06 Nov 2014: Analysis

What Is the Carbon Limit?
That Depends Who You Ask

Scientists are offering widely varying estimates of how much carbon we can emit into the atmosphere without causing dangerous climate change. But establishing a so-called carbon budget is critical if we are to keep the planet a safe place to live in the coming century.

by fred pearce

How much carbon can we safely emit into the atmosphere without the planet suffering dangerous climate change? It would be good to know. The world’s governments have agreed that “dangerous” should mean any warming above two degrees Celsius. And in recent reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has tried to translate that into a future carbon budget.

But too many different numbers are still floating around. We could have more than 500 billion tons of carbon that we could safely emit, or the real
The science is a work in progress, but we know how to make judgments on what it will take to be on the safe side.
figure might be close to 100 billion tons — it depends on whose estimates you decide to accept.

The carbon budget looks to be one of the most critical single metrics for keeping planet Earth a safe place to live through the coming century. So it would be a good idea to get to the bottom of the discrepancies, especially since the countdown to dangerous climate change may be shorter than the lifetime of a new coal-fired power plant.

Here is an attempt to cut through the statistical fog.

Some of the uncertainty is inevitable. We still don’t know the true sensitivity of global temperatures to the greenhouse gases that cause warming. Embarrassingly for climate researchers, there is a three-fold uncertainty range that, according to Susan Solomon, the former co-chair of an IPCC science-assessment working group who is now at MIT, “has not narrowed appreciably in 30 years of research.”

As fast as one uncertainty is resolved, another shows up. Just last month, for example, it emerged that global climate models have probably underestimated the amount of carbon dioxide that plants absorb by about a sixth. This, said Ying Sun of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues, explained why CO2 wasn’t accumulating in the atmosphere

Carbon budget

Yale Environment 360
Estimates of how much carbon can still be emitted into the atmosphere vary widely.
quite as fast as climate models predicted it should be.

But if the science is still work in progress, we do know enough to make some judgments about what it will take to be on the safe side — to reduce the risk of exceeding two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to an acceptable level.

The bottom line is that, despite short-term natural climatic variability, there is a fairly straightforward relationship between average global temperatures and the concentration in the atmosphere of the critical greenhouse gases — primarily carbon dioxide. Moreover, we know that about half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels and trash natural ecosystems stays there. It has an atmospheric lifetime measured in centuries. So we can calculate a carbon budget for what it takes to keep warming below two degrees.

And we should. Solomon argued a couple of years ago that cumulative carbon emissions are the best way of assessing climate risk, since they avoid problems such as time lags that mess with other measures, such as atmospheric concentrations. That view was reflected when in its most recent assessment of the science of climate change, completed last September, the IPCC for the first time tried to calculate that carbon budget.

Ever since, climate scientists, think tanks and pundits have been interpreting those numbers. But the process has gotten confusing. Everybody seems to have a different budget.

The IPCC’s first analysis was included in its fifth scientific assessment of climate change, published in September 2013 and reiterated in the
According to the IPCC, we have just under 500 billion tons of our carbon budget left.
synthesis report released last Sunday. It suggested that a two-thirds chance of keeping warming below two degrees required the world to limit its total carbon emissions since 1860 to no more than a trillion tons of carbon. Of this grand all-time total, 515 billion tons had already been emitted by 2011. So, according to the IPCC, we have just under 500 billion tons of our budget left. Then we have to stop. Totally.

The synthesis report said that fossil-fuel power generation would have to be “phased out almost entirely by 2100" — unless the largely untried technology of capturing CO2 emissions and burying them out of harm’s way could be deployed on a massive scale. Without a drastic slowdown in emissions within the next decade, the phase-out date could happen much earlier, probably before 2050.

The arithmetic seemed straightforward enough. But carbon budget numbers since quoted by other sources do not all follow this IPCC bottom-line figure. They reveal a bewildering array of different estimates for our remaining budget. Among environmental groups, the World Resources Institute (WRI) sticks with the IPCC estimate that we have 485 billion tons left. But other environment groups quote other numbers. For instance, Greenpeace and WWF say 350 billion tons.

Scientists are even less coordinated. A big study in Nature Climate Change in September by Michael Raupach of the Australian National University in Canberra and others, quotes 381 billion tons. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, a think tank based in Laxenberg, Austria, and the Global Carbon Project says we have 327 billion tons to go. While the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, an international research consortium based in Sweden, say 250 billion tons.

To confuse things further, another blue-chip study, published last December by Jim Hansen of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and others, argued that we could emit a further 350 billion tons and still keep below 1.5 degrees of warming.

So what is going on? The good news is that most of the discrepancies arise from different assumptions and policy scenarios, rather than outright disagreements about the science. The bad news is that means there is no single right answer.

For instance, some estimates of our future carbon budget have been based on the concept that we might be safe with a 50 percent chance of keeping below two degrees, rather than 66 percent. Some assume we must stop all emissions from deforestation immediately, so that all our remaining carbon budget can be used for industrial emissions, while others reckon we
The choice of two degrees as the threshold for ‘dangerous’ climate change is ultimately a political choice.
should keep part of the budget available for continued deforestation.

The most complex to disentangle is the dissenting claim of Hansen that we can emit 350 billion tons and still limit warming to 1.5 degrees. According to Hansen’s modeler and co-author, Pushker Kharecha of Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, this is based, among other things, on the assumption that we can both halt deforestation and plant sufficient new trees to soak up the 100 billion tons of carbon already emitted from past deforestation.

Some of the budget estimates also make an allowance for the effects of anthropogenic emissions of warming gases other than CO2, such as methane. They assume we will carry on making such emissions and that the carbon budget has to be adjusted downward to allow for that. The IPCC itself reckoned that allowing for these non-CO2 gases would cut the total budget from a trillion tons to 790 billion tons. That would leave just 275 billion tons of the budget remaining at the end of 2011.

This approach is controversial. On the face of it, if non-CO2 gases warm the atmosphere, they have to be included. But the difference is that most of them don’t hang around in the air for anything like as long as CO2. Methane’s half-life is around 10 years, for instance. And warming aerosols last for only a few days. So they don’t accumulate in the way that CO2 does, and can be cleaned up much more quickly with emissions reductions.

Solomon argues that “long-term temperature change remains primarily associated with total cumulative carbon emissions, owing to [their] much longer atmospheric residence time.” So it is a moot point whether these non-CO2 gases should be factored into a carbon budget devoted to emissions that will last for many centuries. Some argue that we should have separate targets for them.

The choice of two degrees as the threshold for “dangerous” climate change is subjective and ultimately a political choice. As Solomon puts it: “There is little by way of quantitative evidence that this represents a ‘safe’ policy target.” It is also recent. While the global commitment to prevent “dangerous” climate change was included in the UN climate change convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the decision to interpret that as a
Long-term global carbon budgets have barely been mentioned in proposals for the Paris climate conference next year.
two-degree warming was only adopted at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009.

It remains a subject of debate. David Victor of the University of California at San Diego — a long-standing critic of international approaches to tackling climate change — says we should ditch it because it is scientifically “wrong-headed” and politically unachievable.

Others say it would lead to unacceptably severe impacts, especially in the longer term, and we should aim for something tougher. They worry in particular that two degrees warming would be enough to set off natural positive feedbacks that would be difficult to halt. Hansen’s 2013 paper argued that “cumulative emissions of 1000 billion tons, sometimes associated with 2C global warming, would spur ‘slow’ feedbacks and eventual warming of 3-4C with disastrous consequences.” These “slow feedbacks,” he says, include greenhouse-gas releases from ecosystems as forests die and permafrost melts.

For that reason, Hansen thinks we should try and avoid a temperature rise of more than one degree. That would keep the world within the temperature boundaries we have experience in the past 10,000 years, he says. (It would also be broadly consistent with returning CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 350 parts per million, as proposed by groups such as activist Bill McKibben’s 350.org.

Hansen calculates that keeping below one degree of warming will mean we only have 130 billion tons of carbon from fossil-fuel emissions to go. That is not much more than a decade’s worth at current emissions rates.

Such carbon budgets sound stringent. But they have the advantage of being measurable and predictable, and we can plan for how to achieve them. However, while the latest IPCC assessment raises the idea of a fixed carbon budget as a desirable and scientifically valid objective, climate negotiators so far have not picked up the gauntlet. Long-term global carbon budgets have barely been mentioned in proposals for the next major climate


The Trillion-Ton Cap: Allocating
The World's Carbon Emissions

carbon allocation
The U.N. climate panel concluded last month that carbon emissions should be capped at a trillion tons, a total the world is rapidly approaching. Now comes the hard part: How will we decide how the remaining emissions are apportioned?
conference planned for Paris next year.

But the rest of us can at least think about what a fair and scientific approach to meeting a carbon budget might look like. The longest-standing — and most elegantly simple — proposal is the “contraction and convergence” formula from the UK-based Global Commons Institute. It envisions contracting global emissions to meet an agreed global carbon budget, while at the same time having national emissions converge toward strict per-capita entitlements, in which each nation’s annual emissions allowance would be dictated by its population. Those who have trouble meeting those targets would have the option of trading in the entitlements.

More recently, the WRI has given researchers and the public the chance to create their own formula for fair national limits. WRI's CAIT Equity Explorer incorporates criteria such as historical emissions, levels of economic development, capacity to adapt to climate change, and potential to reduce emissions.

A fair-share formula that included historical emissions has been suggested in the past by the Brazilian government. It would create drastically fewer future emissions entitlements for countries that industrialized early, notably in Europe and North America. Some could end up with no rights to emit at all, having already exhausted their budget, and would be dependent on buying other countries’ quotas.

However it is done, says Raupach, such a formula would for the first time allow the global community to develop “a transparent methodology for translating global to national carbon quotas under a wide range of possible sharing principles.”

In other words, the horse trading that has characterized the negotiations over carbon emissions targets during the past two decades could be put to one side. Once an overall carbon budget and the basic rules for what is fair have been agreed, national targets would automatically flow. Any takers?

POSTED ON 06 Nov 2014 IN Climate Energy Forests Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Science & Technology Central & South America 


Until we know more, would it not be wise to err on the side of caution, rather than to plan on the higher number?

The science is still being understood and models are constantly evolving to account for the unknown unknowns that make themselves visible over time.
Posted by John on 06 Nov 2014

Day by Day growing temperature. It is spoiling our environment, so be careful from carbon. This is a great article for the world.

Posted by jasmin15 on 06 Nov 2014

As the author of the WRI blog referenced in this piece, I would like to point out to readers that we have the following conclusion in the blog piece, which also includes the lower figure referenced in this article. We do not indeed include more than one estimate in our analysis. The blog reads:

"But perhaps most importantly, one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for4 – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.

However, when non-CO2 forcings are taken into account, the budget is reduced and that budget may depend on the scenario studied. For example, according to one scenario studied in the IPCC AR5 (RCP 2.6), when non-CO2 greenhouse gases are considered, the budget drops much lower to 790 PgC. This scenario would imply a leftover budget of only 275 PgC and an exhaustion of the budget in less than two decades if carbon dioxide emissions increase at a carbon-intensive rate."

Posted by Kelly Levin on 07 Nov 2014

Around 10 years ago the WHO said that 140,000 people were being killed each year due to climate change. Of these 130,000 were very young children killed by the increased spread of disease in our rapidly warming world. Last years DARA International looked at the data again and said 400,000 were being killed, of which 340,000 were infants. Surely we should change the language we use to something relevant and applicable to our situation? And so language the public can readily understand? Surely we should describe current climate change as "dangerous" and "deadly" and +2C as "beyond the ability of human civilisation to adapt to, causing catastrophic loss of life".
Posted by Jon Fuller on 07 Nov 2014

What about ocean acidification, that other direct consequence, besides increasing temperatures, from CO2 build up? What is the carbon budget to keep marine food chains from collapsing as that is, as far as I understand, the risk we run from ocean acidification? Sometimes I get the sense that we've really opted to be in denial as to ocean acidification because what's at risk is truly devastating. And once the oceans get acidified, there's not CCS that can help us. Is it even technologically within our reach to de-acidify the oceans?
Posted by Günter Weinberg on 07 Nov 2014

Fred - your article poses questions that have needed airing since 1990 - well done you for writing it. Yet the terrain you explore is littered with peoples' absurd assumptions that obscure the real predicament and necessary responses.

For instance, the IPCC's estimate of a 'safe' carbon budget rests on the irrational and grossly unethical proposal of a mere 66\% confidence of staying below 2C threshold of 'dangerous' climate change - as if any of the IPCC authors would board a plane with a 1-in-3 chance of crashing.

For instance, that 'climate change' (which is itself of course a whitewash term for climate destabilization) would only become 'dangerous' at 2.0C of warming, when in reality hundreds of thousands of people (mostly children) are already being killed each year by the impacts of the present 0.85C of warming.

For instance, that above 2.0C the feedbacks on AGW would 'kick in' to start offsetting our efforts at emissions control, when in reality it is clearly evidenced that they are already advancing their CO2e outputs far faster than we are reducing GHG emissions, and that several of the major feedbacks each have the capacity to dwarf our emissions.
Of the eight major interactive feedbacks (seen here as Water Vapour Increase, Albedo Loss, Fertilized Peatbog Decay, Ocean Warming & Acidification, Permafrost Melt, Forest Loss, Soil Desiccation and Methyl Clathrates Melt) all are already reported by their researchers to be accelerating at various rates, but without even their track-records being reported by the IPCC, let alone with any serious prognosis of their interactions and combined impact over time.

Last January's paper by Ramanathan et al "Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice" (see: http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/publications/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf ) is worth reading for a view of the leading feedback's output. It reports that during the satellite record since '79 of arctic sea-ice decline, the resulting Albedo Loss has on average been equal to the warming from 20\% of anthro-CO2 stocks in the atmosphere.

This is consistent with a 2011 paper that found Albedo Loss to be then providing warming equal to that from about 30\% of anthro-CO2. Given that there was very little sea-ice decline prior to 1980, a development curve can be inferred that will clearly exceed natural global carbon sinks' intakes in the next few decades. With the ~35yr timelag of ocean thermal inertia we have yet to see that extra warming from Albedo Loss realized, but it is coming, and, together with the other seven majors' outputs, it will make even stringent efforts at anthro-emissions control look patently insufficient.

It surely needs to be recognized that the feedbacks will continue to accelerate, interact, and impose timelagged warming for as long as anthro-warming continues, after which they would accelerate only at a pace reflecting their interactions. With a best case of emissions control of say near-zero by 2050, followed by about 35yrs timelag, it seems that anthro-warming would continue into the 2080s, predictably pushing the feedbacks' outputs well beyond merely offsetting our best efforts at emissions control.

From this perspective, there is plainly no prospect of resolving AGW by emissions control alone, however stringent, and thus there is no 'safe' carbon budget without:
- a/. establishing a new global industry in "Carbon Recovery for Food Security", by means of widespread native forestry for biochar for burial as a soil fertilizer and soil moisture regulator, but, given the decades of lead time to full operation plus the 35yr timelag on even the start of its cooling effect, Carbon Recovery is clearly necessary but not sufficient in addition to emissions control, which then indicates the necessity of:
- b/. establishing a reliably benign means of Albedo Restoration to restore the pre-industrial global temperature for the duration of the Carbon Recovery program,
thereby halting the climatic destabilization of global agriculture and the degradation of the global afforestation program, as well as decelerating the feedbacks.

In terms of defining a rational carbon budget as the viable basis for the inevitably required Contraction and Convergence agreement, identifying the viable rates of deployment of Carbon Recovery and Albedo Restoration appears the critical first step. With that information it may well be possible to budget as high as 250GtC up to a completion in 2050, but without it I'd suggest that the politicians would be continuing to ignore the science and relying on guesswork, not framework.

That is, they'd be maintaining the utterly weird refusal to take AGW seriously. Given the stakes, and the question of just who could benefit from the onset of global crop failures, I wish you'd apply your expertise to enquiring into the actual motivation for governments' ongoing refusal to respond rationally to the climate predicament.


Lewis Cleverdon

Posted by Lewis Cleverdon on 08 Nov 2014

The Contraction and Convergence idea referred to above is now embedded in this Carbon Budget Accounting Tool (CBAT): http://cbat.info/#domain-1

Notes here:

It may be helpful in working the more general arguments above through.
Posted by Aubrey Meyer on 15 Dec 2014


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He serves as environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine and is the author of numerous books, including The Land Grabbers. Previously for Yale Environment 360, he has explored why China may end coal's big boom and an alternative to sweeping international climate treaties.



How Warming Threatens the Genetic
Diversity of Species, and Why It Matters

Research on stoneflies in Glacier National Park indicates that global warming is reducing the genetic diversity of some species, compromising their ability to evolve as conditions change. These findings have major implications for how biodiversity will be affected by climate change.

With Trump, China Emerges
As Global Leader on Climate

With Donald Trump threatening to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China is ready to assume leadership of the world’s climate efforts. For China, it is a matter of self-interest – reducing the choking pollution in its cities and seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future.

At Standing Rock, A Battle
Over Fossil Fuels and Land

The Native American-led protest against the Dakota Access pipeline has gained global attention. In an e360 interview, indigenous expert Kyle Powys Whyte talks about the history of fossil fuel production on tribal lands and the role native groups are playing in fighting climate change.

African Wetlands Project: A Win
For the Climate and the People?

In Senegal and other developing countries, multinational companies are investing in programs to restore mangrove forests and other wetlands that sequester carbon. But critics say these initiatives should not focus on global climate goals at the expense of the local people’s livelihoods.

The Rising Environmental Toll
Of China’s Offshore Island Grab

To stake its claim in the strategic South China Sea, China is building airstrips, ports, and other facilities on disputed islands and reefs. Scientists say the activities are destroying key coral reef ecosystems and will heighten the risks of a fisheries collapse in the region.


MORE IN Analysis

With Trump, China Emerges
As Global Leader on Climate

by isabel hilton
With Donald Trump threatening to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China is ready to assume leadership of the world’s climate efforts. For China, it is a matter of self-interest – reducing the choking pollution in its cities and seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future.

What a Trump Win Means
For the Global Climate Fight

by david victor
Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

The Methane Riddle: What Is
Causing the Rise in Emissions?

by fred pearce
The cause of the rapid increase in methane emissions since 2007 has puzzled scientists. But new research finds some surprising culprits in the methane surge and shows that fossil-fuel sources have played a much larger role over time than previously estimated.

As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

How Climate Change Could Jam
The World's Ocean Circulation

by nicola jones
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

by richard conniff
Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.

What Would a Global Warming
Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

by fred pearce
The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the previous threshold of 2 degrees. But what would be the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree world? And how realistic is such a target?

After Paris, A Move to Rein In
Emissions by Ships and Planes

by fred pearce
As the world moves to slash CO2 emissions, the shipping and aviation sectors have managed to remain on the sidelines. But the pressure is now on these two major polluting industries to start controlling their emissions at last.

Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

by nicola jones
Ninety-nine percent of the planet's freshwater ice is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century, and far higher in the next, flooding many of the world's populated coastal areas.

How Nations Are Chipping
Away at Their Protected Lands

by richard conniff
Winning protected status for key natural areas and habitat has long been seen as the gold standard of conservation. But these gains are increasingly being compromised as governments redraw park boundaries to accommodate mining, logging, and other development.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.