H. Damon MatthewsA Viewpoint on the Frontiers in Science Lead Article
The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization
Key points
- The committed or unrealized future warming of our climate due to past carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has been defined in many different ways, and has also been widely misunderstood both within and outside of the scientific community.
- The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is a clean estimate of unrealized future warming, but its application to understand the requirements of climate stabilization is complicated by how quickly we are able to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as the climate response to changes in non-CO2 emissions.
- The climate response to CO2 emissions is well-represented by the combination of the Transient Climate Response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE) and ZEC.
Introduction
The amount of future climate warming that is anticipated to be caused by already emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) is a quantity that has been defined in many different ways, and it is also one of the most widely misunderstood concepts in climate science. Terms such as “committed warming,” “warming in the pipeline,” or “unrealized warming” have frequently been used to invoke the idea that CO2 already in the atmosphere will cause decades to centuries of continued warming, regardless of how quickly the world is able to decrease emissions. However, ongoing climate warming is predominantly caused by the CO2 emissions that we continue to produce, not those that were emitted in the past. This understanding is clearly laid out by Palazzo Corner et al. (1), who describe the latest scientific knowledge of the “Zero Emissions Commitment” (ZEC) or the amount of continued global temperature change that we should expect in the absence of any future CO2 emissions. The balance of current evidence suggests that ZEC is likely close to zero (albeit with large uncertainty in either direction), suggesting that if we were able to achieve zero CO2 emissions, the most likely climate outcome would be stable global temperatures (1).
Climate commitment confusion
The misunderstanding that emerged surrounding the idea of committed climate warming is in part due to the history of how climate models have been developed. For most of the history of global climate model development, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were a prescribed quantity, with no inclusion of the global carbon cycle dynamics that absorb more than half of the annual CO2 emissions produced by fossil fuel combustion and land-use change. This was still the case at the time of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, which, for the first time, reported a series of model experiments in which atmospheric composition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases was held fixed at year-2000 levels, and the models were run forward in time to quantify the amount of additional warming that would occur (2). This set of experiments showed continued climate warming as the slow-responding components of the climate system adjusted over time to a constant atmospheric composition. The resulting warming (of about 0.5°C over 100 years) was labeled the “constant composition commitment” (2).
This was an important finding and represented a novel quantification of the physical climate inertia that results in delayed warming in response to a change in forcing. However, this finding was widely reported and discussed—both within and outside of the scientific literature—as an unavoidable amount of future climate warming that would manifest regardless of how quickly we were able to decrease emissions (3). This often led to the assertion that, even if we were to stop emitting CO2, warming would continue for decades to centuries. But this is not what the IPCC report showed: the constant composition commitment was in response to constant atmospheric concentrations, which is not the same as zero future emissions (4).
With the development of Earth system models that included carbon cycle dynamics, it became possible to simulate the climate response to zero emissions, rather than only the climate response to prescribed constant concentrations. These new models showed clearly that if CO2 emissions were eliminated abruptly, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would fall over time and global temperatures would probably remain approximately constant (4–8). The resulting zero emissions commitment was therefore shown to be close to zero, much smaller than the constant composition commitment (4). While the constant composition commitment was only an estimate of the effect of physical climate inertia, ZEC also includes the effect of carbon cycle inertia that acts to decrease atmospheric CO2 over time and counteract the warming influence of physical climate inertia (3). ZEC is therefore the correct metric of climate commitment to use to estimate how much future warming we should anticipate from past CO2 emissions.
Drivers of unavoidable future warming
While ZEC tells us how much future warming we should expect from the CO2 emissions already in the atmosphere, it does not tell us how much future warming is unavoidable. Climate inertia on its own (including both physical climate and carbon cycle inertia) does not seem to be a major factor in causing unavoidable future warming, but there are other important inertial factors that do. It is, of course, not possible to stop emitting CO2 overnight, which reflects strong inertia within human technological and sociopolitical systems.
The concept of “committed emissions” is therefore key to understanding how much future CO2-induced warming might be unavoidable, by virtue of unavoidable future emissions (9). Various studies have now estimated the committed future emissions resulting from existing fossil fuel infrastructure and have found that, in the absence of early retirement of key infrastructure, the world has already committed itself to enough future emissions to cause global temperatures to reach or even exceed the most ambitious climate targets of the Paris Agreement (10–13). Other inertial factors associated with political systems, corporations, and individual behavioral change are also key contributors to the overall societal inertia that has led to a slow mitigation progress and associated unavoidable future emissions (14).
Another key factor is the role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and aerosols, whose contribution to future warming is not captured by the CO2-only ZEC. Several studies have quantified the ZEC associated with combinations of forcing agents, and while the long-term temperature level remains largely driven by CO2, aerosols and short-lived greenhouse gases have a large influence on the peak temperature that will be reached after emissions are eliminated (10, 15–17). In particular, the aerosol warming commitment (warming that would occur if the current masking effect of anthropogenic aerosols was abruptly removed) has been flagged as a key threat to the achievement of global temperature targets (18, 19).
A final consideration is that ZEC quantifies the ongoing climate changes resulting from an abrupt elimination of emissions, and this may not be directly transferable to the climate response to a realistic decarbonization scenario. In a scenario where CO2 emissions decrease to zero over a period of several decades, a portion of current committed CO2-induced warming (as quantified by ZEC) would manifest during this decarbonization period. ZEC is therefore not a precise estimate of the ongoing warming after net zero CO2 emissions are achieved in such a scenario. In the case that ZEC is exactly zero, this distinction between an abrupt versus gradual elimination of emissions would be immaterial. However, individual models display a large range of ZEC values (from positive to negative) (20), and the climate response to a decarbonization scenario in a particular model (e.g., 21) would therefore be influenced by that model’s positive or negative ZEC value.
Characterizing the climate response to CO2 emissions
Despite these complications, ZEC is a key metric that helps to quantify the climate response to CO2 emissions and understand the requirements of climate stabilization. The overall climate response to CO2 emissions is well characterized by ZEC, in combination with the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE). Where TCRE measures the instantaneous temperature change resulting from a given quantity of cumulative CO2 emissions (22, 23), ZEC represents the additional long-term change resulting from those same emissions (20, 24).
The overall climate response to CO2 emissions can therefore be well-represented by different combinations of these two metrics, depending on how CO2 emissions are changing (see Figure 1). During the period that CO2 emissions are increasing, the global temperature change is equal to TCRE multiplied by the cumulative emissions to date (ET). After CO2 emissions reach net zero, the long-term temperature change is equal to the sum of TCRE * (ET) and ZEC. Temperature change during the intervening period (characterized by declining CO2 emissions) is equal to the sum of TCRE * (ET) and the portion of ZEC that manifests during the transition between peak and net zero CO2 emissions.
FIGURE 1
Figure 1 Climate response to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The temperature changes caused by CO2 emissions are well characterized by the Transient Climate Response to cumulative CO2 Emissions (TCRE) and the Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC). When CO2 emissions are increasing (period 1), temperature change (ΔT) is equal to TCRE * ET, where ET represents the cumulative CO2 emissions to date. After CO2 emissions reach net zero (period 3), temperature change is equal to the sum of TCRE * ET and ZEC. In the intervening period, characterized by decreasing CO2 emissions (period 2), temperature change is equal to TCRE * ET plus the portion of ZEC that manifests during the transition to net zero CO2 emissions.
Net zero requirement for climate stabilization
The combination of ZEC and TCRE, as well as an estimate of the non-CO2 effect on future temperature change, can be used effectively to estimate the remaining carbon budget—the total amount of future CO2 emissions that is consistent with limiting global temperature to a particular target (23, 25, 26). Recent estimates of the remaining carbon budget have generally adopted a best estimate of zero for ZEC (25, 27), though have also shown that ZEC uncertainty is a key contributor to overall uncertainty on the remaining carbon budget (26). Palazzo Corner et al. (1) reaffirmed this best estimate, suggesting that while ZEC remains a highly uncertain quantity, the balance of current evidence suggests that we should not expect much, if any, additional global warming caused by past CO2 emissions.
In its Summary for Policymakers, the latest IPCC Assessment Report stated that “limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO2 emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions” (28). This assessment reflects the current understanding that climate stabilization will require the elimination of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions, combined with ambitious mitigation of non-CO2 emissions. ZEC is a key metric underlying the IPCC’s conclusions, so continuing to improve and refine our estimate of ZEC will in turn improve our estimates of overall mitigation requirements to limit peak warming and stabilize global temperatures.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges funding support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, as well as contributions from research collaborators such as K. Zickfeld, A. MacDougall, A. Weaver, S. Solomon, K. Tokarska, N. Gillett, S. Davis, and K. Caldeira, who have contributed to much of the work discussed in this Viewpoint.
Statements
Author contributions
HDM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The author’s research program is supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author HDM declared a past co-authorship with the Lead Article authors JR, CK, SZ, RK, CDJ, AM, MM to the handling editor.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Palazzo Corner S, Siegert M, Ceppi P, Fox-Kemper B, Frölicher T, Gallego-Sala A, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization. Front Sci (2023) 1:1170744. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2023.1170744
2. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, et al. Chapter 10. Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (2007) 747–845. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter10-1.pdf.
3. Matthews HD, Solomon S. Irreversible does not mean unavoidable. Science (2013) 340(6131):438–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1236372
4. Matthews HD, Weaver AJ. Committed climate warming. Nat Geosci (2010) 3(3):142–3. doi: 10.1038/ngeo813
5. Matthews HD, Caldeira K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett (2008) 35(4):L04705. doi: 10.1029/2007GL032388
6. Lowe JA, Huntingford C, Raper SCB, Jones CD, Liddicoat SK, Gohar LK. How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? Environ Res Lett (2009) 4(1):14012. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012
7. Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2009) 106(6):1704–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
8. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Zickfeld K, Marshall SJ, Merryfield WJ. Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions. Nat Geosci (2011) 4(2):83–7. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1047
9. Davis SJ, Caldeira K, Matthews HD. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy. Infrastructure (2010) 329:4.
10. Smith CJ, Forster PM, Allen M, Fuglestvedt J, Millar RJ, Rogelj J, et al. Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5°C warming. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):101. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07999-w
11. Tong D, Zhang Q, Zheng Y, Caldeira K, Shearer C, Hong C, et al. Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5°C climate target. Nature (2019) 572(7769):373–7. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3
12. Fisch-Romito V, Guivarch C, Creutzig F, Minx JC, Callaghan MW. Systematic map of the literature on carbon lock-in induced by long-lived capital. Environ Res Lett (2021) 16(5):053004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aba660
13. Trout K, Muttitt G, Lafleur D, Van de Graaf TV, Mendelevitch R, Mei L, et al. Existing fossil fuel extraction would warm the world beyond 1.5°C. Environ Res Lett (2022) 17(6):064010. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac6228
14. Matthews HD, Wynes S. Current global efforts are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C. Science (2022) 376(6600):1404–9. doi: 10.1126/science.abo3378
15. Matthews HD, Zickfeld K. Climate response to zeroed emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Nat Clim Change (2012) 2(5):338–41. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1424
16. Mauritsen T, Pincus R. Committed warming inferred from observations. Nat Clim Change (2017) 215:56–5. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3357
17. Dvorak MT, Armour KC, Frierson DMW, Proistosescu C, Baker MB, Smith CJ. Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0°C of global warming. Nat Clim Chang (2022) 12(6):547–52. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01372-y
18. Ramanathan V, Feng Y. On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead. Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA (2008) 105(38):14245–50. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803838105
19. Lelieveld J, Klingmüller K, Pozzer A, Burnett RT, Haines A, Ramanathan V. Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116(15):7192–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1819989116
20. MacDougall AH, Frölicher TL, Jones CD, Rogelj J, Matthews HD, Zickfeld K, et al. Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2. Biogeosciences (2020) 17(11):2987–3016. doi: 10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020
21. Shindell D, Smith CJ. Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels. Nature (2019) 573(7774):408–11. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1554-z
22. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Matthews D, Allen MR. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J Clim (2013) 26(18):6844–58. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1
23. Matthews HD, Tokarska KB, Nicholls ZRJ, Rogelj J, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P, et al. Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat Geosci (2020) 13(12):769–79. doi: 10.1038/s41561-020-00663-3
24. Jones CD, Frölicher TL, Koven C, MacDougall AH, Matthews HD, Zickfeld K, et al. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions. Geosci Model Dev (2019) 12(10):4375–85. doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019
25. Rogelj J, Forster PM, Kriegler E, Smith CJ, Séférian R. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature (2019) 571(7765):335–42. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1368-z
26. Damon Matthews HD, Tokarska KB, Rogelj J, Smith CJ, MacDougall AH, Haustein K, et al. An integrated approach to quantifying uncertainties in the remaining carbon budget. Commun Earth Environ (2021) 2(1):7. doi: 10.1038/s43247-020-00064-9
27. Canadell JG, Monteiro PM, Costa MH, Syampungani S, Zaehle S, Zickfeld Canada K, et al. Chapter 5. Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks. In Masson-Delmotte PZ, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al editors. Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (2021) 673–816. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007
28. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte PZ, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, et al editors. Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (2021) 3–32. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.001
Keywords: Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC), committed warming, CO2 emissions, climate stabilization, unrealized warming, transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE)
Citation: Matthews HD. How much additional global warming should we expect from past CO2 emissions? Front Sci (2023) 1:1327653. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2023.1327653
Received: 25 October 2023; Accepted: 08 November 2023;
Published: 14 November 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Hayley Jane Fowler, Newcastle University, United KingdomCopyright © 2023 Matthews. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: H. Damon Matthews, damon.matthews@concordia.ca