The document discusses global carbon emissions and scenarios for reducing emissions to limit global temperature rise. It finds that current emission trajectories would likely result in 3.2-5.4°C of warming and that large, sustained emissions reductions are needed to limit warming to 2°C. It also examines emissions and mitigation efforts of different countries and regions, consumption-based emissions accounting, and the role of international trade in emissions. Policy options discussed include national consumption caps with border carbon adjustments.

1. Governing the willingness to extract,
combust and consume less carbon
Miljøpartiet de Grønne
June 14, 2014 (11-12)
Glen Peters
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO)
Email: glen.peters@cicero.uio.no Twitter: @Peters_Glen

2. Fossil Fuel and Cement Emissions
Global fossil fuel and cement emissions: 9.7 ± 0.5 GtC in 2012, 58% over 1990
Projection for 2013 : 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC, 61% over 1990
With leap year adjustment: 2012 growth rate is 1.9% and 2013 is 2.4%
Source: Le Quéré et al 2013; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013
Uncertainty is ±5% for
one standard deviation
(IPCC “likely” range)

3. Observed Emissions and Emissions Scenarios
Emissions are on track for 3.2–5.4ºC “likely” increase in temperature above pre-industrial
Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC
Fossil fuel and cement emissions only
Linear interpolation is used between individual data points
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013

4. Observed Emissions and Emissions Scenarios
Emissions are on track for 3.2–5.4ºC “likely” increase in temperature above pre-industrial
Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC
Fossil fuel and cement emissions only
Linear interpolation is used between individual data points
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013
Short-term
• Reverse emission trajectory
• Emissions peak by 2020

5. Observed Emissions and Emissions Scenarios
Emissions are on track for 3.2–5.4ºC “likely” increase in temperature above pre-industrial
Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC
Fossil fuel and cement emissions only
Linear interpolation is used between individual data points
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013
Medium-term
• Sustain emission trajectory
• Around 3%/yr reductions globally
Short-term
• Reverse emission trajectory
• Emissions peak by 2020

6. Observed Emissions and Emissions Scenarios
Emissions are on track for 3.2–5.4ºC “likely” increase in temperature above pre-industrial
Large and sustained mitigation is required to keep below 2ºC
Fossil fuel and cement emissions only
Linear interpolation is used between individual data points
Source: Peters et al. 2012a; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013
Short-term
• Reverse emission trajectory
• Emissions peak by 2020
Medium-term
• Sustain emission trajectory
• Around 3%/yr reductions globally
Long-term
• Net negative emissions
• Unproven technologies

7. How to share the mitigation challenge?
Depending on perspective, the importance of individual countries changes
GDP: Gross Domestic Product in Market Exchange Rates (MER) and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013

8. Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Absolute)
Top five emitters in 2012 covered 63% of global emissions
China (27%), United States (14%), EU28 (10%), India (6%), Russia (5%)
With leap year adjustment in 2012 growth rates are: China 5.6%, USA -4.0%, EU -1.6%, India 7.4%, Russia 4.8%.
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013

9. Top Fossil Fuel Emitters (Per Capita)
Average per capita emissions in 2012
China is growing rapidly and the US is declining fast
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013

10. Historical Cumulative Emissions by Country
Cumulative emissions from fossil-fuel and cement were distributed (1870–2012):
USA (26%), EU28 (23%), China (11%), Russia (8%), and India (4%) covering 71% of the total share
Cumulative emissions (1990–2012) were distributed USA (20%), EU28 (15%), China (18%), Russia (6%), India (5%)
Source: CDIAC Data; Le Quéré et al 2013; Global Carbon Project 2013

11. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The mitigation challange
• “Common but differentiated” leads to
fragmented policies
• Strong, weak, none
• Global commons
• “Free rider” problems
• Relevant in a global economy
• Carbon leakage
• Competiveness concerns

12. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
CARBON FOOTPRINTS

13. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X

14. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports

15. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports
Production

16. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports
Production
Exp Domestic

17. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports
Production
Exp ImpDomestic

18. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports
Production
Exp Imp
Consumption
Domestic

19. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Dealing with fragmentation
Global emissions allocated to the goods and
services consumed in country X
Consumption = Production + Imports – Exports
Production
Exp Imp
Consumption
Domestic
The adjustment for
international trade is
the key factor

20. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Large share of consumer
emissions are territorial
“Imported”
emissions

21. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014

22. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Consumption-induced:
The increase in net
import into Annex B
countries 1990-2008 was
five times greater than
the achieved emission
reduction

23. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Policy-induced:
Negligible effect
0.3% of territorial
Consumption-induced:
The increase in net
import into Annex B
countries 1990-2008 was
five times greater than
the achieved emission
reduction

24. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Carbon leakage
• Policy-induced carbon leakage
• Caused by climate policy
• Small at today’s carbon prices
• Consumption-induced carbon leakage
• Caused by a changing division of labour
• Increased consumption, met by imports
• Large, but not related to carbon prices

25. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Carbon footprints and scale
• Scale is important for footprints
• Big country, small share imported
• Small country, large share imported
• City, most imported
• Household, all imported

26. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014

27. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
City and the Hinterland
GHG t/household Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth
Greater
Hobart
Canberra Darwin
GHG Footprint 52.9 66.8 63.3 51.4 69.3 44.3 58.3 50.1
GHG Footprint - Domestic 12.3 16.2 15.6 16.2 11.4 5.3 4.7 10.2
GHG Footprint - Import 40.5 50.5 47.7 35.2 57.9 39.0 53.6 39.8
Share imported (%) 77 76 75 69 84 88 92 80
70-90% of carbon
footprint imported!

28. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
City and the Hinterland
GHG t/household Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth
Greater
Hobart
Canberra Darwin
GHG Footprint 52.9 66.8 63.3 51.4 69.3 44.3 58.3 50.1
GHG Footprint - Domestic 12.3 16.2 15.6 16.2 11.4 5.3 4.7 10.2
GHG Footprint - Import 40.5 50.5 47.7 35.2 57.9 39.0 53.6 39.8
Share imported (%) 77 76 75 69 84 88 92 80
y = 0.8955x1.0911
R² = 0.9869
1.0
10.0
100.0
1 10 100
GHG Footprint vs Income
70-90% of carbon
footprint imported!
Income dominates footprints,
other factors (urban form,
house size, etc) are marginal

29. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.35
Food
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.77
Clothing
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.79
Manufacturing and Industry
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.85
Mobility services
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.23
Housing
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.85
Infrastucture
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.88
Electricity, gas, water
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
ε=0.61
Services and retailing East Asia
South-East Asia and Oceania
South Asia
North America
South America
Europe
Russian Federation and former Soviet
Middle East and North Africa
Africa
Consumption (USD/capita)
Emissions(CO
2
-eq/capita)
Consumption by income

30. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Consumption policies
• Country level consumption cap, border
carbon adjustment
• Complex, equity issues
• Financial transfers along trade flows
• Labelling
• Generally ineffective
• Information (less meat, less flights, ...)
• Not effective at the aggregate (nationally)
• Rebound effects

31. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
FOSSIL FUELS

32. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The emissions supply chain
Production
(Territorial)
(Combustion)

33. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The emissions supply chain
Consumption
(Carbon Footprint)
Production
(Territorial)
(Combustion)

34. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The emissions supply chain
Extraction Production
Consumption
(Carbon Footprint)
Production
(Territorial)
(Combustion)

35. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The emissions supply chain
Extraction Production
Consumption
(Carbon Footprint)
Production
(Territorial)
(Combustion)

36. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Trade and Carbon
Relevant in two ways
1. Trade in fossil fuels (physical)
2. Trade in goods and services (embodied)

37. Major Flows from Extraction to Production
Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel extraction
End of arrow: fossil-fuel combustion
Values for 2007. EU27 is treated as one region. Units: TgC=GtC/1000
Source: Peters et al 2012b

38. Major Flows from Production to Consumption
Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel combustion
End of arrow: goods and services consumption
Values for 2007. EU27 is treated as one region. Units: TgC=GtC/1000
Source: Peters et al 2012b

39. Major Flows from Extraction to Consumption
Start of Arrow: fossil-fuel extraction
End of arrow: goods and services consumption
Values for 2007. EU27 is treated as one region. Units: TgC=GtC/1000
Source: Peters et al 2012b

40. Responsible Norway?
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Carbon(MtCO
2
)
Extracted oil: 10432 MtCO2
Extracted gas: 3491 MtCO2
Proven oil reserves: 3105 MtCO2
Proven gas reserves: 4194 MtCO2
Glen Peters (CICERO)Extracted Oil (BP)
Extracted Gas (BP)
Territorial emissions (CDIAC)

41. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Net trade per capita

42. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Norwegian GHG emissions

43. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
EQUITY

44. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Consumption more just?
• “Emissions should be allocated to
consumption because it is fairer”
• Consumption policies implicitly/explicitly
put a price on imports
• Developing countries are worse off!
• (they have to mitigate our consumption)
• Offset this by financial transfers

45. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Extraction more just?
• “It is fairer to make fossil fuel exporters
pay for the carbon they extract”
• Revenue
• Could be used for financial transfers
• Buy support for carbon price by letting
extractors keep the income

46. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
POLICY IMPLICATIONS

47. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
The policy problem
• Differential carbon pricing
 Countries unwilling to deepen and broaden
climate policies unilaterally
• Two main issues
• Competitiveness concerns (economic)
• Carbon leakage (environmental)
• International trade is a key factor

48. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Extraction
Extractors collect tax revenue
In principle easy
Production/Territorial
Easy and status quo
Fragmentation, free riders,
carbon leakage
Consumption
Puts focus on key drivers
Complex (and uncertain)
Alternate carbon policy

49. miljøpartiet de grønne
14/06/2014
Thank you
I would love some questions 
folk.uio.no/glen
Twitter: @Peters_Glen