低炭素移行指数

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a transparent, multi-indicator framework for tracking transition progress that can be adapted or critiqued.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a benchmark to assess corporate transition plans against credible pathways, supporting disclosure and strategy.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the gap between current policies and net-zero requirements, informing policy design and ambition.

The Low-Carbon Transition Index (LCTI) is an annual, independent assessment of how far the real economy has actually moved on the low-carbon transition, as distinct from how far it is perceived to have moved. It scores fourteen indicators spanning energy systems, non-energy sectors and the enabling conditions for transition, measuring each against the pace required under two pathways: Stated Policies, reflecting where current policy settings lead, and Net Zero, reflecting what alignment would demand. Benchmarks. The two pathways are not drawn from a single source. Eight of the fourteen indicators use the International Energy Agency's Stated Policies and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenarios. The remaining six are benchmarked against the most credible published reference available for each: the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration for deforestation and reforestation, NGFS scenarios for carbon pricing, Science Based Targets initiative criteria for commitments, the IEA World Energy Investment requirement for investment, and a UK Climate Change Committee recommendation rescaled to a global baseline for dietary change. All six frames, and their relative strength, are set out in the deposit. Headline result. Against the Stated Policies pathway the transition scores 65.2 out of 100; against the Net Zero pathway, 58.1. Four of the fourteen indicators are on track against Stated Policies and three against Net Zero, where "on track" means a score above 75. Ten of the fourteen have a positive direction of travel, so the dominant pattern is movement in the right direction at insufficient speed rather than stagnation. Method. Each indicator receives a direction-of-travel assessment and a pace-relative-to-requirement assessment, both on a three-point scale, combined as (0.4 × direction + 0.6 × pace) / 3 and expressed out of 100. Aggregation is by unweighted mean. Score bands: above 75 on track, 50 to 75 below required pace, below 50 off track. Contents. This deposit contains the full report as PDF (methodology, scorecard, findings by indicator group, notes and limitations, full bibliography), the fourteen indicator scores as CSV, the six benchmark frames as CSV, the three aggregate scores as CSV, and a plain-text README with a field reference. Every input is drawn from a named primary source, including the IEA, IRENA, BloombergNEF, the Science Based Targets initiative, the Oxford Climate Policy Monitor, the Transition Pathway Initiative, the World Resources Institute and Our World in Data. All are listed in full in the report. Perigon takes no position on policy: the index reports what the data shows and where the gap is. No sponsor or client influences the findings.

• Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/22096238first seen 2026-08-26 04:12:27 · last seen 2026-09-08 04:14:08
• openalex https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22094542first seen 2026-08-27 05:00:24 · last seen 2026-08-27 05:00:25