24 Oct 2013

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

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?
By fred pearce

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the first time sets a cap on the amount of carbon emissions we can allow into the atmosphere before calling a complete and permanent halt — if, that is, we are serious about keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius. That cap was set last month at a trillion tons of carbon. We are something over half way there, with time fast running out.

But where did this figure come from; why has a measure of cumulative emissions suddenly emerged as the new touchstone for dealing with climate change; why did it cause such a fuss before governments signed off
Emissions from a coal-fired power plant on the outskirts of Beijing are a reminder of China's growing carbon footprint.
on it last month; and, most important of all, how do we go about achieving it?

Most governments agreed at the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009 that the world should act to prevent global warming going more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Anything higher would be dangerous for many parts of the world, they concluded. Until now there has been uncertainty about what exactly achieving that entailed. So the IPCC statement on a cap is an attempt to end that confusion.

"What’s new here is that we show the carbon we emit will largely stay in the atmosphere for centuries. So every ton we emit creates a long-term impact," says Reto Knutti of the Institute of Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, who was the lead author of the relevant section of the IPCC report on the science of climate change. "The climate change it causes will be essentially irreversible,"he adds, without geo-engineering (large-scale deliberate manipulation of the earth’s climate.
The trillion-ton target rubbed home the fact that most of the atmospheric safe space for carbon has been used up.

This cumulative carbon measure has the added benefit that it strips away a lot of the uncertainties surrounding complicated scenarios for cutting emissions, says IPCC climate modeler Myles Allen of Oxford University. "Policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon are likely to be more scientifically robust than [those from] emissions rates or concentration targets," he says.

But that fixed budget, while creating some much-needed scientific clarity, also creates opposition. As I reported at Yale Environment 360 after the report’s launch, the trillion-ton target was the last bit of the summary for policymakers to be signed off on by governments when the IPCC met in Stockholm last month. A final five-hour overnight session was entirely devoted to wrangling on the issue.

It mattered because it rubbed home the fact that most of the atmospheric safe space for carbon has already been used up — and used overwhelmingly by rich industrialized nations, leaving little for late-comers with often larger populations.

Thus, according to the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based think tank, the U.S. has since 1850 grabbed three times more carbon space in the atmosphere than China, despite today having only a quarter of China's population. And the U.K., the first industrialized country, has occupied 6 per cent of the taken space, despite having less than 1 percent of the world’s population.

To some government delegations in Stockholm — China and Brazil were most vocal — it looked like the rich nations were using science to legitimize a back-door cap on their future emissions. Knutti, who spent the five hours successfully arguing against attempts to water down his text, denies this. "The trillion tons is a carbon budget. How it is allocated we didn’t consider, because that is political. But of course some policymakers don’t like it."

Leaving aside the politics for a moment, what does this mean for global emissions? A web site set up by climate researchers at Oxford University, England, is counting the tons in real time: The
With current trends, it is estimated that the trillionth ton of carbon will be emitted in November of 2040.
world has now emitted over 574 billion tons, it says. "Based on emission trends over the past 20 years, we expect the trillionth ton will be emitted on Sunday, 25 November, 2040." This presumes that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems will continue to absorb roughly half of our emissions — a big assumption, many climate scientists believe. But it is the best guess we have.

According to the web site, to prevent the trillionth ton ever being emitted, our emissions have to fall by 2.47 percent a year, and to keep on falling at that rate until they reach zero.

Anyone wanting to make their own calculations of the different options for future carbon budgets that keep us safely below two degrees of warming can use an interactive model developed by the UK-based independent campaigning organization, the Global Commons Institute (GCI).

If holding global warming below two degrees requires a trillion-ton cap, then the next question is how we might share out the remaining atmospheric space. And here things get really hard. Logically, there should be some sense of fair shares. Most people believe that should be based on population.

The GCI’s founder and the man behind the carbon budget calculator, Aubrey Meyer, is also the inventor of the idea of "contraction and convergence," as the only equitable way of saving the world from dangerous climate change. Contraction is the bit where we agree on a carbon budget beyond which the world cannot go. Convergence involves sharing out the remaining rights, which he says should be based on national population sizes.

Meyer says we should ignore the past and start sharing the remaining space from today. An American geophysicist, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, assumed a start date of 2000 and found that a fair shares approach would require North America to cease emissions completely by 2025.

The cumulative emissions of developed nations have been calculated at more than seven times those of developing nations.
But many developing nations, as was evident in Stockholm, do not think the past can be ignored. They include China, where the nation’s scientists have been looking at alternative baselines. Geophysicist Ding Zhongli, vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Science, says any sharing formula must first recognize how much space has been used up already. He worked out the accumulated past emissions of nations since 1900, and concluded that, per head of current populations, the historical cumulative emissions of developed nations are more than seven times those of developing nations.

If we want to limit cumulative carbon emissions to a trillion tons, as proposed by the IPCC, then he says industrialized nations have long since exhausted their pollution entitlements. The U.S. went over its limit in 1936, followed by the U.K. in 1945 and Germany in 1963. Japan probably reached its limit in 2013, but on current trends, China won’t till 2047 and India only after 2050. In those circumstances, he says, "how to allocate the remaining emissions space would be an extremely tough issue in terms of international negotiation. I personally think this is an almost impossible task." The only solution, he believes, would be for the rich world to pay cash compensation to those nations unable to take up their proper entitlement.

Others have done similar calculations and reached broadly similar conclusions. Thiagarajan Jayaraman of India’s Tata Institute of Social Science says the fact that the rich world has long since overshot its targets means it will be "impossible for most developing countries to obtain their entire entitlement to the atmospheric commons." He thinks the only solution will be to bust the carbon budget. "A higher budget needs to be used to provide more for countries that will be unable [otherwise] to get their fair share," he says.

In the end, political agreements will mean nothing unless there are practical means of achieving them. So what needs to be done? Some used to think we might run out of oil and other fossil fuels in time to stave off climate disaster. That no longer seems likely. Discoveries of unconventional reserves like shale gas and tar sands — and advances in technology for extracting them — have transformed predictions of how much fossil fuel we can tap.

There is at least another trillion tons of carbon lying in economically viable reserves of fossil fuels, and we have room for less than half that, says Allen. We have to prevent it from getting into the atmosphere. That, of course, means getting our energy in new ways. The favorite option for most is renewables like wind and solar power, hooked up to giant grids that even out the inevitable large fluctuations in supply.

It is theoretically doable, and prices for such energy are falling fast. The problem right now is scaling up the renewables industry to the scale required. Fears about our ability to achieve that lead some to back the one large-scale source of 24/7 low-carbon energy that we have right now:
The worst thing may be that there is no guarantee that keeping below the trillion-ton target will be enough.
nuclear power. That argument has had a bumpy ride from environmentalists. But as the U.K. this month harnesses French expertise and Chinese finance to relaunch its nuclear power program, it is destined for a revival.

Another option is to stick with some share of fossil fuels but to ensure that the carbon emissions are captured from the stack and put out of harm’s way — down old oil wells, coal mines or other geological spaces such as salt mines.

Allen argues that since we don't seem to have the global self-control to keep the carbon in the ground, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the only realistic option. "The only question that really matters is what fraction of remaining [carbon] reserves will be captured and stored." If we are to meet the 2-degree goal and limit carbon emissions to below a trillion tons, he says, "that fraction needs to be at 50 percent by mid-century and heading for 100 percent by 2100." He says fossil fuel extractors should be required by law to put an ever-increasing fraction of the carbon content of that fuel back underground after its use.

But others see the development of CCS as a smokescreen for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business — whereas what we need is to banish it. They fear above all what Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, describes as the "lock-in dominance" of the "largest business on Earth." The fossil fuel industry, he says, has spent trillions of dollars on infrastructure to maintain a stranglehold on our energy supplies, and persuaded us that there is no alternative. The lock must be broken.

We have options, but the stakes are high. And the worst thing may be that there is no guarantee that keeping below the trillion-ton target will be enough. The IPCC admits it does not allow for other emissions of greenhouse gases, and particularly for the danger that the planet's ecosystems might react to climate change in dangerous ways — for instance by bubbling methane out of melting Arctic permafrost.

That might be the moment the world will need the "doomsday" adoption of geo-engineering measures to remove carbon from the air or shade the planet from solar radiation. The growing band of supporters of geo-engineering say we have to have such techniques in our locker, ready for such an emergency. "If all else fails, then we should keep it as a last resort," says John Shepherd of the British government’s National Oceanography Centre, author of a study on geo-engineering for the Royal Society in Britain. But even its advocates insist that geo-engineering should never be a substitute for killing our carbon emissions.


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: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth. In previous e360 articles, Pearce has explored possible causes of the changing pace of global warming and examined the debate over the usefulness of the U.N. climate panel in light of its most recent report.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


You are absolutely right that "Logically, there should be some sense of fair shares." But it’s not true that "Most people believe that should be based on population." It never was, really, particularly not in the global negotiations arena, where the only real ways forward are those that are based on the UN Framework Convention. And it’s a good thing we have that Convention, because as this piece (inadvertently?) shows, a simple per-capita approach is only going to lead to deadlock.

To check in with the current equity debate, check out the Climate Action Network’s working paper (link below) on the Convention’s equity principles, the implied equity indicators, and the "equity reference framework" strategy for moving forward. This strategy has real momentum, and is being supported by a number of countries and negotiating blocs. And this is a very good thing, because — one way or another — the issues here are going to have to be engaged. The IPCC has made sure of that!

Posted by Tom Athanasiou on 24 Oct 2013

I wonder if the IPCC has discussed the possibility of a global carbon fee/dividend approach, like that proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby? Clearly the cap-and-trade mechanism is a smokescreen for the benefit of the carbon-based fuel industry and others. If the developed countries (or at least some of them) can demonstrate the successful effectiveness of a carbon fee/dividend solution, perhaps the developing countries would follow suit. Ah, dream on. We urgently need to wean ourselves from carbon-based fuels as a source of energy. I have serious concern about about geo-engineering and its damage of the global ecosystem in ways that may also be ecologically ruinous in themselves.
Posted by Donald Campbell on 24 Oct 2013

This article is right. IPCC WG1 AR5 has for the first time calculated and published that one trillion tons of carbon emissions in total (i.e. past and future) is consistent with a 'climate-outcome' that in turn has a successful chance of keeping within two degrees.

The calculation embraced three levels of 'probability' for this successful outcome:

1. 33 percent or
2. 50 percent or
3. 66 percent

for three estimates of what has been emitted thus far:

1. 616 Gt C or
2. 531 Gt C or
3. 464 Gt C

leaving a 'still permissible':

1. 264, 224 or 184 Gt C or
2. 349, 209 or 269 Gt C or
3. 343, 394 or 354 Gt C

This leaves future 'emissions-budgets' or 'path-integrals' that express a range (from negative emissions after 2050 to zero emissions by 2100) that calculate out like this:

In other words, that is still a big range of 'uncertainty' as it covers a future giga-tonnage of carbon-emissions where, for example, the UK Climate Act is:

1, twice too much or
2. a third too much or
3. just right.

Moreover, it is also a result based on climate-modeling that still omits major feedback effects (e.g. permafrost melt), which is a most pressing matter.

Nonetheless, this IPCC AR5 WG1 result does give a numerical frame-of-reference where the word 'urgency' obviously comes to bear in a way that's plain for all to see. So this article is right, and is right to draw attention to this so clearly, too.

In these circumstances, however real the complexities of the 'equity' debate may be, they do not trump the 'deep simplicity' that underlies it. Once these numbers are clear, that is what the carbon calculator, referenced in the article, helps keep a numerate focus on.
Posted by A Meyer on 24 Oct 2013

E360 insists on giving column space to Fred Pierce, and even cites his Ascension Island work in his bio, work that has been destroyed by the best and brightest conservation biologists of our day. One has to wonder about the editorial staff of E360 and perhaps the faculty and deans at YFES. My, my, how things have tanked at my alma mater.
Posted by Allison K. on 25 Oct 2013

An unfortunate "climate reality" of the human condition is that the world carbon budget is negative (see, for example, Those who think otherwise are like passengers on the deck of the Titanic who watched the iceberg recede to stern and asked each other if they heard something.

At today's 400 ppm carbonic acid gas concentration, the seas will rise by tens of feet, thereby destroying most of civilization, not to mention reductions to oxygen-producing organisms directly from carbonic acid (H2O + CO2 = H2CO3).

The "budget" is spent. Time for sustainable earnings.
Posted by James Newberry on 29 Oct 2013

The comment by James Newberry cites as a reference.

Bill McKibben, following analysis of James Hansen, called on everybody to 'do the maths' ('the terrifying maths') and then stated that a future carbon budget cannot exceed 154 Gt C, which was a reasonable call.

Consequently, using the CBAT ( referred to in Fred Pearce's article above, here is some of that maths in an interactive user-friendly animation.

If, in CBAT DOMAIN ONE, users select:
[1] the LOW Budget with
[3] setting HORIZONTAL SLIDER to Position -9,
one can immediately get sight of what that 'Contraction and Concentrations' maths actually counts out to be.

Also, then using DOMAIN TWO, we can can immediately get sight of what the 'Contraction and Convergence' options (the maths) look like. (See also here:

James is right to be very concerned. However, if we are to have a chance at all of averting what he rightly fears, we need to keep cool language attached to cold maths and argue this in preference to what can be read as 'we're doomed.'
Posted by Aubrey Meyer on 31 Oct 2013

With apologies — the post above requires one correction (in *---* below):

If, in CBAT DOMAIN ONE, users select:
[1] the LOW Budget with
[3] setting *VERTICAL* SLIDER to Position -9,
one can immediately get sight of what that 'Contraction and Concentrations' maths actually counts out to be.

Posted by Aubrey Meyer on 01 Nov 2013

Since IPCC AR5 was published in September, IPCC UNFCCC & IGBP have jointly published a short movie which ends with the statement that a 250 Gt Carbon Budget is all humanity has left to burn, if no more than a two degree rise above pre-industrial temperature is our intention regarding future global warming.

Taking that number, it means that on average we have to reduce carbon emissions by 200 Tonnes every second between now and 2055: and not add it at that rate, as we have done for the last 50 years.
Posted by Aubrey Meyer on 02 Dec 2013



An Unusually Warm Arctic Year: Sign of Future Climate Turmoil?
This year will almost certainly go down as the warmest on record in the Arctic, with autumn temperatures soaring 36 degrees F above normal. In a Yale e360 interview, climatologist Jennifer Francis explains why a swiftly warming Arctic may have profound effects on global weather.

How Warming Threatens the GeneticDiversity 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.


Donate to Yale Environment 360