The first nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement include no mention of the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) necessary to reach the Paris targets, leaving open the question of how and by whom CDR will be delivered. Drawing on existing equity frameworks, we allocate CDR quotas globally according to Responsibility, Capability and Equality principles. These quotas are then assessed in the European Union context by accounting for domestic national capacity of a portfolio of CDR options, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, reforestation and direct air capture. We find that quotas vary greatly across principles, from 33 to 325 GtCO2 allocated to the European Union, and, due to biophysical limits, only a handful of countries could meet their quotas acting individually. These results support strengthening cross-border cooperation while highlighting the need to urgently deploy CDR options to mitigate the risk of failing to meet the climate targets equitably.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All raw data supporting the findings of this study can be procured through the referenced literature. Data used for the figures are publicly available online at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3741428 or from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
Rogelj, J. Regional Contributions to Achieving Global Net Zero Emissions (WRI, 2019); https://www.wri.org/climate/expert-perspective/regional-contributions-achieving-global-net-zero-emissions
Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 626–633 (2018).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).
Geden, O., Peters, G. P. & Scott, V. Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union. Clim. Policy 19, 487–494 (2019).
Peters, G. P. et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 118–122 (2017).
van Vuuren, D. P., Hof, A. F., van Sluisveld, M. A. E. & Riahi, K. Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat. Energy 2, 902–904 (2017).
Scott, V. & Geden, O. The challenge of carbon dioxide removal for EU policy-making. Nat. Energy 3, 350–352 (2018).
Schiermeier, Q. Combined climate pledges of 146 nations fall short of 2°C target. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18693 (2015).
Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).
Rogelj, J. et al. Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nat. Commun. 8, 15748 (2017).
Peters, G. P. & Geden, O. Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 619–621 (2017).
Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).
Gasser, T., Guivarch, C., Tachiiri, K., Jones, C. D. & Ciais, P. Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nat. Commun. 6, 7958 (2015).
Fleurbaey, M. et al. Chapter 4: Sustainable Development and Equity. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02368-y (2019).
Du Pont, Y. R. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).
Klinsky, S. et al. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change 44, 170–173 (2017).
Pan, X., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Teng, F. & Wang, L. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 49–56 (2017).
Höhne, N., den Elzen, M. & Escalante, D. Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies. Clim. Policy 14, 122–147 (2014).
Strefler, J. et al. Between Scylla and Charybdis: delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 44015 (2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).
McLaren, D. P., Tyfield, D. P., Willis, R., Szerszynski, B. & Markusson, N. O. Beyond ‘Net-Zero’: a case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Front. Clim. 1, 4 (2019).
Dooley, K. & Kartha, S. Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 18, 79–98 (2018).
Honegger, M. & Reiner, D. The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim. Policy 18, 306–321 (2018).
Galán-Martín, A. et al. Time for global action: an optimised cooperative approach towards effective climate change mitigation. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 459–718 (2018).
Ringius, L., Frederiksen, P. & Birr-Pedersen, K. Burden Sharing in the Context of Global Climate Change: A North–South Perspective Technical Report No. 424 (NERI, 2002).
Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. & Underdal, A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int. Environ. Agreements 2, 1–22 (2002).
Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. & Holtsmark, B. Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules. Energy Policy 26, 777–793 (1998).
Pan, X., Teng, F., Ha, Y. & Wang, G. Equitable access to sustainable development: based on the comparative study of carbon emission rights allocation schemes. Appl. Energy 130, 632–640 (2014).
Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 873–879 (2014).
Kartha, S. et al. Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 348–349 (2018).
Solano Rodriguez, B., Drummond, P. & Ekins, P. Decarbonizing the EU energy system by 2050: an important role for BECCS. Clim. Policy 17, S93–S110 (2017).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
Fajardy, M., Chiquier, S. & Mac Dowell, N. Investigating the BECCS resource nexus: delivering sustainable negative emissions. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 3408–3430 (2018).
Kraxner, F. et al. In Handbook of Clean Energy Systems (Ed. J. Yan) 1465–1484 (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Selosse, S. & Ricci, O. Achieving negative emissions with BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) in the power sector: new insights from the TIAM-FR (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model France) model. Energy 76, 967–975 (2014).
Mander, S., Anderson, K., Larkin, A., Gough, C. & Vaughan, N. The role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage in meeting the climate mitigation challenge: a whole system perspective. Energy Procedia 114, 6036–6043 (2017).
Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).
Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–12 (2019).
Keith, D. W. Why capture CO2 from the atmosphere? Science 325, 1654–1655 (2009).
Chen, C. & Tavoni, M. Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: a model based assessment. Clim. Change 118, 59–72 (2013).
McLaren, D. A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 90, 489–500 (2012).
Brent, K., McGee, J., McDonald, J. & Rohling, E. J. International law poses problems for negative emissions research. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 451–453 (2018).
Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 63001 (2018).
Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 63002 (2018).
Peters, G. P. Beyond carbon budgets. Nat. Geosci. 11, 378–380 (2018).
Emmerling, J. et al. The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104008 (2019).
Den Elzen, M., Lucas, P. & van Vuuren, D. Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes. Energy Policy 33, 2138–2151 (2005).
Boden, T. A., Marland, G. & Andres, R. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO 2 Emissions (USDOE, 2017); https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017
National Inventory Submissions. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2018).
Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2018).
World Development Indicators. DataBank (The World Bank, accessed 1 September 2019); https://databank.worldbank.org
Chontanawat, J., Hunt, L. C. & Pierse, R. Does energy consumption cause economic growth?: evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries. J. Policy Model. 30, 209–220 (2008).
Barrett, S. et al. Combating Global Warming: A Global System of Tradable Carbon Emission Entitlements (UNCTAD, 1992).
Vicens, J. et al. Resource heterogeneity leads to unjust effort distribution in climate change mitigation. PLoS ONE 13, e0204369 (2018).
Baik, E. et al. Geospatial analysis of near-term potential for carbon-negative bioenergy in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3290–3295 (2018).
Cai, X., Zhang, X. & Wang, D. Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 334–339 (2010).
Wiesenthal, T. & Mourelatou, A. How Much Bioenergy can Europe Produce Without Harming the Environment? Report No. 7 (EEA, 2006).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Vangkilde-Pedersen, T. et al. Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide–the EU GeoCapacity project. Energy Procedia 1, 2663–2670 (2009).
Huppert, H. Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe EASAC Policy Report No. 20 (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, 2013).
Socolow, R. et al. Direct Air Capture of CO 2 with Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs (American Physical Society, 2011).
Creutzig, F. et al. The mutual dependence of negative emission technologies and energy systems. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 1805–1817 (2019).
Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) 2018: Main Report (Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2018).
Fajardy, M. & Mac Dowell, N. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1389–1426 (2017).
Sterman, J. D., Siegel, L. & Rooney-Varga, J. N. Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 15007 (2018).
Heuberger, C. F., Staffell, I., Shah, N. & Mac Dowell, N. Impact of myopic decision-making and disruptive events in power systems planning. Nat. Energy 3, 634–640 (2018).
Röder, M. & Thornley, P. Bioenergy as climate change mitigation option within a 2°C target—uncertainties and temporal challenges of bioenergy systems. Energy Sustain. Soc. 6, 6 (2016).
Lomax, G., Lenton, T. M., Adeosun, A. & Workman, M. Investing in negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 498–500 (2015).
Bui, M. et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 1062–1176 (2018).
Daggash, H. A., Heuberger, C. F. & Mac Dowell, N. The role and value of negative emissions technologies in decarbonising the UK energy system. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 81, 181–198 (2019).
Zakkour, P., Kemper, J. & Dixon, T. Incentivising and accounting for negative emission technologies. Energy Procedia 63, 6824–6833 (2014).
Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M. & Wagner, F. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1783 (2019).
Mac Dowell, N. & Fajardy, M. Inefficient power generation as an optimal route to negative emissions via BECCS? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 45004 (2017).
Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
Hoesly, R. M. et al. Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 369–408 (2018).
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2, 81–98 (2015).
Leimbach, M., Kriegler, E., Roming, N. & Schwanitz, J. Future growth patterns of world regions—a GDP scenario approach. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 215–225 (2017).
World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision (UN, 2017); https://population.un.org/wpp/
Phyllis2 (ECN, 2014); https://phyllis.nl/
Don, A. et al. Land‐use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy 4, 372–391 (2012).
Kang, S. et al. Global simulation of bioenergy crop productivity: analytical framework and case study for switchgrass. GCB Bioenergy 6, 14–25 (2014).
Forest Biomass for Energy in the EU: Current Trends, Carbon Balance and Sustainable Potential (IINAS, 2014).
Mantau, U. et al. EUwood—Real Potential for Changes in Growth and Use of EU Forests (Univ. of Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science, 2010).
Elbersen, B. et al. Atlas of EU Biomass Potentials (Biomass Futures, 2012).
Fritz, S. et al. Downgrading recent estimates of land available for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1688–1694 (2013).
Röös, E. et al. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 1–12 (2017).
We acknowledge the support from the Natural Environment Research Council for funding the GGROpt project (grant no. NE/P019900/1).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Heleen van Soest and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Subplot (a) illustrates the procedure followed to estimate the annual removal natural potential in each country, which is translated into a certain amount of CO2 accumulated yearly in biomass resources as shown in subplot (b). Subplot (c) provides the cumulative removal natural potential resulting from adding up annual potentials over the time horizon. Each series (in green) corresponds to the situation where all annual resources are used from a certain year (that is, 2020, 2030, and 2090) onwards. The removal natural potential lost due to delaying actions is provided for each of these years with red arrows located at the right-hand side of the plot.
About this article
Cite this article
Pozo, C., Galán-Martín, Á., Reiner, D.M. et al. Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 640–646 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0802-4
Large‐Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal to Meet the 1.5°C Limit: Key Governance Gaps, Challenges and Priority Responses
Global Policy (2021)
Global environmental and nutritional assessment of national food supply patterns: Insights from a data envelopment analysis approach
Science of The Total Environment (2021)
Energy Research & Social Science (2021)
Discover Chemical Engineering (2021)
Sustainability footprints of a renewable carbon transition for the petrochemical sector within planetary boundaries
One Earth (2021)