We use cookies to improve your experience with our site. | More info.

Nature | Letter

日本語要約

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
517,
Pages:
187–190
Date published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature14016
Received
Accepted
Published online

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times1. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2)2, 3. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2, 4, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C. Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions5, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C. Our results show that policy makers’ instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.

View full text

Subject terms:

At a glance

Figures

View all figures
  1. Supply cost curves for oil, gas and coal and the combustion CO2 emissions for these resources.
    Figure 1: Supply cost curves for oil, gas and coal and the combustion CO2 emissions for these resources.

    a–c, Supply cost curves for oil (a), gas (b) and coal (c). d, The combustion CO2 emissions for these resources. Within these resource estimates, 1,294 billion barrels of oil, 192 trillion cubic metres of gas, 728 Gt of hard coal, and 276 Gt of lignite are classified as reserves globally. These reserves would result in 2,900 Gt of CO2 if combusted unabated. The range of carbon budgets between 2011 and 2050 that are approximately commensurate with limiting the temperature rise to 2 °C (870–1,240 Gt of CO2) is also shown. 2P, ‘proved plus probable’ reserves; BTU, British thermal units (one BTU is equal to 1,055 J). One zettajoule (ZJ) is equal to one sextillion (1021) joules. Annual global primary energy production is approximately 0.5 ZJ.

  2. Cumulative production between 2010 and 2050 from a range of long-term energy scenarios.
    Figure 2: Cumulative production between 2010 and 2050 from a range of long-term energy scenarios.

    Panels refer to coal and gas (a), coal and oil (b), and gas and oil (c). Scenarios5 are coloured according to their approximate resultant 2100 temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. 379 individual scenarios result in a temperature rise of less than 2 °C (green), 366 of between 2 °C and 3 °C (orange), and 284 of more than 3 °C (red). Triangles are the values from the 2 °C (with CCS), 3 °C and 5 °C TIAM-UCL scenarios. Ranges and symbols are as shown in the key in c.

  3. Oil, gas and coal production in the TIAM-UCL 2 [deg]C scenario (with CCS) and comparison with all other 2 [deg]C scenarios in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) database.
    Figure 3: Oil, gas and coal production in the TIAM-UCL 2 °C scenario (with CCS) and comparison with all other 2 °C scenarios in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) database5.

    a, c and e compare total production by oil, gas and coal with the AR5 database; b, d and f provide a disaggregated view of production for the TIAM-UCL 2 °C scenario separated by category. Associated gas is gas produced alongside crude oil from oil fields. One exajoule (EJ) is equal to one quintillion (1018) joules.

  4. Cumulative fossil fuel production under a range of sensitivity scenarios run using TIAM-UCL.
    Extended Data Fig. 1: Cumulative fossil fuel production under a range of sensitivity scenarios run using TIAM-UCL.

    Scenario names and characteristics are given in Extended Data Table 2.

  5. The auxiliary energy inputs for natural bitumen production in Canada by in situ technologies in the 2 [deg]C scenario and the CO2 intensity of these.
    Extended Data Fig. 2: The auxiliary energy inputs for natural bitumen production in Canada by in situ technologies in the 2 °C scenario and the CO2 intensity of these.

    bbl SCO, a barrel of synthetic crude oil, the oil that results after upgrading the natural bitumen.

Tables

View all tables
  1. Best estimates of remaining reserves and remaining ultimately recoverable resources from 2010
    Extended Data Table 1: Best estimates of remaining reserves and remaining ultimately recoverable resources from 2010
  2. Labels and description of the sensitivity scenarios modelled in this project
    Extended Data Table 2: Labels and description of the sensitivity scenarios modelled in this project
  3. Regional distribution of resources unburnable before 2050 in absolute terms and as a percentage of current resources under the 2 [deg]C scenario that allows CCS
    Extended Data Table 3: Regional distribution of resources unburnable before 2050 in absolute terms and as a percentage of current resources under the 2 °C scenario that allows CCS
  4. Principal data sources used to derive reserve and resource estimates and estimates at the global level for each category of production
    Extended Data Table 4: Principal data sources used to derive reserve and resource estimates and estimates at the global level for each category of production
  5. Global aggregated oil, gas and coal reserve and resource estimates from a selection of data sources
    Extended Data Table 5: Global aggregated oil, gas and coal reserve and resource estimates from a selection of data sources
  6. Regions included in TIAM-UCL and their aggregation to the regions given in the main text
    Extended Data Table 6: Regions included in TIAM-UCL and their aggregation to the regions given in the main text
  7. Labels and description of the four core scenarios modelled in this project
    Extended Data Table 7: Labels and description of the four core scenarios modelled in this project

References

  1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Fifteenth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Fifteenth Session. United Nations Climate Change Conf. Report 43 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf (UNFCC, 2009)
  2. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009)
  3. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014)
  4. Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nature Clim. Chang. 4, 873–879 (2014)
  5. IPCC Working Group III. Integrated Assessment Modelling Consortium (IAMC) AR5 Scenario Database https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/AR5DB/ (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis 2014).
  6. Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009)
  7. Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009)
  8. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nature Geosci. 7, 709–715 (2014)
  9. Leaton, J. Unburnable Carbon—Are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble? http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2-1.pdf (Investor Watch, 2011)
  10. McGlade, C. E. A review of the uncertainties in estimates of global oil resources. Energy 47, 262–270 (2012)
  11. Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). Petroleum Resources Management System. www.spe.org/industry/docs/Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf (SPE, 2008)
  12. Bauer, N. et al. Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation—an analysis with REMIND. Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0901-6 (2013)
  13. Anandarajah, G., Pye, S., Usher, W., Kesicki, F. & McGlade, C. E. TIAM-UCL Global Model Documentation. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/energy-models/models/tiam-ucl/tiam-ucl-manual (University College London, 2011)
  14. Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B. & Wigley, T. M. L. Emulating atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6—Part 1: Model description and calibration. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417–1456 (2011)
  15. Usher, W. & Strachan, N. Critical mid-term uncertainties in long-term decarbonisation pathways. Energy Policy 41, 433–444 (2012)
  16. IEA. Resources to Reserves Ch. 8 (International Energy Agency, 2013)
  17. Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2013 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2014–2023. http://www.aer.ca/documents/sts/ST98/ST98-2014.pdf (AER, 2014)
  18. Yergin, D. The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power Epilogue (Simon and Schuster, 2009)
  19. McKelvey, V. E. Mineral resource estimates and public policy. Am. Sci. 60, 32–40 (1972)
  20. McGlade, C. E., Speirs, J. & Sorrell, S. Unconventional gas—a review of regional and global resource estimates. Energy 55, 571–584 (2013)
  21. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). Energy Study 2012. Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources. http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Gemeinsames/Produkte/Downloads/DERA_Rohstoffinformationen/rohstoffinformationen-15e.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (BGR, 2012)
  22. McGlade, C. E. Uncertainties in the outlook for oil and gas. PhD thesis, UCL, http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1418473/2/131106%20Christophe%20McGlade_PhD%20Thesis.pdf (2013)
  23. Klett, T. & Schmoker, J. in Giant Oil and Gas fields of the Decade 1990–1999 (ed. Halbouty, M. T.) 107–122 (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2003)
  24. Attanasi, E. D. & Freeman, P. A. Survey of Stranded Gas and Delivered Costs to Europe of Selected Gas Resources. SPE Econ. Manag. 3, 149–162 (2011)
  25. International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2008.pdf (IEA, 2008)
  26. Trinnaman, J. & Clarke, A. Survey of Energy Resources http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ser_2010_report_1.pdf (World Energy Council, 2010)
  27. International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2013/ (IEA, 2013)
  28. International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo2011_web.pdf (IEA, 2011)
  29. Rogner, H.-H. et al. in Global Energy Assessment—Towards a Sustainable Future Ch. 7 423–512 (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
  30. Owen, N. A., Inderwildi, O. R. & King, D. A. The status of conventional world oil reserves—hype or cause for concern? Energy Policy 38, 4743–4749 (2010)
  31. McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. Un-burnable oil: an examination of oil resource utilisation in a decarbonised energy system. Energy Policy 64, 102–112 (2014)
  32. International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2009/WEO2009.pdf (IEA, 2009)
  33. Leatherdale, A. et al. Bioenergy Review: Technical Paper 2—Global and UK Bioenergy Supply Scenarios. http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/Bioenergy/1463%20CCC_Bio-TP2_supply-scen_FINALwithBkMks.pdf (Committee on Climate Change, 2011)
  34. O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122, 387–400 (2014)
  35. Campbell, C. J. Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion (Springer, 2013)
  36. Herrmann, L. et al. Oil and Gas for Beginners 270–413 (Deutsche Bank, 2013)
  37. Klett, T. R. et al. An Assessment of Potential Additions to Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World (outside the United States) from Reserve Growth. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3052/fs2012-3052.pdf (USGS, 2012)
  38. Klett, T. R. et al. Potential Additions to Conventional Oil and Gas Resources in Discovered Fields of the United States from Reserve Growth, 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3108/ (USGS, 2012)
  39. Ahlbrandt, T., Charpentier, R., Klett, T., Schmoker, J. & Schenk, C. USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/ (USGS, 2000)
  40. Bentley, R., Miller, R., Wheeler, S. & Boyle, G. UKERC Review of Evidence on Global Oil Depletion: Annex 1—Models of global oil supply for the period 2008-2030. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=292 (UKERC, 2009)
  41. Brownfield, M., Charpentier, R. R., Cook, T., Gautier, D. L. & Higley, D. K. An Estimate of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World, 2012. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf (USGS, 2012)
  42. Gautier, D. L. et al. Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Arctic. Science 324, 1175–1179 (2009)
  43. Smith, T. Arctic dreams—a reality check. Geo ExPro. 4, 16–24 (2007)
  44. Shah, A. et al. A review of novel techniques for heavy oil and bitumen extraction and upgrading. Energy Environ. Sci. 3, 700–714 (2010)
  45. Clarke, B. NPC Global Oil and Gas Study: Topic Paper 22—Heavy Oil. http://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/22-ttg-heavy-oil.pdf (National Petroleum Council, 2007)
  46. Schenk, C. et al. An Estimate of Recoverable Heavy Oil Resources of the Orinoco Oil Belt, Venezuela. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3028/pdf/FS09-3028.pdf (USGS, 2009)
  47. Attanasi, E. D. & Meyer, R. F. in 2010 Survey of Energy Resources 123–150 (World Energy Council, 2010)
  48. Johnson, R. C., Mercier, T. J. & Brownfield, M. Assessment of in-place oil shale resources of the Green River Formation, Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3063/pdf/FS11-3063.pdf (USGS, 2011)
  49. Dyni, J. Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf (USGS, 2006)
  50. Biglarbigi, K., Mohan, H. & Carolus, M. Potential for Oil Shale Development in the United States. http://www.inteki.com/reports.html (INTEK, 2009)
  51. CEDIGAZ. Natural Gas in the World, End of July 2008 (Centre International d’Information sur le Gaz Naturel et tous Hydrocarbures Gazeux (CEDIGAZ), 2009)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University College London (UCL), Institute for Sustainable Resources, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, UK

    • Christophe McGlade &
    • Paul Ekins

Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figures

  1. Extended Data Figure 1: Cumulative fossil fuel production under a range of sensitivity scenarios run using TIAM-UCL. (167 KB)

    Scenario names and characteristics are given in Extended Data Table 2.

  2. Extended Data Figure 2: The auxiliary energy inputs for natural bitumen production in Canada by in situ technologies in the 2 °C scenario and the CO2 intensity of these. (185 KB)

    bbl SCO, a barrel of synthetic crude oil, the oil that results after upgrading the natural bitumen.

Extended Data Tables

  1. Extended Data Table 1: Best estimates of remaining reserves and remaining ultimately recoverable resources from 2010 (204 KB)
  2. Extended Data Table 2: Labels and description of the sensitivity scenarios modelled in this project (759 KB)
  3. Extended Data Table 3: Regional distribution of resources unburnable before 2050 in absolute terms and as a percentage of current resources under the 2 °C scenario that allows CCS (230 KB)
  4. Extended Data Table 4: Principal data sources used to derive reserve and resource estimates and estimates at the global level for each category of production (336 KB)
  5. Extended Data Table 5: Global aggregated oil, gas and coal reserve and resource estimates from a selection of data sources (107 KB)
  6. Extended Data Table 6: Regions included in TIAM-UCL and their aggregation to the regions given in the main text (227 KB)
  7. Extended Data Table 7: Labels and description of the four core scenarios modelled in this project (449 KB)

Comments

  1. Report this comment #64931

    Russell Seitz said:

    The authors neglect an important factor: the considerable variability of the hydrogen to carbon ratio in the fossil fuel reserves in question.

    Just as the C to H ratio in hydrocarbon compounds varies from 1:1 ( benzene and acetylene) to 1: 4 ( methane) the ratio in coal likewise varies widely, from almost hydrogen-free metaanthracite to high volatile coals that derive as much as 35% of their heat content from combustion of the hydrogen they contain.

    The future course of CO2 emissions will accordingly vary in response to how regulatory policy encourages what amounts to fiscal triage- combining carbon taxes with hydrogen rebates to encourage prompt utilization of the coal deposits offering the least CO2 per BTU and discouraging or delaying extraction of coals whose high carbon and low hydrogen content exacerbates their contribution to global radiative forcing. It seems possible that such policies could cut carbon emission by half a wedge or more.

  2. Report this comment #65455

    Alice Pham said:

    Yes Co2 is a crucial part of Ecology but does that mean rising Co2 is bad? Carbon underground is dead but more carbon above the ground means more life can be supported. And if the ice caps melt and sea levels rise that means more water freed to support life (so long as we can adapt to climate changes and water levels rising (slowly). A greenhouse climate means more rain and maybe a chance (with GM research) to green the vast deserts. We should maybe see climate change as a challenge and an opportunity rather than an evil. My point is that the argument over Co2 is difficult to resolve and we cannot take significant action without unanimous agreement. I drive my car to my Minneapolis web design company everyday. I usually argue with my wife about whether I am contributing to greenhouse problem.

  3. Report this comment #67447

    Jerry Shaw said:

    The global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 �C above the average global temperature, it also causing global warming and some serious ground water and containment issues. TPH enhanced the remediation (destruction) of petroleum hydrocarbons in saturated soils and groundwater by native/introduced heterotrophic bacteria

Subscribe to comments

Additional data