Climatic Change

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 359–391 | Cite as

Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty

  • Niklas HöhneEmail author
  • Helcio Blum
  • Jan Fuglestvedt
  • Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
  • Atsushi Kurosawa
  • Guoquan Hu
  • Jason Lowe
  • Laila Gohar
  • Ben Matthews
  • Ana Claudia Nioac de Salles
  • Christian Ellermann


We have compiled historical greenhouse gas emissions and their uncertainties on country and sector level and assessed their contribution to cumulative emissions and to global average temperature increase in the past and for a the future emission scenario. We find that uncertainty in historical contribution estimates differs between countries due to different shares of greenhouse gases and time development of emissions. Although historical emissions in the distant past are very uncertain, their influence on countries’ or sectors’ contributions to temperature increase is relatively small in most cases, because these results are dominated by recent (high) emissions. For relative contributions to cumulative emissions and temperature rise, the uncertainty introduced by unknown historical emissions is larger than the uncertainty introduced by the use of different climate models. The choice of different parameters in the calculation of relative contributions is most relevant for countries that are different from the world average in greenhouse gas mix and timing of emissions. The choice of the indicator (cumulative GWP weighted emissions or temperature increase) is very important for a few countries (altering contributions up to a factor of 2) and could be considered small for most countries (in the order of 10%). The choice of the year, from which to start accounting for emissions (e.g. 1750 or 1990), is important for many countries, up to a factor of 2.2 and on average of around 1.3. Including or excluding land-use change and forestry or non-CO2 gases changes relative contributions dramatically for a third of the countries (by a factor of 5 to a factor of 90). Industrialised countries started to increase CO2 emissions from energy use much earlier. Developing countries’ emissions from land-use change and forestry as well as of CH4 and N2O were substantial before their emissions from energy use.


Nitrous Oxide Emission Estimate Cumulative Emission Historical Emission Simple Climate Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andronova N, Schlesinger ME (2004) Importance of sulfate aerosol in evaluating the relative contributions of regional emissions to the historical global temperature change. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 9(4):383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cubasch U, Meehl GA, Boer GJ, Stouffer RJ, Dix M, Noda A, Senior CA, Raper S, Yap KS (2001) Projections of future climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. de Campos CP (2007) Historical land use change CO2 emissions from land use change to agriculture and pasture and the climate change contributions by country—the proposal by Brazil to the climate convention. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  4. de Campos CP, Muylaert Rosa P (2005) Historical CO2 emission and concentrations due to land use change of croplands and pastures by country. Sci Total Environ 346(1–3):149–155Google Scholar
  5. den Elzen MGJ, Schaeffer M (2002) Responsibility for past and future global warming: uncertainties in attributing anthropogenic climate change. Clim Change 54:29–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. den Elzen MGJ, Beusen AHW, Rotmans J (1997) An integrated modeling approach to global carbon and nitrogen cycles: balancing their budgets. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 11(2):191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. den Elzen MGJ, Berk MM, Schaeffer M, Olivier OJ, Hendriks C, Metz B (1999) The Brazilian proposal and other options for international burden sharing: an evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the FAIR model. No. RIVM-Report 728001011, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Available at
  8. den Elzen MGJ, Schaeffer M, Eickhout B (2002) Responsibility for past and future global warming: time horizon and non-linearities in the climate system. No. RIVM-Report 728001022, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  9. den Elzen MGJ, Fuglestvedt JS, Höhne N, Trudinger CM, Lowe J, Matthews BJH, Romstadt B, de Campos CP, Andranova N (2005a) Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: scientific uncertainties and methodological choices. Environ Sci Policy 8:614–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. den Elzen MGJ, Schaeffer M, Lucas P (2005b) Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries’ relative historical responsibility for climate change: uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian proposal’ in the context of a policy implementation. Clim Change 71(3):277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enting IG (1998) Attribution of greenhouse gas emissions, concentrations and radiative forcing. No. CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 38. Aspendale Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  12. Filho MLG, Miguez M (1998) Time dependent relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and climate change. Ministry of Science and Technology, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, Bloh WV, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S, Eby M, Fung I, Bala G, John J, Jones C, Joos F, Kato T, Kawamiya M, Knorr W, Lindsay K, Matthews HD, Raddatz T, Rayner P, Reick C, Roeckner E, Schnitzler K-G, Schnur R, Strassmann K, Weaver AJ, Yoshikawa C, Zeng N (2006) Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Clim 19:3337–3353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuglestvedt JS, Berntsen T, Godal O, Tora S (2001) Climate implications of GWP-based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Geophys Res Lett 27(3):409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Berntsen T, Cook J, Lee DS, Stenke A, Skeie RB, Velders GJM, Waitz IA (2009) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics. Atmos Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.044 Google Scholar
  16. Harvey D, Gregory J, Hoffert M, Jain A, Lal M, Leemans R, Raper S, Wigley T, Wolde JD (1997) An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report. No. IPCC Technical Paper II. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Höhne N (2002) Comparing indicators for contributions to climate change. No. contribution to phase II of the UNFCCC ‘assessment of contributions to climate change’. ECOFYS Energy & Environment, Cologne, Germany. Available at
  18. Höhne N, Ullrich S (2003) Third expert meeting on scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, 8–9 September, Meeting Report. ECOFYS, Cologne. Available at
  19. Höhne N, Blok K (2005) Calculating historical contributions to climate change—discussing the ‘Brazilian proposal’. Clim Change 71(1):141–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houghton RA (2003) Emissions (and Sinks) of carbon from land-use change. (Estimates of national sources and sinks of carbon resulting from changes in land use, 1950 to 2000). Report to the world resources institute from the woods hole research center. Woods Hole Research Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA. Available at
  21. IEA (2006) CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion, 2006 edn. International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  22. IMAGE Team (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios. A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. CD-ROM Publication 481508018, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. Available at
  23. Ito A, Penner JE, Prather MJ, de Campos CP, Houghton RA, Kato T, Jain AK, Yang X, Hurtt GC, Frolking S, Fearon MG, Chini LP, Wang A, Price DT (2008) Can we reconcile differences in estimates of carbon fluxes from land-use change and forestry for the 1990s? Atmos Chem Phys 8:3291–3310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joos F, Bruno M, Fink R, Siegenthaler U, Stocker TF, Quéré CL, Sarmiento JL (1996) An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus 48B:397–417Google Scholar
  25. Joos F, Plattner G-K, Stocker TF, Marchal O, Schmittner A (1999) Global warming and marine carbon cycle feedbacks on future atmospheric CO2. Science 284:464–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein Goldewijk CGM, Battjes JJ (1995) The IMAGE 2 hundred year (1890–1900) data base of the global environment (HYDE). RIVM Report, No. 481507008. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurosawa A (2006) Multigas mitigation: an economic analysis using GRAPE model. The Energy Journal Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy (Special Issue #3)Google Scholar
  28. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2003) Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In: Carbon dioxide information analysis center ORNL, U.S. Department of Energy (ed) Trends: a compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge, TN, USA. Available at
  29. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ, Brenkert AL, Johnston CA (1999) Global, regional, and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions. In: Trends: a compendium of data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN. Available at
  30. Müller B, Höhne N, Ellermann C (2009) Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Clim Pol 9(6):593–611Google Scholar
  31. Muylaert de Araujo MS, de Campos CP, Rosa LP (2007) Historical emissions, by country, of N2O from animal manure management and of CH4 from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock. Clim Res 34(3):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinguelli Rosa L, Ribeiro SK (1997) The share of responsibility between developed and developing countries in climate change. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Paper presented at the international energy agency conference on GHG, Vancouver. Available at
  33. Pinguelli Rosa L, Ribeiro SK (2001) The present, past, and future contributions to global warming of CO2 emissions from fuels. Clim Change 48:289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prather MJ, Penner JE, Fuglestvedt JS, Kurosawa A, Lowe JA, Höhne N, Jain AK, Andronova N, Pinguelli L, Campos CPD, Raper SCB, Skeie RB, Stott PA, Aardenne JV, Wagner F (2009) Tracking uncertainties in the causal chain from human activities to climate. Geophys Res Lett 36:L05707. doi: 05710.01029/02008GL036474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramaswamy V, Boucher O, Haigh J, Hauglusataine D, Haywood J, Myhre G, Nakajima T, Shi GY, Solomon S (2001) Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Groggs DJ, Nogour M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) IPCC third assessment—climate change 2001, the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Raper SCB, Cubasch U (1996) Emulation of the results from a coupled general circulation model using a simple climate model. Geophys Res Lett 23(10):1107–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Osborn TJ (2001) Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM results. Clim Dyn 17(8):601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosa LP, Ribeiro SK, Muylaert MS, Campos CPD (2004) Comments on the Brazilian proposal and contributions to global temperature increase with different climate responses—CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, CO2 emissions due to land use change. Energy Policy 32:1499–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rotmans J, den Elzen MGJ (1992) Modelling feedback mechanisms in the carbon cycle. Tellus 42b:301–320Google Scholar
  40. Schlesinger ME, Jiang K, Charlson RJ (1992) Implications of anthropogenic atmospheric sulphate for the sensitivity of the climate system. In: Climate change and energy policy. American Institute of Physics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Change 68(3):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegenthaler U, Joos F (1992) Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus 44B:186–207Google Scholar
  43. Skeie RB, Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Lund MT, Myhre G, Rypdal K (2009) Global temperature change from the transport sectors: historical development and future scenarios. Atmos Environ 43:6260–6270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stott PA (2003) Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys Res Lett 30(14):1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stott PA, Tett SFB, Jones GS, Allen MR, Mitchell JFB, Jenkins GJ (2000) External control of twentieth century temperature by natural and anthropogenic causes. Science 290(14):2133–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trudinger CM, Enting IG (2005) Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: non-linearities in the Brazilian Proposal. Clim Change 68(1–2):67–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UNFCCC (1997) Paper no. 1: Brazil; proposed elements of a protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change. No. UNFCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3 GE.97. BonnGoogle Scholar
  48. UNFCCC (2002) Methodological issues, scientific and methodological assessment of contributions to climate change. Report of the expert meeting, Note by the secretariat. FCCC/SBSTA/2002/INF.14. Available at
  49. UNFCCC UNFCoCCS (2005) 2005 Annex I party GHG inventory submissions (1990–2003). Common reporting format from Finland to the UNFCCCGoogle Scholar
  50. USEPA (2006) Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions: 1990–2020. Appendix A-D. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available at
  51. Van Vuuren DP, Lucas PL, Hilderink H (2007) Downscaling drivers of global environmental change scenarios: enabling use of the IPCC SRES scenarios at the national and grid level. Glob Environ Change 17:114–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wigley TML (1993) Balancing the carbon budget. Implications for projections of future carbon dioxide concentration changes. Tellus 45B(5):409–425Google Scholar
  53. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293(5529):451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (2002) Reasons for larger warming projections in the IPCC third assessment report. J Clim 15(20):2945–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zwiers FW, Zhang XB (2003) Toward regional-scale climate change detection. Climate 16(5):793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niklas Höhne
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helcio Blum
    • 2
  • Jan Fuglestvedt
    • 3
  • Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
    • 3
  • Atsushi Kurosawa
    • 4
  • Guoquan Hu
    • 5
  • Jason Lowe
    • 6
  • Laila Gohar
    • 6
  • Ben Matthews
    • 7
  • Ana Claudia Nioac de Salles
    • 2
  • Christian Ellermann
    • 1
    • 8
  1. 1.Ecofys Germany GmbHCologneGermany
  2. 2.IVIGUniversity of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO)OsloNorway
  4. 4.Institute of Applied EnergyTokyoJapan
  5. 5.National Climate CenterChina Meteorological AdministrationBeijingChina
  6. 6.Hadley CentreMet OfficeExeterUK
  7. 7.Institut d’astronomie et de geophysiqueUniversite Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  8. 8.Environmental Change InstituteOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations