It’s been nearly 10 years since 194 countries adopted the Paris Agreement on climate change. And while many have made strides forward, their collective efforts still fall far short of what’s needed to avoid increasingly dangerous impacts and limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).
The UN’s latest assessment, for example, finds that countries’ current policies put the world on course for 3.1 degrees C (5.6 degrees F) of warming, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions holding steady at 57 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2030 and 2035. To limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, these emissions must instead decline rapidly to 33 GtCO2e in 2030 and 25 GtCO2e in 2035.
The good news is that this year presents a prime opportunity to change course, with countries set to put forward new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) ahead of COP30 in November 2025. The Paris Agreement requires that each successive NDC reflect a country’s “highest possible ambition,” as well as its “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” All eyes are now on governments to establish bold, new emissions-reduction targets for 2035, as well as strengthen their existing targets for 2030, in line with these core tenants. But as NDCs begin to trickle in, a critical question remains: What would ambitious targets look like for major emitters like the European Union or China?
The short answer? No matter which way you slice it, major emitters need to go further.
The longer answer is more complicated …
5 Approaches for Setting National Emissions-Reduction Targets for 2030 and 2035
Divvying up the responsibility of achieving any global goal to individual countries is a complex, value-laden process. For example, should countries that can achieve the largest and cheapest emissions reductions set the most ambitious targets? Or should wealthy nations that have historically emitted the most GHGs shoulder the greatest responsibilities?
Various corners of the climate community tackle these questions differently, using a range of methods to develop near-term national benchmarks. These perspectives can yield distinct — and for some countries, contradictory — results.
To illustrate what ambition looks like under different lenses for six major emitters, we compiled 2030 and 2035 national benchmarks derived from five of the most widely used approaches and compared them to targets in these countries’ most recent NDCs. They include:
A Deeper Look at 1.5°C-Aligned, Least-Cost Pathways
In addition to maximizing cost-effectiveness globally, one of the main benefits of deriving national benchmarks from 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost scenarios is that they can account for important interactions across sectors (such as how decarbonizing power generation alongside scaling up electric vehicles can reduce transport emissions) and countries (for example, how supportive policies adopted in one major economy can help reduce the cost of zero-carbon technologies more broadly and, in doing so, accelerate adoption in other nations).
But these scenarios have also faced criticisms that extend beyond their treatment of equity and fairness. More specifically, some 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways feature large-scale carbon removal from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation that could harm biodiversity, food security and human rights.
So, while we present 2030 and 2035 benchmarks from least-cost pathways that hold warming to 1.5 degrees C from the IPCC scenario database, we filter out those that rely on unsustainable levels of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation to achieve this temperature goal, following criteria developed by Climate Analytics and used for global, sectoral benchmarking in the State of Climate Action series. Ideally, other approaches that rely on these least-cost pathways as a starting point for national benchmarking — namely 1.5 degrees-C-aligned, fair-share perspectives — would employ similar filters.
1) 1.5°C-aligned, Least-cost Pathways: Modelled scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C at the lowest possible cost — such as those featured in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — are among the most common sources for establishing national benchmarks. While some global climate models can now generate least-cost pathways for major emitters, others still lack country-level data. They instead simulate global or regional scenarios that must be downscaled to the national level.
2) 1.5°C-aligned, Fair-share Pathways: A well-cited critique of relying solely on least-cost pathways to establish national benchmarks is that they ignore equity and fairness. Not only do inequalities in incomes, energy use and GHG emissions among countries persist in IPCC scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, but because they prioritize economic efficiency, these least-cost pathways can also assign some developing countries disproportionate responsibility for reducing GHG emissions, relative to their contributions to the climate crisis. Fair-share perspectives attempt to address such limitations — for instance, by considering historical responsibility for total emissions, economic capacity and equality in per capita emissions — when determining each country’s contribution to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C.
But even defining equity and fairness across different fair-share approaches remains hotly contested, and such perspectives do not necessarily consider feasibility. Some countries’ fair-share contributions, for example, require GHG emissions to reach net zero or net negative by 2030, but such steep declines strain the bounds of feasibility even under the most favorable political conditions. In these select cases, approaches may allow for countries to compensate for what they cannot reduce domestically by financing emissions reductions beyond their borders.
3) National Modelled Pathways to Net Zero: Still other methods avoid global pathways entirely and instead rely on country-specific modeling. These scenarios focus not on determining an individual nation’s contribution to the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, but rather on achieving that country’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions. They show how steeply emissions need to decline in 2030 and 2035 to stay on track to reach net zero — typically around mid-century for most countries.
4) Linear Trajectories to Net Zero: A related but simpler approach gaining traction among some governments is a “linear or steeper” trajectory to net zero. Essentially, if countries drew a straight line to their net-zero target — for example, 0 GtCO2e in 2050 — then their 2030 and 2035 targets should either be on this line or below it, reflecting a constant decline in GtCO2e each year. But the devil is in the details, as the starting point governments select may significantly impact the steepness of the line; the steeper the line, the more ambitious the national benchmarks will be.
5) Bottom-up, Feasibility-focused Modeling: This method relies on country-specific modeling to determine what level of mitigation is feasible within a given nation, irrespective of a global limit on warming or that country’s commitment to reach net zero. Often relying on more granular, country-specific data, these studies primarily estimate GHG emissions reductions that could be achieved if a government instituted a carbon price, championed a specific policy portfolio or deployed a particular suite of zero-carbon technologies. Some of these modeling efforts also quantify mitigation that is possible if a country pursues a “just transition” or achieves national development priorities, alongside efforts to mitigate climate change. These scenarios may end up charting pathways to net-zero emissions or show that deep GHG emissions cuts in line with 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways are feasible, but these end goals are not inputs to the modeling.
This list of methods is not exhaustive. For example, we excluded a carbon budgeting approach due to a lack of national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035. But like 1.5 degree C-aligned, fair-share pathways, this method aims to more equitably distribute responsibility for achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal by allocating the global carbon budget to countries according to their relative shares of the world’s population.
What Do Ambitious 2030 and 2035 Emissions-Reduction Targets Look Like for 6 of the World’s Biggest Emitters?
Together, China, the United States, India, the European Union, Brazil and Indonesia currently emit more than half of the world’s GHGs each year. Their near-term climate ambition, then, plays an outsized role in determining whether the world can reduce emissions enough to hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
Relying on the five approaches above, we assessed just how ambitious these major emitters’ current mitigation targets are, as well as what strong 2030 and 2035 targets could look like for those that have not yet submitted their new NDCs.
The headline is that while most major emitters have set near-term targets that would be considered ambitious under at least one perspective, none feature targets for 2030 and 2035 that are sufficiently ambitious across each of the five approaches assessed. What’s more, all six NDCs fall well short of what’s needed to keep the 1.5 degrees C limit within reach.
Brazil
Among the first countries to submit a new NDC in November 2024, Brazil committed to reduce GHG emissions 59-67% by 2035, relative to 2005. While President Lula’s government did not strengthen the country’s 2030 target that aims to lower GHG emissions 53% from 2005 levels, it did reiterate Brazil’s pledge to reach climate neutrality by 2050. If achieved, these targets would cause GHG emissions to fall from 2.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030, 0.84-1.0 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.
Brazil’s target for 2030 is considered ambitious under only two of the five approaches, while its target for 2035 is fully aligned with just one. More specifically, linear trajectories to net zero show that the country’s GHG emissions drop to 1.1-1.5 GtCO2e by 2030 and 0.85-1.1 GtCO2e by 2035 — equivalent to cuts of 43-56% and 57-67% from 2005 levels, respectively. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling affirm that near-term reductions of this magnitude are possible.
Aligning Brazil’s NDC with 1.5 degrees C, however, would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to 1.5 degrees C show the country’s GHG emissions dropping 84-93% by 2035, relative to 2005, while a fair-share approach developed by Observatório do Clima calls for similarly steep declines, with GHG emissions decreasing 93% from 2005 levels by the same year. In real terms, this means that GHG emissions would fall to just 0.17-0.42 GtCO2e by 2035.
Although Brazil has already submitted its new NDC, there are still opportunities for President Lula’s administration to deepen mitigation efforts over the next decade. For example, the government has yet to publish a long-term strategy, which could help guide implementation.
China
China overtook the United States as the world’s largest emitter in the early 2000s, with annual GHG emissions climbing from roughly 6.9 GtCO2e in 2005 to nearly 13 GtCO2e in 2021. In its most recent NDC published in 2021, the Chinese government committed to peaking CO2 emissions before 2030, reducing the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP produced (also known as carbon intensity) by at least 65% from 2005 levels by 2030, and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Lack of detail in China’s most recent NDC as well as some ambiguity in the scope of the country’s net-zero target makes it challenging to translate these commitments into absolute levels of GtCO2e. But a recent analysis from Climate Watch suggests that the country’s GHG emissions would reach roughly 13 GtCO2e in 2030 if the government achieved its near-term intensity target.
China’s 2030 target falls short on ambition across all approaches. These lenses, however, differ on the magnitude of cuts required by the end of this decade. 1.5 degree C-aligned, least-cost pathways, for example, show steep declines down to 4.9-5.9 GtCO2e, while country-specific modelling to net zero suggests smaller decreases to roughly 11 GtCO2e. But across all perspectives, GHG emissions fall below the 13 GtCO2e implied by China’s current NDC. This suggests that there’s considerable room for China to strengthen its 2030 target.
These five approaches also call for continued GHG emissions reductions through 2035. Fair share-based perspectives suggest relatively modest declines in GHG emissions to 7.3-12 GtCO2e (note that these figures exclude emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), which acts as a net sink and accounts for -5% of China’s total net emissions). Modelled pathways to net zero also fall within this range. Yet other approaches imply much deeper cuts. Bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, for example, indicates that China could reduce its GHG emissions to 4.8-8.9 Gt CO2e by 2035, while 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways project emissions falling all the way down to 3.8-4.6 GtCO2e in the same year.
Emitting roughly a quarter of the world’s GHGs, China’s ambition on climate change significantly impacts the world’s ability to confront this global crisis. A bold, new commitment to slash economy-wide emissions by 2035, as well as a far stronger 2030 target in the country’s next NDC, could go a long way in keeping the 1.5-degrees C limit within reach.
European Union
Submitted in 2023, the European Union’s most recent NDC commits its 27 members to reduce GHG emissions at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030, as well as to collectively achieve climate neutrality by 2050. If fully implemented, the region’s GHG emissions would fall from today’s 3.1 GtCO2e to 2.1 GtCO2e by the end of this decade and to 0 GtCO2e by midcentury.
The EU’s current target for 2030 aligns with just two approaches. Linear trajectories to net zero show the region’s GHG emissions falling to 1.5-2.2 GtCO2e by the end of this decade, with bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling suggesting that the upper bound of this range is possible. But to help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, the EU would need to strengthen its near-term ambition. More specifically, least-cost pathways aligned with this temperature goal project GHG emissions declining to 1.9-2.0 GtCO2e — equivalent to a 57-60% reduction from 1990 levels. A fair-share-based contribution from the EU would require still greater ambition. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) drop to near or below zero, representing at least a 91% reduction from 1990 levels. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the region’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.29 GtCO2e per year since 1990.
Looking beyond 2030, continued steep declines in emissions are paramount. EU lawmakers are currently debating a new target proposed by the European Commission that would reduce GHG emissions 90% by 2040, relative to 1990. And while the region’s 2035 target is not yet formally on the table, policymakers are actively discussing how to estimate it. Some are drawing a straight line from the EU’s 2030 target to its existing 2050 target and arguing that the 2035 target should achieve a 66% decline from 1990 levels, while others are drawing a straight line from the EU’s 2030 target to the proposed 2040 target and advocating for a 73% reduction from 1990 levels by 2035. Approaches that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C call for even greater ambition. Least-cost pathways, for example, model a 71-80% decrease in GHG emissions relative to 1990, while fair-share approaches indicate that the EU’s GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) fall by more than 100%. Therefore, only the 73% reduction under discussion among EU lawmakers could be considered sufficiently ambitious for a 1.5 degrees C future.
India
India’s GHG emissions have yet to peak, rising in recent years from about 2.0 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.4 GtCO2e in 2021. India’s most recent NDC from 2022 commits to reducing the amount of emissions released per unit of GDP produced (also known as emissions intensity) by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaffirms its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. The government, however, has yet to clarify whether these targets refer to all GHGs or just to CO2, and this lack of clarity complicates efforts to assess the country’s ambition. But assuming that India’s pledge to reduce emissions intensity covers all GHGs, recent analysis featured on Climate Watch suggests that achieving this near-term target would further increase emissions to 4.7 GtCO2e by 2030.
While all approaches allow India’s GHG emissions some room to increase through 2030, its current target aligns with only two of them. Country-specific modelling efforts that estimate feasible GHG emissions reductions under different policy portfolios, for example, show India’s emissions reaching between 3.4-5.1 GtCO2e in 2030, while national modelling to net zero similarly project GHG emissions rising to 4.8 GtCO2e by the end of this decade. 1.5 degrees C-aligned, fair-share approaches — which are particularly salient in the context of India’s relatively small historical contribution to the climate crisis, low per capita emissions and development challenges — show somewhat smaller increases in GHG emissions to 3.7-4.0 GtCO2e by 2030 (excluding emissions from LULUCF, which act as a net sink and accounts for just -1% of India’s total net emissions).
While approaches diverge on whether India’s emissions can continue rising through 2035, all agree that GHG emissions cannot grow substantially beyond levels implied by the government’s 2030 target. On one end of the spectrum, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways model GHG emissions declining to 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035, while on the other, country-specific modelling to net zero indicates that GHG emissions roughly stabilize at their projected 2030 value of 4.8 GtCO2e in 2035. Fair-share approaches similarly find that GHG emissions remain relatively steady at 3.7-4.1 GtCO2e in 2035. But bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling project a more mixed bag of GHG emissions rising and falling between 2030 and 2035 across different scenarios.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s latest NDC from 2022 commits to lowering GHG emissions almost 32% by 2030, relative to a business-as-usual scenario (its “unconditional” target). With additional climate finance from international funders, the government could achieve more aggressive cuts of just over 43% (its “conditional target”). These targets translate to absolute GHG emissions of 2 GtCO2e (unconditional) or 1.6 GtCO2e (conditional) in 2030, as compared to the approximately 1.4 GtCO2e emitted today. The Indonesian government has also previously pledged to peak GHG emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2060.
Indonesia’s 2030 targets fall short of all but one of the approaches. Indeed, 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways show GHG emissions declining to 0.80-0.88 GtCO2e by 2030, while bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling call for cuts of a similar, albeit smaller magnitude. Only country-specific modelling to net zero by 2060 shows GHG emissions rising from current levels to reach 1.6-2.8 GtCO2e by 2030 — a range that encompasses both the country’s conditional and unconditional targets.
Submitting a new NDC this year offers Indonesia an opportunity not only to strengthen its current target for 2030, but also to set a new, ambitious target for 2035. National modelling to net zero by 2060 generally show GHG emissions peaking in 2030 before declining to between 1.3-2.4 GtCO2e in 2035, while linear trajectories to this same pledge show slightly deeper cuts from Indonesia’s 2030 targets to 1.0-1.6 GtCO2e. 1.5 degrees C-aligned, least-cost pathways chart even more ambitious declines to 0.61-0.78 GtCO2e in 2035, with bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling affirming that cuts of this magnitude could technically be achieved.
United States
Just prior to leaving office, the Biden administration published the United States’ new NDC. It commits the world’s second-largest emitter to reducing GHG emissions 61-66% from 2005 levels by 2035, as well as reaffirms the country’s previous pledge to cut emissions 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. In real terms, this NDC promises that GHG emissions will fall from 6.6 GtCO2e in 2005 to 3.2-3.3 GtCO2e by 2030, 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 and 0 GtCO2e by 2050.
But with the change in administration and President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the federal government is already beginning to roll back climate action, as well as adopt tariffs that are disrupting efforts to combat the climate crisis. Still, civil society groups and many state governments have rallied around this new NDC and have committed to still make progress toward these targets.
U.S. targets for 2030 and 2035 are fully consistent with three of the five approaches. Lowering GHG emissions to 2.2-2.6 GtCO2e by 2035 falls within the range estimated by bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, pathways to net zero, and linear trajectories to net zero. These same trends hold for the U.S.’ existing target for 2030.
But aligning the U.S. targets with a 1.5 degrees-C future would require deeper cuts. Least-cost pathways to this temperature limit, for example, call for GHG emissions to fall to 2.4-3.1 GtCO2e by 2030 and 1.6-2.3 GtCO2e by 2035. Only the most ambitious bound of the U.S. target for 2035 falls within this range. Fair-share perspectives posit that the U.S. — as the world’s wealthiest country, a nation with relatively high per capita emissions and the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs since the pre-industrial era — has an imperative to go further still. Under this lens, GHG emissions (excluding those from LULUCF) fall at least 87% by 2030 and 99% by 2035, relative to 2005. These trends roughly hold even when accounting for the country’s land sink, which has sequestered an average 0.90 GtCO2e per year since 2005. Since such steep declines would prove enormously difficult to achieve domestically, the United States could still deliver a fair-share contribution to 1.5 degrees C by providing additional finance to support emissions reductions and carbon removals beyond its borders.
Will Major Emitters Submit Stronger NDCs?
The Paris Agreement is clear: NDCs should reflect countries’ “highest possible ambition,” with each round putting forward stronger targets than the last. But as this analysis confirms, there are still gaps between major emitters’ near-term targets and what’s urgently needed to keep the 1.5 degrees limit within reach. For some countries, their 2030 and 2035 targets also fall short of the ambition required to stay on track to achieve their own net-zero pledges.
Greater ambition from all countries — and especially these major emitters — is paramount. In a moment of global economic uncertainty, the need for ambitious climate action that targets both inclusive economic prosperity and long-term stability is stronger than ever. The NDCs that governments submit this year, as well as the plans and finance they put in place to achieve them, will decide the fate of the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. Major emitters must meet this moment by stepping up their ambition in their new round of NDCs.
About the Data
Brazil
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to Brazil’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario by Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and from the two ‘Just Transition’ scenarios from the Climate and Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to net zero, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from its 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from Observatório do Clima (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Brazil’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
China
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to China’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Carbon Neutrality’ scenario by the Energy Policy Simulator and the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘GHG Net Zero’ scenario. For linear trajectories to China’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from China’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. Because China’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Climate Mitigation’ and ‘Towards Sustainability’ scenarios by Lu et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Climate Watch, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
European Union
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the minimum and maximum values of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s filtered pathways. Regional modelled pathways to the EU’s net-zero pledge were not available. For linear trajectories to the EU’s net-zero pledge, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the EU’s 1990 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, regional benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the EU’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
India
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to India’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Enhanced NDC’ scenario by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative. For linear trajectories to India’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing a straight line from India’s 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2070. Because India’s emissions have yet to peak, authors did not draw a straight line from the most recent year of historical data. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Long-term Decarbonization’ and ‘NDC-SDG Linkages’ scenarios by the Energy Policy Simulator, GEM India’s ‘Net Zero’ scenario and the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Climate Watch in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Climate Watch, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
Indonesia
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘DDS Low’ and ‘DDS High’ scenarios by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative and the ‘NZ2060’ scenario by the Low Carbon Development Initiative (2021). For linear trajectories to Indonesia’s net-zero pledge, a national benchmark for 2035 is derived by drawing straight lines from the country’s 2030 NDC targets and stated peak value in 2030 to net-zero GHG emissions in 2060. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report in 2019.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from Indonesia’s First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
United States
For 1.5°C-aligned, least-cost pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from AR6 IPCC C1 scenarios, which were filtered to avoid unsustainable global deployment of BECCS and afforestation/reforestation following methods developed by Climate Analytics. For national modelled pathways to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Central’ scenario by Jones et al. (2024), the ‘Net Zero’ scenario by Jenkins et al. (2024), the Deep Decarbonization Pathways initiative’s ‘Deep Decarbonization’ scenario and the Energy Policy Simulator’s ‘NDC’ scenario. For linear trajectories to the U.S.’ net-zero pledge, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived by drawing straight lines from the U.S.’ 2005 baseline, 2022 emissions level, and 2030 NDC target to net-zero GHG emissions in 2050. For bottom-up, feasibility-focused modelling, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the ‘Higher Ambition’ and ‘Higher Ambition+’ scenarios by Iyer et al. (2025), the ‘Enhanced Ambition’ scenario by Zhao et al. (2024) and from the ‘High Ambition’ scenario by Cui et al. (2024). Due to significant differences in historical data across these sources, authors normalized data across all sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report in 2021.
For 1.5°C-aligned, fair-share pathways, national benchmarks for 2030 and 2035 are derived from the Climate Action Tracker’s ‘Effort Sharing’ scenario, as well as two scenarios from the Climate Equity Reference Project that feature a middle-of-the-road fair-share pathway and a more progressive fair-share pathway. Because these pathways exclude GHG emissions from LULUCF, authors normalized data across both sources to historical data from the U.S.’ First Biennial Transparency Report, excluding GHG emissions from LULUCF, in 2015.
