Climatic Change

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 397–412 | Cite as

Countries’ contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress

  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
  • Jos G. J. Olivier
  • Niklas Höhne
  • Greet Janssens-Maenhout
Article

Abstract

In the context of recent discussions at the UN climate negotiations we compared several ways of calculating historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assessed the effect of these different approaches on countries’ relative contributions to cumulative global emissions. Elements not covered before are: (i) including recent historical emissions (2000–2010), (ii) discounting historical emissions to account for technological progress; (iii) deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’; (iv) including projected emissions up to 2020, based on countries’ unconditional reduction proposals for 2020. Our analysis shows that countries’ contributions vary significantly based on the choices made in the calculation: e.g. the relative contribution of developed countries as a group can be as high as 80 % when excluding recent emissions, non-CO2 GHGs, and land-use change and forestry CO2; or about 48 % when including all these emissions and discounting historical emissions for technological progress. Excluding non-CO2 GHGs and land-use change and forestry CO2 significantly changes relative historical contributions for many countries, altering countries’ relative contributions by multiplicative factors ranging from 0.15 to 1.5 compared to reference values (i.e. reference contribution calculations cover the period 1850-2010 and all GHG emissions). Excluding 2000–2010 emissions decreases the contributions of most emerging economies (factor of up to 0.8). Discounting historical emissions for technological progress reduces the relative contributions of some developed countries (factor of 0.8) and increases those of some developing countries (factor of 1.2–1.5). Deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’ results in smaller contributions for countries with low per capita emissions (factor of 0.3–0.5). Finally, including projected emissions up to 2020 further increases the relative contributions of emerging economies by a factor of 1.2, or 1.5 when discounting pre-2020 emissions for technological progress.

References

  1. Andres RJ, Boden TA, Bréon FM et al (2012) A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 9:1845–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BASIC experts (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. BASIC expert group: Beijing, Brasilia, Cape Town and Mumbai, http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Basic_Experts_Paper.pdf
  3. CASS/DRC (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: carbon budget account proposal. In: BASIC experts (ed) Equitable access to sustainable development. BASIC-expert groupGoogle Scholar
  4. Dellink R, den Elzen MGJ, Bergsma E et al (2009) Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. den Elzen MGJ, Fuglestvedt JS, Höhne N et al (2005a) Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: scientific uncertainties and methodological choices. Environ Sci Pol 8:614–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 Chang 71:277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. den Elzen MGJ, Roelfsema M, Hof AF, Böttcher H, Grassi G (2012) Analysing the emission gap between pledged emission reductions under the Cancún Agreements and the 2 °C climate target. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, the Netherlands, www.pbl.nl/en
  8. Ding Z, Duan X, Ge Q, Zhang Z (2009) Control of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2050: a calculation of emission rights of different countries. Adv Clim Chang Res 5:17–42Google Scholar
  9. Höhne N, Blok K (2005) Calculating historical contributions to climate change–discussing the ‘Brazilian proposal’. Clim Chang 71:141–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Höhne N, Blum H, Fuglestvedt J et al (2011) Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty. Clim Chang 106:359–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Höhne N, Taylor C, Elias R et al (2012) National greenhouse gas emissions reduction pledges and 2 °C: comparison of studies. Clim Pol 12:356–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton RA (2010) How well do we know the flux of CO2 from land-use change? Tellus Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol 62:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Houghton RA, House JI, Pongratz J et al (2012) Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9:5125–5142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA (2008) Worldwide trends in energy use and efficiency. International Energy Agency (IEA), ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (1996) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, HayamaGoogle Scholar
  17. JRC/PBL (2012) EDGAR version 4.2 FT2010. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php
  18. Müller B, Höhne N, Ellermann C (2009) Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Clim Pol 9:593–611Google Scholar
  19. Najam A, Huq S, Sokona Y (2003) Climate negotiations beyond Kyoto: developing countries concerns and interests. Clim Pol 3:221–231Google Scholar
  20. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G (2012) Part III: greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Shares and trends in greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Sources and methods; total greenhouse gas emissions. In: (IEA) IEA (ed) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, 2012 edn. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  21. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Peters JAHW (2012) Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2012 Report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, the Netherlands, www.pbl.nl/en
  22. Rive N, Torvanger A, Fuglestvedt J (2006) Climate agreements based on responsibility for global warming: periodic updating, policy choices, and regional costs. Glob Environ Chang 16:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trudinger CM, Enting IG (2005) Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: non-linearities in the Brazilian Proposal. Clim Chang 68:67–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. UNEP (2012) The emissions gap report 2012. A UNEP synthesis report United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012/
  25. UNFCCC (1997) Paper no. 1: Brazil; proposed elements of a protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Bonn, Germany, www.unfccc.int
  26. UNFCCC (2002) Methodological issues, scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, draft conclusions proposed by the chair, FCCC/SBSTA/2002/L.24 (http://www.unfccc.int)
  27. UNFCCC (2010) Decision 1/CP.16, the Cancun Agreements. UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2
  28. Wei T, Yang S, Moore JC et al (2012) Developed and developing world responsibilities for historical climate change and CO2 mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:12911–12915CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
    • 1
  • Jos G. J. Olivier
    • 1
  • Niklas Höhne
    • 2
    • 3
  • Greet Janssens-Maenhout
    • 4
  1. 1.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ecofys GermanyCologneGermany
  3. 3.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Joint Research Centre (JRC), European CommissionInstitute for Environment and SustainabilityIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations