The work by Hu et al. (2015) was conducted within the same project as modelling by Meyer et al. (2015) and it examines the same set of scenarios. However, there are some major differences between the two exercises, including modelling principles, policy implementation and reference scenarios, which results in discrepancies in results. The GDP trajectory until 2050 estimated by Hu et al. (2015) is almost the same in the baseline as well as in the “Global cooperation” and “EU goes ahead” cases. Implementation of policies under both scenarios, however, appears to yield optimistic results in terms of the environment. As in the study of Meyer et al. (2015), implementing environmental policies on a global scale is expected to yield effects of a larger magnitude. However, in the study by Hu et al. (2015), the differences between the two scenarios are relatively small. For example, the authors estimate a global reduction of CO2 emissions of 28% in “Global cooperation” and of 22%, if the EU leads the way to achieving the targets. Just like Meyer et al. (2015), Hu and coauthors find a negative effect on the economy of reaching the environmental targets based predominantly on the motivations of the society. They find that such a scenario will result in the EU GDP in 2050 some 15% lower than in the baseline. The authors attribute this development to decreased number of working hours and general reduction of materialism. In terms of CO2 emissions, the scenario projects slightly lower reductions than “Global cooperation” because it imposes the strongest anti-emission measures only on the EU scale. When it comes to the raw material consumption as well as land and water use, “Civil society leads” brings about the largest reductions. This is explained as a direct consequence of the economic slowdown and decrease in consumption.