Search Climate Insights Directory

The study finds that full implementation of decarbonisation strategies for Estonia's residential buildings could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95% compared to 2020 levels. While embodied emissions from renovations are minor relative to energy savings, the overall success of these measures depends heavily on the carbon intensity of grid electricity; if the current fuel mix for electricity and district heating remains unchanged, comprehensive renovation could potentially increase emissions compared to the baseline.

The briefing, based on a CE Delft study, finds that the EU could reduce domestic methane emissions by 49-68% by 2030 if all available mitigation measures are implemented. Agriculture is the largest source of EU methane, contributing 53% of emissions (8 Mt/year), yet it is the most neglected sector in current policy, with only a 3.7% reduction expected under business-as-usual trends. The most significant reduction potential comes from shifting consumer diets toward lower meat and dairy consumption, which alone could reduce total EU methane emissions by 15-19%. Technical measures, including feed additives and manure management, offer further reductions, though they are less impactful than dietary shifts. The document recommends that the EU set science-aligned methane targets for agriculture, promote plant-rich diets through the Sustainable Food Systems Framework Law, and impose binding methane-reporting and reduction targets on corporations.

The report finds that total EU methane emissions were 15.2 Mt in 2019, with livestock agriculture contributing 53%, waste 27%, and energy 13%. While a business-as-usual trend suggests a 13.4% reduction by 2030, the report estimates a maximum theoretical reduction potential of 49% to 68%. Achieving the 30% (Pledge) and 45% (Science) targets requires significant behavioral changes in livestock agriculture, specifically a shift toward healthier diets with lower meat and dairy consumption, alongside technical measures in the energy and waste sectors.

The land sector is essential for 1.5°C and 2°C pathways, potentially providing up to 30% of global mitigation. While it offers significant near-term potential at low cost, the IPCC warns that land-based mitigation cannot compensate for delayed emissions reductions in other sectors. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is deemed necessary for net-zero targets, but the IPCC highlights substantial uncertainties, risks, and a massive investment gap, with current annual investment at USD 0.7 billion against a needed USD 400 billion.

The report identifies various low-cost mitigation measures for Georgia's agriculture sector, noting that cropland actions like low tillage and organic production are hindered by land-tenure regulation, while livestock measures are limited by the small scale of farming.

The annex evaluates the gap between the economic mitigation potential of forests and the quantitative targets set in NDCs for 32 high-potential countries. It identifies a global annual finance need for forest protection and restoration ranging from USD 45 billion to USD 460 billion, while noting that current 'green finance' flows are significantly lower than 'grey finance' flows directed toward sectors like agriculture.

The report analyzes energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potentials for six major developing countries through 2030. It projects that baseline energy-sector emissions for these nations could double to approximately 17 metric gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2030, representing over 40% of global energy-related GHG emissions. The study identifies high-potential mitigation options across four sectors: electricity production, transportation, buildings and appliances, and industry. Common high-potential strategies across all six countries include renewable energy development, vehicle efficiency standards, and the enforcement of building and appliance energy codes. The report emphasizes that while many low-cost options exist, significant barriers remain, including high up-front capital costs, limited technical capacity, and the need for international technology transfer.