Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 261–275 | Cite as

Effect of crude oil carbon accounting decisions on meeting global climate budgets

  • Leslie S. AbrahamsEmail author
  • Constantine Samaras
  • W. Michael Griffin
  • H. Scott Matthews


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quantified a cumulative remaining carbon budget beyond which there is a high likelihood global average temperatures will increase more than 2 °C above preindustrial temperature. While there is global participation in mitigation efforts, there is little global collaboration to cooperatively mitigate emissions. Instead, countries have been acting as individual agents with independent emission reduction objectives. However, such asymmetric unilateral climate policies create the opportunity for carbon leakage resulting from the shift in embodied carbon emissions within trade networks. In this analysis, we use an optimization-based model of the global crude trade as a case study to demonstrate the importance of a cooperative, system-level approach to climate policy in order to most effectively, efficiently, and equitably achieve carbon mitigation objectives. To do this, we first characterize the cost and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 2014 crude production and consumption system by aggregating multiple data sources and developing a balanced trade matrix. We then optimize this network to demonstrate the potential for carbon mitigation through more efficient use of crude resources. Finally, we implement a global carbon cap on total annual crude emissions. We find that such a cap would require crude consumption to drop from 4.2 gigatons (Gt) to 1.1 Gt. However, if each country had an individual carbon allocation in addition to the global cap consistent with the nationally determined contribution limits resulting from the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, allowable consumption would further decrease to approximately 770 million metric tonnes. Additionally, the carbon accounting method used to assign responsibility for embodied carbon emissions associated with the traded crude further influences allowable production and consumption for each country. The simplified model presented here highlights how global cooperation and a system-level cooperative approach could guide climate policy efforts to be more cost effective and equitable, while reducing the leakage potential resulting from shifting trade patterns of embodied carbon emissions. Additionally, it demonstrates how the spatial distribution of crude consumption and production patterns change under a global carbon cap given various carbon accounting strategies.


Embodied carbon Carbon leakage Carbon accounting Climate policy Carbon budget Crude trade Nationally determined contribution limits COP21 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE1252522, the Climate and Energy Decision Making (CEDM) center through a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (SES-0949710) and the Carnegie Mellon Department of Engineering and Public Policy. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which have greatly improved this work.

Author contributions

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10669_2017_9638_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3933 kb)


  1. Arroyo-Currás T, Bauer N, Kriegler E, Schwanitz VJ, Luderer G, Aboumahboub T, Giannousakis A, Hilaire J (2015) Carbon leakage in a fragmented climate regime: the dynamic response of global energy markets. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohringer C, Balistereri EJ, Rutherford TF (2012) The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: insights from a model comparison study. Harvard Kennedy School. Accessed 12 2016
  3. BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2015) British Petroleum Co. Accessed 12 2016
  4. Brunnee J, Streck C (2013) The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Clim Policy 13:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark SS, Seager TP, Selinger E (2015) A development-based approach to global climate policy. Environ Syst Decis 35:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Condon M, Ignaciuk A (2013) Border carbon adjustments and international trade, 2013. OECD trade and environment working papers, 2013/06, OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett J, Winebrake J (2008) Emissions tradeoffs among alternative marine fuels: total fuel cycle analysis of residual oil, marine gas oil, and marine diesel oil. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 58:538–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis SJ, Peters GP, Caldeira K (2011) The supply chain of CO2 emissions. PNAS 108:18554–18559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EIA (2016) Company level imports. Accessed 12 2016
  10. Endresen O, Sorgard E, Sundet JK, Dalsoren SB, Isaksen ISA, Berglen TF, Gravir G (2003) Emissions from international sea transportation and environmental impact. J Geophys Res 108:4560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Energy Balances of OECD Countries (2015). International Energy Agency (IEA). Accessed 12 2016
  12. EPA (2016) Global greenhouse gas emissions data. Accessed 12 2016
  13. Felder S, Rutherford TF (1993) Unilateral policies and impact on international trade. J Environ Econ Manag 25:162–176Google Scholar
  14. Fenhann J (2016) Pledge pipeline. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Denmark Technical University (DTU) Partnership. Accessed 12 2016
  15. Frumhoff PC, Heede R, Oreskes N (2015) The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Clim Change 132:157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gonzalez-Eguino M, Capelian-Perez I, Ansuategi A, Markandya A (2016) Industrial and terrestrial carbon leakage under climate policy fragmentation. Clim Policy 1–22Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, D, Adam B, Joule B, Jonathan K (2015) Know your oil: creating a global oil-climate index. Carnergie Endowment for International Peace, pp 1–56Google Scholar
  18. ICTSD (2010) International Transport, Climate Change and Trade: What are the options for regulating emissions from aviation and shipping and what will be their impact on trade? Accessed 12 2016
  19. IEA (2014) World Energy Statistics and Balances online data service. Accessed 6 2016
  20. IEA (2016) Crude oil import cost questionnaire. International Energy Agency. Accessed 6 2016
  21. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013 the physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Accessed 12 2016
  22. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed 12/2016
  23. Jakob M, Marschinski R (2012) Interpreting trade-related CO2 emission transfers. Nat Clim Change 3:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. JODI-Oil World Database (2014) Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI). Accessed 12 2016
  25. Kanemoto K, Moran D, Hertwich EG (2016) Mapping the carbon footprint of nations. Environ Sci Technol 50:10512–10517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufmann RK (2016) Price differences among crude oils: the private costs of supply disruptions. Energy Econ 56:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufmann RK, Banerjee S (2014) A unified world oil market: regions in physical, economic, geographic, and political space. Energy Policy 74:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LCFS Crude Oil Lifecycle Assessment (2015) MCON inputs spreadsheet for crude lookup table. California Environmental Protection Agency; Air Resources Board. Accessed 12 2016
  29. Luderer G, Bertram C, Calvin K, De Cian E, Kriegler E (2015) Implications of weak near term climate policies on long term mitigation pathways. Clim Change 138:127–140Google Scholar
  30. Malins C, Galarza S, Baral A, Brandt A, El-Houjeiri H, Howorth G, Grabiel T, Kodjak D (2014) Upstream emissions of fossil fuel feedstocks for transport fuels consumed in the European Union, The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Washington. Accessed 12 2016
  31. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. Nature 517:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OPGEE: The Oil Production Greenhouse gas Emissions Estimator (2016) Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. Accessed 12 2016
  33. Otto SAC, Gernaat DEHJ, Isaac M, Lucas PL, van Sluisveld MAE, van den Berg M, van Vliet J, van Vuuren DP (2015) Impact of fragmented emission reduction regimes on the energy market and on CO 2 emissions related to land use: a case study with China and the European Union as first movers. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:220–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2008) CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol 42:1401–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. PRELIM: the Petroleum Refinery Life Cycle Inventory Model (2016). Accessed 12/2016
  36. Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA (2009) CO2 emission statistics for the world commercial fleet. WMU J Marit Affiars 8:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reboredo JC (2011) How do crude oil prices co-move? A copula approach. Energy Econ 33:948–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reuters (2016) Oil flows data, obtained from Reuters via personnal communicationGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaeffer M, Gohar L, Kriegler E, Lowe J, Riahi K, van Vuuren D (2015) Mid- and long-term climate projections for fragmented and delayed-action scenarios. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90:257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Speight, James G. Crude Oil Assay Database (2015) Knovel, vol 2016. Accessed 12 2016
  41. Steckel JC, Kalkuhl M, Marschinski R (2010) Should carbon-exporting countries strive for consumption-based accounting in a global cap-and-trade regime? Clim Change 100:779–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steininger KW, Lininger C, Meyer LH, Muñoz P, Schinko T (2015) Multiple carbon accounting to support just and effective climate policies. Nat Clim Change 6:35–41Google Scholar
  43. Strømman AH, Hertwich EG, Duchin F (2009) Shifting trade patterns as a means of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions. J Ind Ecol 13:38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014 (2015) International Maritime Organization, pp 1–295Google Scholar
  45. TRB (1997) A guidebook for forecasting freight transportation demand. Transportation Research Board; National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
  46. UN Comtrade Database (2014). Accessed 12 2016
  47. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. Accessed 12 2016
  48. UNFCCC (2016) Report of the conference of the parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015 Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 12 2016
  49. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2007) Embodied environmental emissions in U.S. international trade, 1997–2004. Environ Sci Technol 41:4875–4881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weber CL, Peters GP (2009) Climate change policy and international trade: policy considerations in the US. Energy Policy 37:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WRI (2016) CAIT climate data explorer. World Resources Institute. Accessed 12 2016
  52. Wyckoff AW, Roop JM (1994) The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products: implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 22:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations