DISCUSSION BRIEF

The briefing explains how the CRED model differs from conventional climate-economics models, such as DICE, by integrating 'reason, empathy, and fair play'. It asserts that to maintain a high probability of keeping temperature increases below 2°C, cumulative twenty-first century CO2 emissions must be limited to 2,000 Gt. The document highlights that 'business-as-usual' emissions would reach 7,800 Gt, necessitating the elimination of 5,800 Gt. The CRED Optimal scenario achieves a successful climate outcome and reduces global inequality through rich countries investing in emission and poverty reduction in poorer nations.

• To have a good chance of limiting global warming to below 2°C, cumulative CO2 emissions for the twenty-first century must be capped at 2,000 Gt. As of 2010, more than 300 Gt, or 15% of this total budget, had already been emitted.
• Business-as-usual emissions are projected to total 7,800 Gt for the century, which would result in a less than one in 10,000 chance of keeping temperatures below 2.0°C and a 50% chance that temperatures will increase by more than 3.7°C by 2100.
• The CRED model identifies three critical adjustments to conventional climate-economics models to align them with science and ethics: updating economic damage functions to reflect current research ('Reason'), increasing the value placed on future generations via the discount rate ('Empathy'), and incorporating cross-regional transfers from rich to poor countries ('Fair play').
• The CRED Optimal scenario, which combines scientific risk assessment and ethical considerations, results in a better than 80% chance of keeping temperature increases below 2°C while simultaneously reducing global inequality.
• The document argues that 'overshoot' scenarios—where temperatures rise above a target and are later lowered—are unrealistic because global average temperatures do not decline easily once a peak is reached, potentially remaining high for several centuries even if CO2 is reduced.

APA

Stanton, E. A., Ackerman, F., & Bueno, R. (2012). DISCUSSION BRIEF. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DiscussionBrief-Stanton-ReasonEmpathyAndFairPlay-2012.pdf

Chicago

Stanton, Elizabeth A., Frank Ackerman, and Ramón Bueno. DISCUSSION BRIEF. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2012. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DiscussionBrief-Stanton-ReasonEmpathyAndFairPlay-2012.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Stanton |first1=Elizabeth A. |last2=Ackerman |first2=Frank |last3=Bueno |first3=Ramón |title=DISCUSSION BRIEF |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2012 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DiscussionBrief-Stanton-ReasonEmpathyAndFairPlay-2012.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stanton2012discussion, author = {Stanton, Elizabeth A. and Ackerman, Frank and Bueno, Ramón}, title = {{DISCUSSION BRIEF}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2012}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DiscussionBrief-Stanton-ReasonEmpathyAndFairPlay-2012.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }