Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Fair-share carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility


The Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal is to be achieved on the basis of equity. Accomplishing this goal will require carbon dioxide removal (CDR), yet existing plans for CDR deployment are insufficient to meet potential global needs, and equitable approaches for distributing CDR responsibilities between nations are lacking. Here we apply two common burden-sharing principles to show how CDR responsibility could be shared between regions in 1.5 °C and 2 °C mitigation pathways. We find that fair-share outcomes for the United States, the European Union and China could imply 2–3 times larger CDR responsibilities this century compared with a global least-cost approach. We illustrate how delaying near-term mitigation affects the CDR responsibilities of major emitters: raising emission levels in 2030 by one gigatonne generates about 20–70 additional gigatonnes of CDR responsibility over this century. An informed debate about equitable CDR contributions will be essential to achieve much-needed progress in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Illustration of CDR distribution under different equity approaches.
Fig. 2: Comparison of CDR fair shares with cost-optimal distributions.
Fig. 3: Relationship between near-term emissions reductions and long-term CDR burdens.

Data availability

Data for the IAM scenarios used in this analysis are available at and on request from the IMAGE, MESSAGE and REMIND modelling groups. Historical emissions data are available from (PRIMAP-hist) and (FAOSTAT land-use module). Historical population data are available at (World Bank World Development Indicators).

Code availability

The code used for this analysis is available at


  1. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  2. Strefler, J. et al. Between Scylla and Charybdis: delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044015 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).

  4. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (IPCC, 2019).

  5. Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. & Underdal, A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2, 1–22 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lawrence, P. & Reder, M. Equity and the Paris Agreement: legal and philosophical perspectives. J. Environ. Law 31, 511–531 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 1.5 °C hotspots: climate hazards, vulnerabilities, and impacts. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 135–163 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Emmerling, J. et al. The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104008 (2019).

  11. Geiges, A. et al. Incremental improvements of 2030 targets insufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Earth Syst. Dynam. (in the press).

  12. Klinsky, S. et al. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change 44, 170–173 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Robiou Du Pont, Y. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kartha, S., Baer, P., Athanasiou, T. & Kemp-Benedict, E. The Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Clim. Dev. 1, 147–165 (2009).

  16. Winkler, H., Letete, T. & Marquard, A. Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria. Clim. Policy 13, 411–432 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pan, X., Elzen, M., den, Höhne, N., Teng, F. & Wang, L. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 49–56 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. den Elzen, M. G. J., Höhne, N., Brouns, B., Winkler, H. & Ott, H. E. Differentiation of countries’ future commitments in a post-2012 climate regime. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 185–203 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 873–879 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Climatic Change (2019).

  21. Fleurbaey, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 283–350 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  22. Winkler, H. et al. Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Contribution to the Body of Scientific Knowledge (BASIC expert group, 2011).

  23. McMullin, B., Price, P., Jones, M. B. & McGeever, A. H. Assessing negative carbon dioxide emissions from the perspective of a national “fair share” of the remaining global carbon budget. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change (2019).

  24. Gignac, R. & Matthews, H. D. Allocating a 2 °C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075004 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Peters, G. P. & Geden, O. Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 619–621 (2017).

  26. Mace, M. J., Fyson, C. L., Schaeffer, M. & Hare, W. L. Governing Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Are We Ready? (Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, 2018).

  27. Köberle, A. C. The value of BECCS in IAMs: a review. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 6, 107–115 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  29. Jacoby, H. D., Schmalensee, R., Wing, I. S. & Prinn, R. G. Toward a Useful Architecture for Climate Change Negotiations Joint Program Report Series Report 49 (MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 1999).

  30. Den Elzen, M. G. J. & Lucas, P. L. The FAIR model: a tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of regimes of future commitments. Environ. Model. Assess. 10, 115–134 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Baer, P., Fieldman, G., Athanasiou, T. & Kartha, S. Greenhouse Development Rights: towards an equitable framework for global climate policy. Camb. Rev. Int. Aff. 21, 649–669 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rao, N. D., Sauer, P., Gidden, M. & Riahi, K. Income inequality projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Futures 105, 27–39 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kartha, S. et al. Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 348–349 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 827–835 (2016).

  35. Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. Zenodo (2019).

  36. Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V., et al.) Ch. 2 (WMO, 2018).

  37. Tokarska, K. B., Zickfeld, K. & Rogelj, J. Path independence of carbon budgets when meeting a stringent global mean temperature target after an overshoot. Earths Future 7, 1283–1295 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nauels, A. et al. ZERO IN on the Remaining Carbon Budget and Decadal Warming Rates. The CONSTRAIN Project Annual Report 2019 (CONSTRAIN, 2019).

  41. Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 626–633 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Climate Action Tracker Country Assessments September 2019 (Climate Action Tracker, 2019).

  44. Winkler, H. et al. Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed. Int. Environ. Agreem. 18, 99–115 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meinshausen, M. et al. National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1098–1106 (2015).

  46. Shue, H. Responsible for what? Carbon producer CO2 contributions and the energy transition. Climatic Change 144, 591–596 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Frumhoff, P. C., Heede, R. & Oreskes, N. The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Climatic Change 132, 157–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M. & Wagner, F. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1783 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hansson, A. et al. Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania. Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2019).

  51. Wohland, J., Witthaut, D. & Schleussner, C.-F. Negative emission potential of direct air capture powered by renewable excess electricity in Europe. Earths Future 6, 1380–1384 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schneider, L. et al. Double counting and the Paris Agreement rulebook. Science 366, 180–183 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Baur, S., Fyson, C. & Schleussner, C.-F. CDR Equity Analysis Version 1.0.0. Zenodo (2020).

  54. Gütschow, J., Jeffery, L., Gieseke, R. & Günther, A. The PRIMAP-hist National Historical Emissions Time Series (1850–2017) Version 2.1 (GFZ Data Services, 2019);

  55. FAOSTAT—Emissions—Land Use (FAO, 2019);

  56. World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2019);

  57. Kriegler, E. et al. Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 297–315 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the IMAGE, MESSAGE and REMIND modelling groups for providing access to their data, J. Strefler for valuable comments, and our reviewers for their constructive feedback. C.L.F. acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (11_II_093_Global_A_SIDS and LDCs). C.-F.S. acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01LS1905A) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 821124.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



C.L.F. and C.-F.S. conceived and designed the project. S.B. and C.L.F. produced the analysis. M.G. provided data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. C.L.F. wrote the paper with contributions by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire L. Fyson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Nicole van den Berg, Johannes Emmerling and Henry Shue 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.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Mid- and end-century CDR shares.

CDR shares in 2050 (above) and 2100 (below) for the least-cost, ability to pay and cumulative per capita emissions approaches for all pathways analysed in this study. Coloured bars show the interquartile range of CDR shares for each country / region, with whiskers giving the 5–95 percentiles; symbols show the CDR shares for pathways of different warming levels: 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot (squares), high overshoot with 1.5 °C at the end of the century (closed circles) and below 2 °C (open circles).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Per capita CDR versus per capita GDP.

CDR obligations per capita for the AP scheme compared with GDP per capita in 2050 (above) and 2100 (below) for the major countries / regions included in this analysis. Squares, filled circles and open circles show the results for 1.5 °C no / low overshoot, 1.5 °C high overshoot and 2 °C pathways respectively. Countries / regions with below average GDP/capita are excluded from CDR obligations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–6 and Tables 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fyson, C.L., Baur, S., Gidden, M. et al. Fair-share carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 836–841 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing