainability in the anthropocene: A social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Glob. Sustain. , 1 (e13) , 1–13, doi:10.1017/sus.2018.12.

Leal Filho, W. et al., 2018: Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: The role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. , 25(2) , 131–142, doi:10.1080/13504509.2017.1342103.

Lecocq, F. and Z. Shalizi, 2014: The economics of targeted mitigation in infrastructure. Clim. Policy, 14(2) , 187–208, doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.861657.

Lecocq, F., A. Nadaï, and C. Cassen, 2022: Getting models and modellers to inform long-term mitigation strategies. Clim. Policy, , doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.2002250.

Lee, C.T. et al., 2018: Enabling low-carbon emissions for sustainable development in Asia and beyond. J. Clean. Prod. , 176, 726–735, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.110.

Lefèvre, J., W. Wills, and J.-C. Hourcade, 2018: Combining low-carbon economic development and oil exploration in Brazil? An energy–economy assessment. Clim. Policy, 18(10) , 1286–1295, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1431198.

Lenferna, G.A., 2018a: If You’re ‘Still In’ the Paris Climate Agreement, Then Show Us the Money. Ethics, Policy Environ. , 21(1) , 52–55, doi:10.1080/21550085.2018.1463626.

Lenferna, G.A., 2018b: Can we equitably manage the end of the fossil fuel era?Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 35, 217–223, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.007.

Lengefeld, E., G. Metternicht, and P. Nedungadi, 2020: Behavior change and sustainability of ecological restoration projects. Restor. Ecol. , 28(4) , 724–729, doi:10.1111/rec.13159.

Lennon, M., 2017: Decolonizing energy: Black Lives Matter and technoscientific expertise amid solar transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 30, 18–27, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.002.

Lenzi, D., W.F. Lamb, J. Hilaire, M. Kowarsch, and J.C. Minx, 2018: Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis. Nature, 561(7723) , 303–305, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06695-5.

Lepault, C. and F. Lecocq, 2021: Mapping forward-looking mitigation studies at country level. Environ. Res. Lett. , 16(8) , 083001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac0ac8.

Levinson, A., 2019: Energy Efficiency Standards Are More Regressive Than Energy Taxes: Theory and Evidence. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 6(S1) , S7–S36, doi:10.1086/701186.

Li, J., M. Hamdi-Cherif, and C. Cassen, 2017: Aligning domestic policies with international coordination in a post-Paris global climate regime: A case for China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 125, 258–274, doi:10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2017.06.027.

Lin, B. and H. Liu, 2015: CO2 emissions of China’s commercial and residential buildings: Evidence and reduction policy. Build. Environ. , 92, 418–431, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.020.

Lipper, L. et al., 2014: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(12) , 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.

Liu, J. et al., 2018: Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. , 1(9) , 466–476, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8.

Locatelli, B., V. Evans, A. Wardell, A. Andrade, and R. Vignola, 2011: Forests and climate change in Latin America: Linking adaptation and mitigation. Forests, 2(1) , 431–450, doi:10.3390/f2010431.

Locatelli, B., G. Fedele, V. Fayolle, and A. Baglee, 2016: Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. , 8(1) , 112–128, doi:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0088.

Lofgren, H., M. Cicowiez, and C. Diaz-Bonilla, 2013: MAMS – A Computable General Equilibrium Model for Developing Country Strategy Analysis. Handb. Comput. Gen. Equilib. Model. , 1, 159–276, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-59568-3.00004-3.

Louis, J.N., S. Allard, F. Kotrotsou, and V. Debusschere, 2020: A multi-objective approach to the prospective development of the European power system by 2050. Energy, 191, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116539.

Lovejoy, T.E. and C. Nobre, 2018: Amazon Tipping Point. Sci. Adv. , 4(2) , eaat2340, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat2340.

Low-Carbon Asia Research Project, 2012: Ten Actions toward Low Carbon Asia. http://2050.nies.go.jp (Accessed December 18, 2019).

Lucena, A.F.P. et al., 2016: Climate policy scenarios in Brazil: A multi-model comparison for energy. Energy Econ. , 56, 564–574, doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.005.

Luderer, G. et al., 2016: Deep Decarbonization Towards 1.5°C–2°C Stabilization Policy findings from the ADVANCE project (first edition). Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany, 44 pp., http://www.fp7-advance.eu/sites/default/files/documents/WP7/ADV ANCE-Synthesis-Report.pdf .

Luderer, G. et al., 2018a: Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5-2°C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(7) , 626-633, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6.

Luderer, G. et al., 2018b: Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(7) , 626–633, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6.

Lui, S. et al., 2021: Correcting course: The emission reduction potential of international cooperative initiatives. Clim. Policy, 21(2) , 232–250, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1806021.

Lund, H. and B.V. Mathiesen, 2009: Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems – The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy, 34(5) , 524–531, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.04.003.

Mace, M.J., C.L. Fyson, M. Schaeffer, and W.L. Hare, 2021: Large‐Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal to Meet the 1.5°C Limit: Key Governance Gaps, Challenges and Priority Responses. Glob. Policy, 12(S1) , 67–81, doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12921.

Maestre-Andrés, S., S. Drews, and J. van den Bergh, 2019: Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: A review of the literature. Clim. Policy, 19(9) , 1186–1204, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1639490.

Malliet, P., F. Reynès, G. Landa, M. Hamdi-Cherif, and A. Saussay, 2020: Assessing Short-Term and Long-Term Economic and Environmental Effects of the COVID-19 Crisis in France. Environ. Resour. Econ. , 76 (4) , 867–883, doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00488-z.

Mandley, S.J., V. Daioglou, H.M. Junginger, D.P. van Vuuren, and B. Wicke, 2020: EU bioenergy development to 2050. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 127, 109858, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2020.109858.

Mansell, P., S.P. Philbin, T. Broyd, and I. Nicholson, 2019: Assessing the impact of infrastructure projects on global sustainable development goals. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. , 173(4) , 196–212, doi:10.1680/jensu.19.00044.

Markard, J., R. Raven, and B. Truffer, 2012: Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy, 41(6) , 955–967, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.

Maroun, C. and R. Schaeffer, 2012: Emulating new policy goals into past successes: Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation as a side effect of biofuels programmes in Brazil. Clim. Dev. , 4(3) , 187–198, doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.668849.

Massetti, E., 2012: Short-term and long-term climate mitigation policy in Italy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 3(2) , 171–183, doi:10.1002/wcc.159.

Mata, É. et al., 2020: A map of roadmaps for zero and low energy and carbon buildings worldwide. Environ. Res. Lett. , 15(11) , 113003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abb69f.

Mathiesen, B.V., H. Lund, and K. Karlsson, 2011: 100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl. Energy, 88(2) , 488–501, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.03.001.

Mathur, R. and S. Shekhar, 2020: India’s energy sector choices – options and implications of ambitious mitigation efforts. Clim. Change, 162(4) , 1893–1911, doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02885-1.

Matsuoka, Y., M. Kainuma, J. Fujino, and T. Ehara, 2013: How to Approach Asian Low-Carbon Societies?Glob. Environ. Res. , 17, 3–10.

Mattioli, G., C. Roberts, J.K. Steinberger, and A. Brown, 2020: The political economy of car dependence: A systems of provision approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 66, 101486, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101486.

Mawdsley, E., 2018: ‘From billions to trillions’: Financing the SDGs in a world ‘beyond aid’. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. , 8(2) , 191–195, doi:10.1177/2043820618780789.

Mazur, A. and E. Rosa, 1974: Energy and Life-Style: Massive energy consumption may not be necessary to maintain current living standards in America. Science, 186(4164) , 607–610, doi:10.1126/science.186.4164.607.

Mazzucato, M. and G. Semieniuk, 2017: Public financing of innovation: New questions. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 33(1) , 24–48, doi:10.1093/oxrep/grw036.

Mbeva, K.L. and W.P. Pauw, 2016: Self-Differentiation of Countries’ Responsibilities Addressing Climate Change through Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik gGmbH, Bonn, Germany, 51 pp.

McCollum, D.L. et al., 2018: Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy, 3(7) , 589–599, doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0179-z.

McDowall, W. et al., 2017: Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. J. Ind. Ecol. , 21(3) , 651–661, doi:10.1111/jiec.12597.

McLeod, E. et al., 2011: A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Environ. , 9(10) , 552–560, doi:10.1890/110004.

McNeil, M.A. et al., 2016: Energy efficiency outlook in China’s urban buildings sector through 2030. Energy Policy, 97, 532–539, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.033.

Meelen, T., B. Truffer, and T. Schwanen, 2019: Virtual user communities contributing to upscaling innovations in transitions: The case of electric vehicles. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 31, 96–109, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.002.

Meheus, F. and D. McIntyre, 2017: Fiscal space for domestic funding of health and other social services. Heal. Econ. Policy Law, 12(2) , 159–177, doi:10.1017/S1744133116000438.

Meinshausen, M., J. Guetschow, J. Lewis, and Z. Nicholls, 2021: NDC factsheets, doi:10.5281/zenodo.5710394.

Méjean, A., F. Lecocq, and Y. Mulugetta, 2015: Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: Reframing international climate negotiations. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. , 15(4) , 387–402, doi:10.1007/s10784-015-9302-9.

Mendoza, M.N., 2014: Lessons Learned: Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Energy Sector Reform in the Philippines GSI REPORT. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, www.iisd.org/gsi (Accessed December 15, 2020).

Messner, D., 2015: A social contract for low carbon and sustainable development: Reflections on non-linear dynamics of social realignments and technological innovations in transformation processes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 98, 260–270, doi:10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2015.05.013.

Michaelowa, A., M. Allen, and F. Sha, 2018: Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C – can humanity rise to the challenge?Clim. Policy, 18(3) , 275–286, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1426977.

Michaelowa, K. and A. Michaelowa, 2017: Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives: Designed for Effective Climate Change Mitigation?Int. Interact. , 43(1) , 129–155, doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1256110.

Mijn Cha, J., M. Wander, and M. Pastor, 2020: Environmental Justice, Just Transition, and a Low-Carbon Future for California. Environ. Law Report. , 50, 10216.

Mikova, N., W. Eichhammer, and B. Pfluger, 2019: Low-carbon energy scenarios 2050 in north-west European countries: Towards a more harmonised approach to achieve the EU targets. Energy Policy, 130 (February), 448–460, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.047.

Miller, C.A. and J. Richter, 2014: Social Planning for Energy Transitions. Curr. Sustain. Energy Reports, 1(3) , 77–84, doi:10.1007/s40518-014-0010-9.

Millot, A., A. Krook-Riekkola, and N. Maïzi, 2020: Guiding the future energy transition to net-zero emissions: Lessons from exploring the differences between France and Sweden. Energy Policy, 139 (July 2019), 111358, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111358.

Millward-Hopkins, J., J.K. Steinberger, N.D. Rao, and Y. Oswald, 2020: Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Glob. Environ. Change, 65, 102168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168.

Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment New Zealand, 2019: Just Transition. Government of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/economic-development/just-transition/ (Accessed January 8, 2020).

Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations of Ghana, 2018: Ghana National Dialogue on Decent Work. Accra, Ghana, https://www.un-page.org/ghana-holds-national-dialogue-decent-work-and-%E2%80%98just-transition%E2%80%99-green-economy (Accessed January 8, 2020).

Minx, J.C. et al., 2021: A comprehensive and synthetic dataset for global, regional, and national greenhouse gas emissions by sector 1970–2018 with an extension to 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 5213–5252, doi:10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021.

Mirzoev, Tokhir N., Ling Zhu, Yang Yang, Tian Zhang, Erik Roos, Andrea Pescatori, A.M., 2020: Future of Oil and Fiscal Sustainability in the GCC Region. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA, 45 pp.,https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/DP/2020/English/FOFSGCCEA.ashx (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Mittal, S., J.Y. Liu, S. Fujimori, and P.R. Shukla, 2018: An assessment of near-to-mid-term economic impacts and energy transitions under ‘2°C’ and ‘1.5°C’ scenarios for India. Energies, 11(9) , doi:10.3390/en11092213.

MoEF, 2008: India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Prime Minister’s Council On Climate Change, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Government of India, New Delhi. 56 pp., https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Pg01-52_2.pdf (Accessed October 26, 2021).

MoEFCC, 2018: Annual Report 2018-19. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC), Government of India . https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Annual-Report-2018-19-English.pdf (Accessed October 26, 2021).

MoEFCC, 2021: Annual Report 2020-21. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Environment-AR-English-2020-21.pdf (Accessed October 26, 2021).

Moellendorf, D., 2020: Responsibility for Increasing Mitigation Ambition in Light of the Right to Sustainable Development. Fudan J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. , 13(2) , 181–192, doi:10.1007/s40647-020-00277-4.

Mogomotsi, P.K., G.E.J. Mogomotsi, and W.L. Hambira, 2018: Paris agreement on climate change and Botswana’s Vision 2036: An examination of linkages. Chinese J. Popul. Resour. Environ. , 16(1) , 59–66, doi:10.1080/10042857.2018.1438000.

Mohai, P., D. Pellow, and J.T. Roberts, 2009: Environmental Justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. , 34(1) , 405–430, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348.

Mohan, A., O. Geden, M. Fridahl, H.J. Buck, and G.P. Peters, 2021: UNFCCC must confront the political economy of net-negative emissions. One Earth, 4(10) , 1348–1351, doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.001.

Moomaw, W.R., J.R. Moreira, K. Blok, D.L. Greene, K. Gregory, T. Jaszay, T. Kashiwagi, M. Levine, M. McFarland, N. Siva Prasad, L. Price, H.-H. Rogner, R. Sims, F. Zhou, P. Zhou, 2001: Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. In: Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 167–300. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/3.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Morris, J., V. Srikrishnan, M. Webster, and J. Reilly, 2018: Hedging Strategies: Electricity Investment Decisions under Policy Uncertainty. Energy J. , 39(1) , 101-122, doi:10.5547/01956574.39.1.jmor.

Mu, Y., S. Evans, C. Wang, and W. Cai, 2018a: How will sectoral coverage affect the efficiency of an emissions trading system? A CGE-based case study of China. Appl. Energy, 227, 403–414, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.072.

Mu, Y., C. Wang, and W. Cai, 2018b: The economic impact of China’s INDC: Distinguishing the roles of the renewable energy quota and the carbon market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. , 81, 2955–2966, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.105.

Munasinghe, M., 2001: Development, equity and sustainability (DES) in the context of climate change. In: Cross-cutting issues guidance papers: IPCC supporting material for the Third Assessment Report [Pachauri, R.K., T. Taniguchi, and K. Tanaka, (eds.)]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 69–119 pp.

Munasinghe, M., 2007: Making development more sustainable: Sustainomics framework and practical applications. MIND Press, Colombo, Sri ­Lanka, 657 pp.

Mundaca, L., M. Mansoz, L. Neij, and G. Timilsina, 2013: Transaction costs analysis of low-carbon technologies. Clim. Policy, 13(4) , 490–513, doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.781452.

Mundaca, L., J. Sonnenschein, L. Steg, N. Höhne, and D. Ürge-Vorsatz, 2019: The global expansion of climate mitigation policy interventions, the Talanoa Dialogue and the role of behavioural insights. Environ. Res. Commun. , 1(6) , 061001, doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ab26d6.

Muttitt, G. and S. Kartha, 2020: Equity, climate justice and fossil fuel extraction: Principles for a managed phase out. Clim. Policy, 20(8) , 1024–1042, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1763900.

Naidoo, C.P., 2020: Relating financial systems to sustainability transitions: Challenges, demands and design features. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 36, 270–290, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.004.

Nair, S. and M. Howlett, 2017: Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy Polit. , 45(1) , 103–118, doi:10.1332/030557316X14788776017743.

Nascimento, L. et al., 2021: Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries – Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation commitments: 2021 update. NewClimate Institute, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 132 pp., https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NewClimate_EC-PBL_CurrentPolicies_Report_Oct21.pdf .

NDC Partnership, 2017: PARTNERSHIP IN ACTION – ONE YEAR ON.http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/Pages/Home.aspx (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Nemet, G.F., M. Jakob, J.C. Steckel, and O. Edenhofer, 2017: Addressing policy credibility problems for low-carbon investment. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 47–57, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.004.

Nepal, 2020: The Fifteenth Plan (Fiscal Year 2019/20 2023/24). Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal, 731 pp., https://npc.gov.np/images/category/15th_plan_English_Version.pdf .

New, M., D. Reckien, D. Viner, C. Adler, S.-M. Cheong, C. Conde, A. Constable, E. Coughlan de Perez, A. Lammel, R. Mechler, B. Orlove, and W. Solecki, 2022: Decision Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

NewClimate Institute, Data-Driven Lab, PBL, German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, 2019: Global climate action from cities, regions and businesses: Impact of individual actors and cooperative initiatives on global and national emissions. [Kuramochi, T., et al. eds.)]. 2019 ed. NewClimate Institute and Data-Driven EnviroLab, Cologne, Germany, PBL, G.D. Institute, and Blavanik School of Government, University of Oxford, UK, 93pp.

Newell, P. and D. Mulvaney, 2013: The political economy of the ‘just transition’. Geogr. J. , 179(2) , 132–140, doi:10.1111/geoj.12008.

Newell, P. and A. Simms, 2020: Towards a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Clim. Policy, 20(8) , 1043–1054, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1636759.

Ng, S., N. Mabey, and J. Gaventa, 2016: Pulling ahead on clean technology: China’s 13th five year plan challenges Europe’s low-carbon competitiveness. E3G Briefing Paper, E3G, London, United Kingdom, 12 pp.

Nguyen, K.H., and M. Kakinaka, 2019: Renewable energy consumption, carbon emissions, and development stages: Some evidence from panel cointegration analysis. Renew. Energy, 132, 1049–1057, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.069.

Nicholls, Z.R.J. et al., 2020: Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: Introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response. Geosci. Model Dev. , 13(11) , 5175–5190, doi:10.5194/gmd-13-5175-2020.

Nieves, J.A., A.J. Aristizábal, I. Dyner, O. Báez, and D.H. Ospina, 2019: Energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions analysis in Colombia: A LEAP model application. Energy, 169, 380–397, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.051.

Nilsson, L.J. et al., 2021: An industrial policy framework for transforming energy and emissions intensive industries towards zero emissions. Clim. Policy, 21(8) , 1053–1065, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1957665.

Nilsson, M., D. Griggs, and M. Visbeck, 2016: Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534(7607) , 320–322, doi:10.1038/534320a.

Nisbet, E.G. et al., 2020: Methane Mitigation: Methods to Reduce Emissions, on the Path to the Paris Agreement. Rev. Geophys. , 58 (1) , doi:10.1029/2019RG000675.

Nobre, C.A., 2019: To save Brazil’s rainforest, boost its science. Nature, 574(7779) , 455–455, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03169-0.

Nogueira de Oliveira, L.P. et al., 2016: Critical technologies for sustainable energy development in Brazil: Technological foresight based on scenario modelling. J. Clean. Prod. , 130, 12–24, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.010.

Nong, D., 2018: General equilibrium economy-wide impacts of the increased energy taxes in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 123, 471–481, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.09.023.

Nong, D., S. Meng, and M. Siriwardana, 2017: An assessment of a proposed ETS in Australia by using the MONASH-Green model. Energy Policy, 108, 281–291, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.06.004.

NPC, 2011: Our future - make it work: National development plan 2030. National Planning Commission, The Presidency, Pretoria, South Africa, 484 pp., https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-workr.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2012).

NPC (National Planning Commission), 2019: Draft Proposal - Version Two 2050 Vision and Pathways for a Just Transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy and society. Pretoria, South Africa, 35 pp.

Nunes, F.S.M., B.S. Soares-Filho, R. Rajão, and F. Merry, 2017: Enabling large-scale forest restoration in Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Environ. Res. Lett. , 12(4) , 44022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6658.

NYDF Assessment Partners, 2020: Balancing forests and development: Addressing infrastructure and extractive industries, promoting sustainable livelihoods. Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative (IKI), Climate Focus, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 109 pp., https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2020NYDFReport.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2021).

Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha, 2007: The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 12 (5) , 787–797, doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0.

O’Neill, B., M. van Aalst, Z. Zaiton Ibrahim, L. Berrang Ford, S. Bhadwal, H. Buhaug, D. Diaz, K. Frieler, M. Garschagen, A. Magnan, G. Midgley, A. Mirzabaev, A. Thomas, and R. Warren, 2022: Key Risks Across Sectors and Regions Supplementary Material. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Available fromhttps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/.

O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socio-economic pathways. Clim. Change, 122(3) , 387–400, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.

O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2017: The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socio-economic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 169–180, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

Obergassel, W., L. Hermwille, and S. Oberthür, 2021: Harnessing international climate governance to drive a sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Clim. Policy, 21(10), 1298-1306, doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1835603.

Ocasio-Cortez, A., 2019: Resolution Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. H.Res.109. House Resolution (H.Res.)109. 116th Congress, 1st Session, Washington, DC, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text (Accessed November 1, 2021).

OECD, 2017a: Employment Implications of Green Growth: Linking jobs, growth, and green policies OECD REPORT FOR THE G7 ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France, 22 pp., www.oecd.org/greengrowth (Accessed December 11, 2019).

OECD, 2017b: Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France, 309 pp., https://www.oecd.org/env/investing-in-climate-investing-in-growth-9789264273528-en.htm.

Oei, P.-Y., T. Burandt, K. Hainsch, K. Löffler, and C. Kemfert, 2020: Lessons from Modeling 100% Renewable Scenarios Using GENeSYS-MOD. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy, 9(1) , 103–120, doi:10.5547/2160-5890.9.1.POEI.

Oshiro, K., M. Kainuma, and T. Masui, 2017a: Implications of Japan’s 2030 target for long-term low emission pathways. Energy Policy, 110, 581–587, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.003.

Oshiro, K., T. Masui, and M. Kainuma, 2017b: Quantitative analysis of Japan’s 2030 target based on AIM/CGE and AIM/enduse. In: Post-2020 Climate Action: Global and Asian Perspectives[Fujimori, S., M. Kainuma, T. Masui (eds.)]. Springer Singapore, Mizuho Information and Research Institute, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, pp. 143–156.

Oshiro, K., T. Masui, and M. Kainuma, 2018: Transformation of Japan’s energy system to attain net-zero emission by 2050. Carbon Manag. , 9(5) , 493–501, doi:10.1080/17583004.2017.1396842.

Ostrom, E., 2010: Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Am. Econ. Rev. , 100(3) , 641–672, doi:10.1257/AER.100.3.641.

Ouedraogo, N.S., 2017: Africa energy future: Alternative scenarios and their implications for sustainable development strategies. Energy Policy, 106, 457–471, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.021.

Ouyang, Z. et al., 2016: Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science, 352(6292) , 1455–1459, doi:10.1126/science.aaf2295.

Oyewo, A.S., A. Aghahosseini, M. Ram, A. Lohrmann, and C. Breyer, 2019: Pathway towards achieving 100% renewable electricity by 2050 for South Africa. Sol. Energy, 191 (June), 549–565, doi:10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.039.

Oyewo, A.S., A. Aghahosseini, M. Ram, and C. Breyer, 2020: Transition towards decarbonised power systems and its socio-economic impacts in West Africa. Renew. Energy, 154, 1092–1112, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.085.

Paladugula, A.L. et al., 2018: A multi-model assessment of energy and emissions for India’s transportation sector through 2050. Energy Policy, 116, 10–18, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.037.

Pan, X., M. den Elzen, N. Höhne, F. Teng, and L. Wang, 2017: Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environ. Sci. Policy, 74, 49–56, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.020.

Pandza, K. and P. Ellwood, 2013: Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Res. Policy, 42(5) , 1112–1125, doi:10.1016/J.RESPOL.2013.02.007.

Parikh, K.S., J.K. Parikh, and P.P. Ghosh, 2018: Can India grow and live within a 1.5 degree CO2 emissions budget?Energy Policy, 120, 24–37, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.014.

Patrizio, P. et al., 2018: Reducing US Coal Emissions Can Boost Employment. Joule, 2(12) , 2633–2648, doi:10.1016/J.JOULE.2018.10.004.

Pauw, W.P. et al., 2018: Beyond headline mitigation numbers: We need more transparent and comparable NDCs to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate change. Clim. Change, 147(1–2) , 23–29, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2122-x.

Pauw, W.P., P. Castro, J. Pickering, and S. Bhasin, 2020: Conditional nationally determined contributions in the Paris Agreement: foothold for equity or Achilles heel?Clim. Policy, 20(4) , 468–484, doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1635874.

Pearson, A.R. et al., 2017: Race, Class, Gender and Climate Change Communication. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, Oxford University Press.

Pedde, S. et al., 2019: Archetyping shared socio-economic pathways across scales: An application to central Asia and European case studies. Ecol. Soc. , 24(4) , doi:10.5751/ES-11241-240430.

Pelling, M.A and M. Garschagen, 2019: Put equity first in climate adaptation: Focusing on the bottom few percent, not averages, is the best way to tackle poverty. Nature, 569, 327–329, doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01497-9.

Pereira, A.M., R.M. Pereira, and P.G. Rodrigues, 2016: A new carbon tax in Portugal: A missed opportunity to achieve the triple dividend?Energy Policy, 93, 110–118, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.002.

Perrier, Q. and P. Quirion, 2018: How shifting investment towards low-carbon sectors impacts employment: Three determinants under scrutiny. Energy Econ. , 75, 464–483, doi:10.1016/J.ENECO.2018.08.023.

Peters, G.P. and O. Geden, 2017: Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(9) , 619–621, doi:10.1038/nclimate3369.

Peters, G.P., R.M. Andrew, S. Solomon, and P. Friedlingstein, 2015: Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. , 10(10) , 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105004.

Peters, G.P. et al., 2017: Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 118–122, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE3202.

Pettifor, A., 2020: The Case for the Green New Deal. Verso, London, UK, New York, NY, USA, 208 pp.

Pezzoni, M., R. Veugelers, and F. Visentin, 2019: How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit?C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, United Kingdom, https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/13447.html (Accessed December 22, 2020).

Pfeiffer, A., C. Hepburn, A. Vogt-Schilb, and B. Caldecott, 2018: Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. , 13(5) , 054019, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabc5f.

Piggot, G., M. Boyland, A. Down, and A.R. Torre, 2019: Realizing a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Seattle, USA, 12 pp., https://www.sei.org/publications/just-and-equitable-transition-fossil-fuels/ (Accessed January 8, 2020).

Piggot, G., C. Verkuijl, H. van Asselt, and M. Lazarus, 2020: Curbing fossil fuel supply to achieve climate goals. Clim. Policy, 20(8) , doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1804315.

Pizer, W.A. and S. Sexton, 2019: The Distributional Impacts of Energy Taxes. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 13(1) , 104–123, doi:10.1093/reep/rey021.

Poffenbarger, H.J., B.A. Needelman, and J.P. Megonigal, 2011: Salinity influence on methane emissions from tidal marshes. Wetlands, 31(5) , 831–842, doi:10.1007/s13157-011-0197-0.

Pollin, R., 2020: An Industrial Policy Framework to Advance a Global Green New Deal. In: The Oxford Handbook of Industrial Policy, [Oqubay, A., C. Cramer, H.-J. Chang, and R. KozulWright, (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198862420.013.16.

Pollin, R. and B. Callaci, 2019: The Economics of Just Transition: A Framework for Supporting Fossil Fuel–Dependent Workers and Communities in the United States. Labor Stud. J. , 44(2) , 93–138, doi:10.1177/0160449X18787051.

Pollitt, H., E. Alexandri, U. Chewpreecha, and G. Klaassen, 2015: Macroeconomic analysis of the employment impacts of future EU climate policies. Clim. Policy, 15(5) , 604–625, doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.953907.

Pollitt, H., R. Lewney, B. Kiss-Dobronyi, and X. Lin, 2021: Modelling the economic effects of COVID-19 and possible green recovery plans: a post-Keynesian approach. Clim. Policy, 21(10), 1257–1271, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1965525.

Polonara, F., L.J.M. Kuijpers, and R.A. Peixoto, 2017: Potential impacts of the montreal protocol kigali amendment to the choice of refrigerant alternatives. Int. J. Heat Technol. , 35 (Special Issue 1), S1–S8, doi:10.18280/ijht.35Sp0101.

Popp, R., 2019: A Just Transition of European Coal Regions. Assessing stakeholder positions towards the transition away from coal. E3G, London, UK, 20 pp., https://www.euki.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/E3G_2019_Stakeholder_Mappings_European_Coal_Regions_Final-1.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Portugal-Pereira, J. et al., 2016: Overlooked impacts of electricity expansion optimisation modelling: The life cycle side of the story. Energy, 115, 1424–1435, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.062.

Portugal-Pereira, J. et al., 2018: Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects. Energy Policy, 120, 158–166, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.041.

Powlson, D.S., C.M. Stirling, C. Thierfelder, R.P. White, and M.L. Jat, 2016: Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. , 220, 164–174, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.005.

Pozo, C., Á. Galán-Martín, D.M. Reiner, N. Mac Dowell, and G. Guillén-Gosálbez, 2020: Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas. Nat. Clim. Change, 10(7) , 640–646, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0802-4.

PPMC and SLoCaT, 2016: Transport and climate change synthesis of analytical products by the paris process on mobility and climate (PPMC). Paris Process on Mobility and Climate (PPMC) and Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT). http://www.ppmc-transport.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/E2_Synthesis-Report.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Pradhan, A., C. Chan, P.K. Roul, J. Halbrendt, and B. Sipes, 2018a: Potential of conservation agriculture (CA) for climate change adaptation and food security under rainfed uplands of India: A transdisciplinary approach. Agric. Syst. , 163, 27–35, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.002.

Pradhan, B.B., R.M. Shrestha, A. Pandey, and B. Limmeechokchai, 2018b: Strategies to Achieve Net Zero Emissions in Nepal. Carbon Manag. , 9(5) , 533–548, doi:10.1080/17583004.2018.1536168.

Pradhan, P., L. Costa, D. Rybski, W. Lucht, and J.P. Kropp, 2017: A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Futur. , 5(11) , 1169–1179, doi:10.1002/2017EF000632.

Pretty, J.N. et al., 2006: Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 40(4) , 1114–1119, doi:10.1021/es051670d.

Prognos, Öko-Institut, Wuppertal-Institut, 2020: Towards a Climate-Neutral Germany. Executive Summary conducted for Agora Energiewende, Agora Verkehrswende and Stiftung Klimaneutralität . Stiftung Denkfabrik Klimaneutralität, Berlin, Germany, 175 pp., https://www.stiftung-klima.de/app/uploads/2020/11/2020_KNDE_Langfassung_WEB.pdf (Accessed October 18, 2021).

Pye, S. et al., 2016: Exploring national decarbonization pathways and global energy trade flows: A multi-scale analysis. Clim. Policy, 16(sup1) , S92–S109, doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1179619.

Pye, S. et al., 2020: An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon. Nat. Commun. , 11, 3968, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17679-3.

Quéré, C. et al., 2018: Global Carbon Budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10(4) , 2141–2194, doi:10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018.

Quinet, A. et al., 2019: The Value for Climate Action: A Shadow Price of Carbon for Evaluation of Investments and Public Policies, Paris, France, 187 pp., https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/ fs-the-value-for-climate-action-final-web.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Rajamani, L., 2017: Guiding principles and general obligation (Article 2.2 and Article 3). In: The Paris Agreement on climate change: Analysis and commentary. ISBN: 9780198803768[Klein, D., P. Carazo, J. Bulmer, M. Doelle, and A. Higham, (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Rajamani, L. and J. Brunnée, 2017: The legality of downgrading nationally determined contributions under the Paris agreement: Lessons from the US disengagement. J. Environ. Law, 29(3) , 537–551, doi:10.1093/jel/eqx024.

Rajamani, L. et al., 2021: National ‘fair shares’ in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the principled framework of international environmental law. Clim. Policy, 21(8), 983–1004, doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1970504.

Ramalingam, B., 2013: Aid on the edge of chaos: Rethinking international cooperation in a complex world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 480 pp.

Ramanathan, V. and Y. Xu, 2010: The Copenhagen accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 107(18) , 8055–8062, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002293107.

Randelli, F. and B. Rocchi, 2017: Analysing the role of consumers within technological innovation systems: The case of alternative food networks. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 25, 94–106, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.001.

Rao, N.D. and J. Min, 2018: Less global inequality can improve climate outcomes. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 9(2) , doi:10.1002/wcc.513.

Rao, N.D., P. Sauer, M. Gidden, and K. Riahi, 2019: Income inequality projections for the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). Futures, 105, 27–39, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.07.001.

Raskin, P. and R. Swart, 2020: Excluded futures: The continuity bias in scenario assessments. Sustain. Earth, 3(1) , 8, doi:10.1186/s42055-020-00030-5.

Raskin, P. et al., 2002: Great transition: The promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, USA, https://greattransition.org/documents/Great_Transition.pdf (Accessed November 1, 2021).

Rasul, G., 2016: Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ. Dev. , 18, 14–25, doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001.

Raubenheimer, S. et al., 2015: Stories from the South: Exploring low-carbon development pathways. MAPS team (Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios), Edited by Stefan Raubenheimer. Cape Town, South Africa, 328 pp.

Rauter, R., D. Globocnik, E. Perl-Vorbach, and R.J. Baumgartner, 2019: Open innovation and its effects on economic and sustainability innovation performance. J. Innov. Knowl. , 4(4) , 226–233, doi:10.1016/J.JIK.2018.03.004.

Rendall, M., 2019: Discounting, climate change, and the ecological fallacy. Ethics, 129(3) , 441–463, doi:10.1086/701481.

Renner, S., J. Lay, and M. Schleicher, 2019: The effects of energy price changes: Heterogeneous welfare impacts and energy poverty in Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Econ. , 24(2) , 180–200, doi:10.1017/S1355770X18000402.

Rentschler, J. and M. Bazilian, 2017: Policy Monitor – Principles for Designing Effective Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 11(1) , 138–155, doi:10.1093/reep/rew016.

Revi, A., 2017: Re-imagining the United Nations’ Response to a Twenty-first-century Urban World: doi.org/10.1177/2455747117740438, 2(2) , ix–xv, doi:10.1177/2455747117740438.

Riahi, K. et al., 2015: Locked into Copenhagen pledges – Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 90, 8–23, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016.

Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socio-economic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.

Riahi, K. et al., 2021: Implications of avoiding temperature overshoot for the attainability and costs of stringent mitigation targets. Nat. Clim. Change, Accepted.

Richter, P.M., R. Mendelevitch, and F. Jotzo, 2018: Coal taxes as supply-side climate policy: A rationale for major exporters?Clim. Change, 150(1–2) , 43–56, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2163-9.

Ricke, K., L. Drouet, K. Caldeira, and M. Tavoni, 2018: Country-level social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(10) , 895–900, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y.

Ringel, M., 2017: Energy efficiency policy governance in a multi-level administration structure – evidence from Germany. Energy Effic. , 10(3) , 753–776, doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9484-1.

Roberts, C. et al., 2018a: The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. , 44, 304–311, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.001.

Roberts, D., 2016: The New Climate Calculus: 1.5°C = Paris Agreement, Cities, Local Government, Science and Champions (PLSC 2). Urbanisation, 1(2) , 71–78, doi:10.1177/2455747116672474.

Roberts, J.T. and B.C. Parks, 2007: A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 404 pp.

Roberts, S.H., B.D. Foran, C.J. Axon, B.S. Warr, and N.H. Goddard, 2018b: Consequences of selecting technology pathways on cumulative carbon dioxide emissions for the United Kingdom. Appl. Energy, 228, 409–425, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.078.

Robertson, S., 2021: Transparency, trust, and integrated assessment models: An ethical consideration for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. WIREs Clim. Change, 12(1) , doi:10.1002/wcc.679.

Robiou du Pont, Y. and M. Meinshausen, 2018: Warming assessment of the bottom-up Paris Agreement emissions pledges. Nat. Commun. , 9(1) , 4810, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07223-9.

Robiou Du Pont, Y. et al., 2017: Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change, 7(1) , 38, doi:10.1038/nclimate3186.

Rochedo, P.R.R. et al., 2018: The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(8) , 695–698, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0213-y.

Rockström, J. et al., 2017: A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331) , 1269–1271, doi:10.1126/science.aah3443.

Rodrik, D., 2016: Premature deindustrialization. J. Econ. Growth, 21(1) , 1–33, doi:10.1007/s10887-015-9122-3.

Roelfsema, M. et al., 2018: The Global Stocktake. Keeping track of implementing the Paris Agreement. PBL Netherlands Environ. Assess. Agency, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assedssment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, https://themasites.pbl.nl/global-stocktake-indicators/ (Accessed July 12, 2019).

Roelfsema, M. et al., 2020: Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. , 11(1) , 2096, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6.

Rogelj, J. and C.-F. Schleussner, 2019: Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level. Environ. Res. Lett. , 14 (11), 114039, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab4928.

Rogelj, J. et al., 2016: Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534 (7609) , 631–639, doi:10.1038/nature18307.

Rogelj, J. et al., 2017: Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nat. Commun. , 8, 15748, doi:10.1038/ncomms15748.

Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V. Vilariño, 2018a: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 93–174.

Rogelj, J. et al., 2018b: Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C. Nat. Clim. Change, 8(4) , 325–332, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3.

Rogelj, J., O. Geden, A. Cowie, and A. Reisinger, 2021: Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nat. , 591, 365–368, doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00662-3

Rogge, K.S. and K. Reichardt, 2016: Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy, 45(8) , 1620–1635, doi:10.1016/J.RESPOL.2016.04.004.

Rogge, K.S. et al., 2015: Green change: Renewable energies, policy mix and innovation. Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany, 43 pp., http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/66004/ (Accessed December 19, 2019).

Romañach, S.S. et al., 2018: Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean Coast. Manag. , 154, 72–82, doi:10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2018.01.009.

Rose, S.K., R. Richels, G. Blanford, and T. Rutherford, 2017: The Paris Agreement and next steps in limiting global warming. Clim. Change, 142(1–2) , 255–270, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-1935-y.

Rosemberg, A., 2010: Building a Just Transition: The linkages between climate change and employment. In: Climate Change and Labour: The Need for a “Just Transition”. International Journal of Labour Research, 2(2) , 125–161.

Rosenbloom, D., 2017: Pathways: An emerging concept for the theory and governance of low-carbon transitions. Glob. Environ. Change, 43, 37–50, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.011.

Rosenbloom, D., J. Meadowcroft, S. Sheppard, S. Burch, and S. Williams, 2018: Transition experiments: Opening up low-carbon transition pathways for Canada through innovation and learning. Can. Public Policy, 44(4) , 368–383, doi:10.3138/cpp.2018-020.

Rosentreter, J.A., D.T. Maher, D.V. Erler, R.H. Murray, and B.D. Eyre, 2018: Methane emissions partially offset ‘blue carbon’ burial in mangroves. Sci. Adv. , 4(6) , doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao4985.

Routledge, P., A. Cumbers, and K.D. Derickson, 2018: States of just transition: Realising climate justice through and against the state. Geoforum, 88, 78–86, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.11.015.

Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P. Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta, B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C. Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi, and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018: Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change[Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 445–540.

Rozenberg, J. and M. Fay, 2019: Beyond the Gap: How Countries Can Afford the Infrastructure They Need while Protecting the Planet . [Rozenberg, J. and M. Fay, (eds.)]. World Bank, Washington, DC, 175 pp.

RSA, 2011: National Climate Change Response White Paper. Government Gazette No. 34695, Notice 757 of 2011. Government of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 49 pp.