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
Open Access articles citing this article.
Wirtschaftsdienst Open Access 01 May 2022
Nature Communications Open Access 11 November 2021
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Data for the IAM scenarios used in this analysis are available at https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer/ and on request from the IMAGE, MESSAGE and REMIND modelling groups. Historical emissions data are available from http://dataservices.gfz-potsdam.de/pik/showshort.php?id=escidoc:4736895 (PRIMAP-hist) and http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GL (FAOSTAT land-use module). Historical population data are available at https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators (World Bank World Development Indicators).
Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
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).
Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).
Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (IPCC, 2019).
Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).
Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. & Underdal, A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2, 1–22 (2002).
Lawrence, P. & Reder, M. Equity and the Paris Agreement: legal and philosophical perspectives. J. Environ. Law 31, 511–531 (2019).
Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 1.5 °C hotspots: climate hazards, vulnerabilities, and impacts. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 135–163 (2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
Emmerling, J. et al. The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104008 (2019).
Geiges, A. et al. Incremental improvements of 2030 targets insufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Earth Syst. Dynam. (in the press).
Klinsky, S. et al. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change 44, 170–173 (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).
Robiou Du Pont, Y. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).
Kartha, S., Baer, P., Athanasiou, T. & Kemp-Benedict, E. The Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Clim. Dev. 1, 147–165 (2009).
Winkler, H., Letete, T. & Marquard, A. Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria. Clim. Policy 13, 411–432 (2013).
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).
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).
Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 873–879 (2014).
van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Climatic Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02368-y (2019).
Fleurbaey, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 283–350 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Winkler, H. et al. Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Contribution to the Body of Scientific Knowledge (BASIC expert group, 2011).
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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09881-6 (2019).
Gignac, R. & Matthews, H. D. Allocating a 2 °C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075004 (2015).
Peters, G. P. & Geden, O. Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 619–621 (2017).
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).
Köberle, A. C. The value of BECCS in IAMs: a review. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 6, 107–115 (2019).
Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
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).
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).
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).
Rao, N. D., Sauer, P., Gidden, M. & Riahi, K. Income inequality projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Futures 105, 27–39 (2019).
Kartha, S. et al. Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 348–349 (2018).
Schleussner, C.-F. et al. Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 827–835 (2016).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3363345 (2019).
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V., et al.) Ch. 2 (WMO, 2018).
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).
Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).
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).
Nauels, A. et al. ZERO IN on the Remaining Carbon Budget and Decadal Warming Rates. The CONSTRAIN Project Annual Report 2019 (CONSTRAIN, 2019).
Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 626–633 (2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).
Climate Action Tracker Country Assessments September 2019 (Climate Action Tracker, 2019).
Winkler, H. et al. Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed. Int. Environ. Agreem. 18, 99–115 (2018).
Meinshausen, M. et al. National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1098–1106 (2015).
Shue, H. Responsible for what? Carbon producer CO2 contributions and the energy transition. Climatic Change 144, 591–596 (2017).
Frumhoff, P. C., Heede, R. & Oreskes, N. The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Climatic Change 132, 157–171 (2015).
Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M. & Wagner, F. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1783 (2019).
Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).
Hansson, A. et al. Preconditions for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Tanzania. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00517-y (2019).
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).
Schneider, L. et al. Double counting and the Paris Agreement rulebook. Science 366, 180–183 (2019).
Baur, S., Fyson, C. & Schleussner, C.-F. CDR Equity Analysis Version 1.0.0. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3904162 (2020).
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); https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2019.018
FAOSTAT—Emissions—Land Use (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GL
World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2019); https://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators
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).
Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
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).
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).
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.
The authors declare no competing interests.
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.
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).
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.
About this article
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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0857-2
This article is cited by
Nature Communications (2021)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Climatic Change (2021)
Ecological compensation of grain trade within urban, rural areas and provinces in China: a prospect of a carbon transfer mechanism
Environment, Development and Sustainability (2021)