2035 National Climate Plan Benchmarks for Major Economies

The Paris Agreement sets a deadline for all countries to set new national climate targets - also known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) -every five years, and in early 2025 countries will set their 2035 NDCs. The ambition of these NDCs will be critical in determining if the world has a chance of keeping warming below 1.5°C and achieving the global net zero by 2050 goals set in the Paris Agreement.

The next round of NDCs will need to evolve in at least four ways: (1) 1.5° C-aligned economy-wide absolute targets including all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land-use change and forestry emissions; (2) sectoral targets for key sectors, sub-sectors, and gases (e.g., responsive to the key global targets agreed in the UAE Consensus); (3) details on how other non-mitigation areas support a just transition to a resilient and decarbonized society (e.g. adaptation, including the nexus of climate and nature, climate and health, and the adaptation and loss and damage efforts); and (4) the justice elements that acknowledge the need for a whole of society approach that leaves no one behind. These NDCS will also need to include elements on adaptation and finance as outlined by several groups in "ten tests" that will make or break 1.5°C. This post digs deeper into the first part - national 1.5°C aligned economy-wide absolute targets.

We summarize emission reduction benchmarks across six different analysis types that have been published or widely discussed as countries begin to evaluate what level of economy-wide targets they set for 2035, and the global community assesses whether these proposed NDCs are "strong enough" to keep 1.5°C alive. We will include additional analyses as they become publicly available. We provide 2035 benchmarks for the G20 economies - that, together, account for over 80% of the world's emissions - across each of these six analyses. (For a detailed summary of the methodology behind each of these numbers, see methodology page). For each of the analyses, we show countries in two categories, since the formulation varies by country grouping: (1) countries that have peaked emissions; and (2) countries that haven't peaked emissions.^{[i], [ii]} [For a detailed breakdown of the data for each of the scenarios see here]. The tables in this post show some illustrative variations for each benchmark and include a comparison to a set of standard base years (e.g., 1990, 2005, 2019).^[iii]

Straight-Line to Net Zero

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 here for more explanation.)

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

Straight-Line to Net Zero Scenarios
Country	2005 Decline to 2050 Net Zero	2005 Decline to 2045 Net Zero
Compared to 1990	Compared to 1990
Australia	-68% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)	-76% (-75% compared to 2005 levels)
Canada	-54% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)	-65% (-75% compared to 2005 levels)
EU	-70%	-77%
Japan	-64% (-69% compared to 2013 levels[iv])	-73% (-77% compared to 2013 levels)
Russia	-84%	-88%
UK	-71%	-78%
US	-60% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)	-70% (-75% compared to 2005 levels)

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.

Straight-Line to Net Zero Scenarios
Country	2025 Decline to 2050 Net Zero	2025 Decline to Later than 2050 Net Zero
Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019	Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019
Argentina	-35%	-39% (43% compared to 2007 levels[v])	n/a	n/a
Brazil	-63%	-36%	n/a	n/a
China	14 to 18%	-31 to -28% (-38 to -42% compared to 2025 levels[vi])	48 to 53% [2060 NZ]	-10 to -7% (-22 to -19% compared to 2025 levels)
India	11 to 15%	-35 to -33%	44 to 49% [2070 NZ]	-16 to -13%
Indonesia	-10 to - 8%	-42 to -41%	7 to 9% [2060 NZ][vii]	-31 to -30%
Mexico	-24 to -23%	-32 to -31%	n/a[viii]	n/a
Saudi Arabia	6 to 10%	-38 to -35%	26 to 31% [2060 NZ]	-26 to -23%
South Africa	-39 to -37%	-48 to -46%	n/a	n/a
South Korea	-24 to -23%	-41 to -42% (-44 to -45% compared to 2018 levels[ix])	n/a	n/a
Türkiye	34 to 44%	-17 to -11%	43 to 54% [2053 NZ]	-11 to -5%

IPCC 1.5°C Scenarios

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 based. (See here for more explanation.)

Table 3 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the IPCC trajectories, in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.^[x]

Minimal or Low Overshoot IPCC 1.5°C Scenario
Country	Compared to 1990
Australia	-68% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)
Canada	-40% (-56% compared to 2005 levels)
EU	-68%
Japan	-67% (-72% compared to 2013 levels)
Russia	-55%
UK	n/a[xi]
US	-52% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)

Table 4 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for IPCC trajectories, in G20 countries that haven't peaked emissions.^[xii]

Minimal or Low Overshoot IPCC 1.5°C Scenario
Country	Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019
Argentina	-61%	-59% (-61% compared to 2007 levels)
Brazil	-84%	-78%
China	-33%	-62% (-67 to -68% compared to 2025 levels)
India	32%	-23%
Indonesia	-27%	-55%
Mexico	-48%	-59%
Saudi Arabia	11%	-6%
South Africa	-58%	-76%
South Korea	-56%	-67% (-68% compared to 2018 levels)
Türkiye	-3%	-46%

Climate Analytics 1.5°C Aligned Pathway

Climate Analytics - a leading climate science group - has analyzed country-by-country scenarios for several countries. They use the "least-cost pathways" from the IPCC scenario, with modifications (as explained in their methodology page). These values don't currently include emissions from LUCF, so we have included an assumption about LUCF. (See here for more explanation.)

Table 5 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Analytics trajectories, in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.^[xiii]

Climate Analytics "Mid" 1.5°C Aligned Scenario
Country	Compared to 1990
Australia	-69% (-68% compared to 2005 levels)
Canada	-48% (-63% compared to 2005 levels)
EU	-62%
Japan	-104% (-65% compared to 2013 levels)
Russia	-81%
UK	-70%
US	-81% (-75% compared to 2005 levels)

Table 6 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Analytics trajectories, in G20 countries that haven't peaked emissions.^[xiv]

Climate Analytics "Mid" 1.5°C Scenario
Country	Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019
Argentina	-50%	-53% (-55% compared to 2007 levels)
Brazil	-59%	-28%
China	-48%	-68% (-72 to -73% compared to 2025 levels)
India	-1%	-42%
Indonesia	-6%	-40%
Mexico	-44%	-49%
Saudi Arabia	-43%	-66%
South Africa	-45%	-53%
South Korea	-77%	-82% (-83% compared to 2018 levels)
Türkiye	-26%	-54%

Climate Action Tracker "1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible"

Climate Action Tracker - a consortium of NewClimate Institute and Climate Analytics - has assessed for key countries their current policies, planned actions, and NDCs against a "fair share" set of metrics (as explained in their "fair share" methodology page). These values don't include emissions from LUCF, so we have included an assumption about LUCF.

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

Climate Action Tracker 1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible
Country	Compared to 1990
Australia	-65% (-64% compared to 2005 levels)
Canada	-41% (-57% compared to 2005 levels)
EU	-77%
Japan	-77% (-80% compared to 2013 levels)
Russia	-97%
UK	-78%
US	-64% (-70% compared to 2005 levels)

Table 8 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Climate Action Tracker trajectories, in G20 countries that haven't peaked emissions.

Climate Action Tracker 1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible
Country	Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019
Argentina	-46%	-44% (-47% compared to 2007 levels)
Brazil	-46%	-25%
China	-34%	-62% (-67 to -68% compared to 2025 levels)
India	7%	-38%
Indonesia	-1%	-39%
Mexico	-43%	-54%
Saudi Arabia	-14%	-49%
South Africa	-25%	-37%
South Korea	-66%	-75% (-83% compared to 2018 levels)
Türkiye	-31%	-59%

Equity Based Analysis

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". They use a "Responsibility and Capability Index (RCI)" 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 U.S., 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.

National Bottom-Up Assessments

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 analysis 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, Republic of Korea, and South Africa. They apply a common framework - they label 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 9 shows the 2035 percent reductions in emissions for the Center for Global Sustainability trajectories, in G20 countries that have peaked emissions.

Center for Global Sustainability "High Ambition"
Country	Compared to 1990
Australia	-72% (-71% compared to 2005 levels)
Canada	-38% (-55% compared to 2005 levels)
EU	-69%
Japan	-60% (-66% compared to 2013 levels)
Russia	-70%
UK	-80%
US	-61% (-67% compared to 2005 levels)

Table 10 shows the Climate Analytics results for countries that haven't peaked emissions using those variations

Center for Global Sustainability "High Ambition"
Country	Compared to 2005	Compared to 2019
Argentina	-32%	-37% (-40% compared to 2007 levels)
Brazil	-74%	-55%
China	33%	-19% (-30 to -32% compared to 2025 levels)
India	95%	14%
Indonesia	-35%	-58%
Mexico	-19%	-27%
Saudi Arabia	8%	-36%
South Africa	-42%	-50%
South Korea	-42%	-55% (-57% compared to 2018 levels)
Türkiye	14%	-29%

Aligning NDCs with 1.5°C

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 this year and early in 2025 by helping to navigate the different sources of information that can be used to promote accountability in determining are the next round of NDCs "strong enough" to keep 1.5°C alive.

Some countries have begun to announce NDCs (e.g., UK, Brazil, UAE) 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 - 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 (our reaction here). [Subsequent posts will summarize the proposed NDCs against these various benchmarks.]

^[i] "Countries that have peaked" are ones where total historic economy-wide emissions for the country have reached a peak. "Countries that haven't peaked" are ones where historic data doesn't yet show a peak in their total economy-wide emissions.

^[ii] Recent data for some countries in the second category - "countries that haven't peaked" - has found that these countries may have peaked emissions. For example, the UNEP Gap Report 2024 (Figure 3.2) assesses that emissions for Brazil, South Africa, and Argentina have peaked. Some analysis for China has outlined that their emissions have peaked (see: CREA, Rhodium Group). Note, Argentina's emissions peaked in 2007 but we included them in this category given that CAT assesses that their emissions will grow through 2030 under the "policies and actions" and "Unconditional NDC" scenarios. South Korea has shown and stated that its emissions peaked in 2018, but we have included them in this second category given the recent nature of that peak.

^[iii] For each of the data in the table we also show in (parenthesis) the comparison to the base year the country uses for its current NDC or is being used in their discussions.

^[iv] Japan uses a 2013 fiscal year number to compare their NDC, using a value of 1,408 MtCO₂e, see: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/JAPAN_FIRST%20NDC%20%28UPDATED%20SUBMISSION%29.pdf

^[v] Argentina's 2007 emissions value as reported in their Biennial Update Report (BUR) is 433.7 MtCO₂e, see: https://unfccc.int/documents/634953

^[vi] 2025 comparison based upon author's analysis using CAT data as explained in the methodology documentation.

^[vii] The Indonesian President announced a vision to attain net zero by 2050, see: https://setkab.go.id/en/g20-summit-president-prabowo-subianto-highlights-indonesias-green-energy-vision-global-climate-role/#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20Indonesia's%20transition,(PLTU)%20to%20renewable%20energy.

^[viii] The new Mexican government has announced that they will set a net zero target of 2050, see: https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/opinion/alicia-barcena/mexico-ante-la-hora-crucial-justicia-y-accion-climatica-en-la-cop29/

^[ix] South Korea's 2018 emissions value as reported in their BUR is 686.3 MtCO₂e, see: https://unfccc.int/documents/418616

^[x] We show the median values from the IPCC results. The IPCC includes 5^th percentile, 95^th percentile, minimum and maximum values, which we include in the detailed spreadsheet.

^[xi] The IPCC scenarios don't break out the emissions from the U.K.

^[xii] We show the median values from the IPCC results. The IPCC includes 5^th percentile, 95^th percentile, minimum and maximum values, which we include in the detailed spreadsheet.

^[xiii] We show the "mid" values from the Climate Analytics results. The Climate Analytics includes a low, mid, and high value each country in the detailed spreadsheet.

^[xiv] We show the "mid" values from the Climate Analytics results. The Climate Analytics includes a low, mid, and high value each country in the detailed spreadsheet.

Renewable Energy Fossil Fuels Sustainable Cities Transportation

Related Blogs