2035 National Climate Plan Benchmarks for Major Economies

In the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to achieve global net zero “in the second half of this century.” As a result, most countries in the world have set a target date for achieving net zero for their emissions. The end date for achieving net zero matters, so we have outlined different net zero dates for countries based upon: (1) for countries that have peaked, net zero in 2050 or 2045 and (2) for countries that haven’t peaked, net zero for 2050, 2060, or 2070. 

It also matters when the decline begins, so we have analyzed the decline: (1) for countries that have peaked, starting in 1990, 2005 or 2015 and (2) for countries that haven’t peaked starting in 2025 and 2030. For each country, we include all greenhouse gas emissions across the economy and sequestration from LUCF (see methodology).

Table 1 shows 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the straight line to net zero trajectories in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 2 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the straight line to net zero trajectories in G20 countries that haven’t peaked emissions using those variations. 

The Rhodium Group conducted an analysis that modeled estimated trajectories for each of the G20 countries under a range of potential economic and market conditions. It analyzed a scenario in which countries meet their 2030 NDCs, and it then assessed a straight-line path from 2030 NDCs to the countries’ mid-century targets.

Table 3 shows 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Rhodium Group analysis of a straight-line to mid-century targets in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 4 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Rhodium Group analysis of straight-line to mid-century targets in G20 countries that haven’t peaked emissions.

The models that feed into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments include country-by-country breakdowns for many of the world’s largest economies. These models use a “least-cost pathway,” meaning that they find the cheapest pathway to meet the 1.5°C trajectory using the assumptions in their model by country/region. The modeling that feeds into the IPCC assessments includes various 1.5°C pathways. In this blog, we show the median level for each country (see methodology).^[xii]

Table 5 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the IPCC trajectories in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 6 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for IPCC trajectories in G20 countries that haven’t peaked emissions.

Climate Analytics, a leading climate science group, has analyzed country-by-country scenarios for several countries. It uses the “least-cost pathways” from the IPCC scenario, with modifications (as explained in its methodology). These values don’t currently include emissions from LUCF, so we have included an assumption about LUCF (see methodology).^[xiv]

Table 7 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Analytics trajectories in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 8 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Analytics trajectories in G20 countries that haven’t peaked emissions.

Climate Action Tracker—a consortium of NewClimate Institute and Climate Analytics—has assessed for key countries its current policies, planned actions, and NDCs against a “fair share” set of metrics (as explained in its “fair share” methodology page). 

These values don’t include emissions from LUCF, so we have included an assumption about LUCF. Climate Action Tracker recently released analysis for several countries that includes LUCF. This update doesn’t include all G20 countries and uses a different methodology for including LUCF than we used, so they are included in the detailed spreadsheet but not shown below. 

Table 9 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Action Tracker trajectories in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 10 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Action Tracker trajectories in G20 countries that haven’t peaked emissions.

The Civil Society Equity Reviews (CSER) and the Climate Equity Reference Project (CERP) assess country “fair shares” using measures of equity. CERP seeks to reflect the international climate agreements “core equity principles.” It uses a responsibility and capability Index to reflect the responsibility of countries to climate change combined with their capability to cut emissions. 

Several coalitions have used this tool to assess 2035 national NDCs including for the United States, Canada, European Union, and Brazil. Since updated 2035 NDC assessments using the CERP methodology aren’t currently available for all G20 countries, we haven’t included a detailed breakout. CSER didn’t currently provide information for all G20 countries, so they weren’t included in the detailed breakout.

Researchers in countries and external experts have conducted various bottom-up national assessments over the years that often evaluate a version of a 1.5/2°C consistent trajectory for that country, pathways consistent with the countries’ net zero target, 2035 emissions level based upon a combination of national policies, or some combination. These can include the kinds of subnational actions (e.g., from states/provinces, cities, companies, investors) that have become a core component of the actions that help deliver national-level emissions reductions. Since national bottom-up analyses aren’t publicly available for all G20 countries and can vary based upon formulations (e.g., different assumed climate trajectories between countries), we haven’t included a detailed breakout.

A recent analysis from the Center for Global Sustainability conducts a bottom-up analysis for the G20 with in-depth assessments for 10 countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea. It applies a common framework—it labels the “high ambition” country pathways—for each of these countries. While some show similar findings to the various top-down analysis presented above, several countries—for example, China and India—result in smaller reductions when aligning near-term trends in country contexts.

Table 11 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Center for Global Sustainability trajectories in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Table 12 shows the Climate Analytics results for countries that haven’t peaked emissions using those variations.

To be credible, the individual and collective 2030, 2035, and net zero trajectories will need to be consistent with holding temperatures to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels as countries agreed under the Paris Agreement. Each of the formulations discussed above have pros and cons in terms of their consistency with this global 1.5°C benchmark. Researchers at WRI have looked at the characteristics and challenges in assessing “alignment” of NDCs the collective 1.5°C goal. They conclude that a “binary categorization of NDCs into those that do and do not align with a given objective may be less useful than a more nuanced and multidimensional view.” 

This post hopes to help facilitate the assessment as countries begin to announce their next iteration of NDCs by helping to navigate the different sources of information that can be used to promote accountability in determining whether the next round of NDCs are “strong enough” to keep 1.5°C alive.

Some countries have begun to announce NDCs (e.g., the United Kingdom, Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Japan), which can be assessed against these benchmarks as the world seeks to create a race to the top in the level of ambition reflected in the next round of NDCs. 

And a group of countries—the European Union, Mexico, Chile, United Kingdom, Canada, Bhutan, Madagascar, Panama, Suriname, Switzerland, Norway, and Georgia—announced that they would commit to 2035 targets that are at least on a straight line to their net zero targets. 

This blog was originally published December 3, 2024, and has been updated with new information and links. Subsequent posts will summarize the proposed NDCs against these various benchmarks.