Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 361–373 | Cite as

The legacy of our CO2 emissions: a clash of scientific facts, politics and ethics

Article

Abstract

Of the carbon dioxide that we emit, a substantial fraction remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Combined with the slow response of the climate system, this results in the global temperature increase resulting from CO2 being nearly proportional to the total emitted amount of CO2 since preindustrial times. This has a number of simple but far-reaching consequences that raise important questions for climate change mitigation, policy and ethics. Even if anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were stopped, most of the realized climate change would persist for centuries and thus be irreversible on human timescales, yet standard economic thinking largely discounts these long-term intergenerational effects. Countries and generations to first order contribute to both past and future climate change in proportion to their total emissions. A global temperature target implies a CO2 “budget” or “quota”, a finite amount of CO2 that society is allowed to emit to stay below the target. Distributing that budget over time and between countries is an ethical challenge that our world has so far failed to address. Despite the simple relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature, the consequences for climate policy and for sharing the responsibility of reducing global CO2 emissions can only be drawn in combination with judgments about equity, fairness, the value of future generations and our attitude towards risk.

References

  1. Allen MR, Frame DJ, Huntingford C, Jones CD, Lowe JA, Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N (2009a) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458:1163–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen MR, Frame DJ, Mason CF (2009b) The case for mandatory sequestration. Nat Geosci 2:813–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer P (2002) Equity, greenhouse gas emissions, and global common resources. In: Schneider SH, Rosencranz A, Niles JO (eds) Climate change policy: a survey. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodansky D, Chou S, Jorge-Tresolini C (2004) International climate efforts beyond 2012: a survey of approaches. in Bodansky D (ed.) PEW Center on Global Climate Change, pp. 1–70Google Scholar
  5. Church JA et al (2011) Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophys Res Lett 38:L18601Google Scholar
  6. Davis S, Caldeira K, Matthews H (2010) Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329:1330–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. den Elzen M, Berk M, Schaeffer M, Olivier J, 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. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM, DGM, NOP, pp. 1–140Google Scholar
  8. Friedlingstein P, Solomon S, Plattner G, Knutti R, Ciais P, Raupach M (2011) Long-term climate implications of twenty-first century options for carbon dioxide emission mitigation. Nat Clim Chang 1:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedlingstein P et al (2014) Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat Geosci 7:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friman M, Strandberg G (2014) Historical responsibility for climate change: science and the science-policy interface. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 5:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frölicher TL, Winton M, Sarmiento JL (2014) Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage. Nat Clim Chang 4:40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Füssler J, Herren M, Guyer M, Rogelj J, Knutti R (2012) Emission pathways to reach 2°C target. Report by INFRAS and IAC ETH commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Zickfeld K, Marshall SJ, Merryfield AJ (2011) Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions. Nat Geosci 4:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Matthews D, Allen MR (2013) Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J Clim 26:6844–6858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gollier C (2010) Debating about the discount rate: the basic economic ingredients. Perspekt Wirtsch 11:38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory JM, Jones CD, Cadule P, Friedlingstein P (2009) Quantifying carbon cycle feedbacks. J Clim 22:5232–5250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heal GM, Millner A (2014) Agreeing to disagree on climate policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:3695–3698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber M, Knutti R (2012) Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. Nat Geosci 5:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2013a) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2013b) Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Joos F et al (2013) Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos Chem Phys 13:2793–2825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knutti R, Hegerl GC (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat Geosci 1:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev 94:1153–1233Google Scholar
  25. Matthews H, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35:L04705Google Scholar
  26. Matthews HD, Solomon S (2013) Irreversible does not mean unavoidable. Science 340:438–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews H, Gillett N, Stott P, Zickfeld K (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459:829–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matthews HD, Solomon S, Pierrehumbert R (2012) Cumulative carbon as a policy framework for achieving climate stabilization. Phil Trans R Soc A 370:4365–4379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews HD, Graham TL, Keverian S, Lamontagne C, Seto D, Smith TJ (2014) National contributions to observed global warming. Environ Res Lett 9:014010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehl GA et al (2005) How much more global warming and sea level rise? Science 307:1769–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meinshausen M, Raper S, Wigley T (2011a) Emulating coupled atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6-Part 1: model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1417–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meinshausen M, Wigley T, Raper S (2011b) Emulating atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6-Part 2: applications. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1457–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pahl S, Sheppard S, Boomsma C, Groves C (2014) Perceptions of time in relation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 5:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Plattner G-K et al (2008) Long-term climate commitments projected with climate-carbon cycle models. J Clim 21:2721–2751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prins G et al (2010) The Hartwell paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Institute for science, innovation & society, University of Oxford. LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Ringius L, Torvanger A, Underdal A (2002) Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int Environ Agree: Polit, Law Econ 2:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogelj J, McCollum DL, O'Neill BC, Riahi K (2013a) 2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2°C. Nat Clim Chang 3:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogelj J, McCollum DL, Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Riahi K (2013b) Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Sedlacek J, Knutti R (2014a) Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy. Environ Res Lett 9:031003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogelj J et al (2014b) Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:16325–16330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogner H-H et al (2012) Chapter 7 - energy resources and potentials. Global energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 423–512Google Scholar
  43. Solomon S, Plattner G, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:1704–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solomon S, Daniel J, Sanford T, Murphy D, Plattner G, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (2010) Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:18354–18359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanton EA, Ackerman F, Kartha S (2009) Inside the integrated assessment models: four issues in climate economics. Clim Dev 1:166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim Chang 108:811–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stern N (2013) The structure of economic modeling of the potential impacts of climate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. J Econ Lit 51:838–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomassini L, Knutti R, Plattner GK, van Vuuren DP, Stocker TF, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME (2010) Uncertainty and risk in climate projections for the 21st century: comparing mitigation to non-intervention scenarios. Clim Chang 103:399–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1–25Google Scholar
  50. UNFCCC (2010) FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 Decision 1/CP.16 - The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. 31Google Scholar
  51. Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zickfeld K, Arora VK, Gillett NP (2012) Is the climate response to CO2 emissions path dependent? Geophys Res Lett 39:L05703Google Scholar
  53. Zickfeld K et al (2013) Long-term climate change commitment and reversibility: an EMIC intercomparison. J Clim 26:5782–5809CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Energy ProgramInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations