Pollution embodied in trade: The Norwegian case

With the increase in international trade, it is becoming increasingly important to accurately determine environmental impacts resulting from pollution embodied in trade. Many previous studies have unrealistically assumed that imports are produced with the technology of the importing country. For countries with diverging technology and energy mixes the likely errors are significant. This study uses a model that explicitly includes regional technology differences to the case of Norway. It is found that CO₂ emissions embodied in imports was 67% of Norway's domestic emissions. Around a half of this embodied pollution originates in developing countries, yet they represent only 10% of the value of Norwegian imports. In addition the carbon leakage from non-Annex I countries was at least 30%. We then argue that basing emission inventories on consumption, rather than production, may resolve not only issues related to international trade, but also provide greater flexibility towards pollution intensive resource endowments, emission reductions, and participation levels.     

全球贸易隐含碳变化及其影响分析

基于最新的GTAP8 (Global Trade Analysis Project）数据库,使用投入产出法,分析了2004年到2007年全球贸易变化下南北集团贸易隐含碳变化及对全球碳排放的影响。结果显示,随着发展中国家进出口规模扩张,全球贸易隐含碳流向的重心逐渐向发展中国家转移。2004年到2007年,发达国家高端设备制造业和服务业出口以及发展中国家资源、能源密集型行业及中低端制造业出口的趋势加强,该过程的生产转移导致全球碳排放增长4.15亿t,占研究时段全球贸易隐含碳增量的63%。未来发展中国家的出口隐含碳比重还将进一步提高。贸易变化带来的南北集团隐含碳流动变化对全球应对气候变化行动的影响日益突出,发达国家对此负有重要责任。     

Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions

Deforestation, the second largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is largely driven by expanding forestry and agriculture. However, despite agricultural expansion being increasingly driven by foreign demand, the links between deforestation and foreign demand for agricultural commodities have only been partially mapped. Here we present a pan-tropical quantification of carbon emissions from deforestation associated with the expansion of agriculture and forest plantations, and trace embodied emissions through global supply chains to consumers. We find that in the period 2010–2014, expansion of agriculture and tree plantations into forests across the tropics was associated with net emissions of approximately 2.6 gigatonnes carbon dioxide per year. Cattle and oilseed products account for over half of these emissions. Europe and China are major importers, and for many developed countries, deforestation emissions embodied in imports rival or exceed emissions from domestic agriculture. Depending on the trade model used, 29–39% of deforestation-related emissions were driven by international trade. This is substantially higher than the share of fossil carbon emissions embodied in trade, indicating that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change need to consider the role of international demand in driving deforestation. Additionally, we find that deforestation emissions are similar to, or larger than, other emissions in the carbon footprint of key forest-risk commodities. Similarly, deforestation emissions constitute a substantial share (˜15%) of the total carbon footprint of food consumption in EU countries. This highlights the need for consumption-based accounts to include emissions from deforestation, and for the implementation of policy measures that cross these international supply-chains if deforestation emissions are to be effectively reduced.     

Non-energy use of fossil fuels and resulting carbon dioxide emissions: bottom–up estimates for the world as a whole and for major developing countries

We present and apply a simple bottom–up model for estimating non-energy use of fossil fuels and resulting CO₂ (carbon dioxide) emissions. We apply this model for the year 2000: (1) to the world as a whole, (2) to the aggregate of Annex I countries and non-Annex I countries, and (3) to the ten non-Annex I countries with the highest consumption of fossil fuels for non-energy purposes. We find that worldwide non-energy use is equivalent to 1,670 ± 120 Mt (megatonnes) CO₂ and leads to 700 ± 90 Mt CO₂ emissions. Around 75% of non-energy use emissions is related to industrial processes. The remainder is attributed to the emission source categories of solvent and other product use, agriculture, and waste. Annex I countries account for 51% (360 ± 50 Mt CO₂) and non-Annex I countries for 49% (340 ± 70 Mt CO₂) of worldwide non-energy use emissions. Among non-Annex I countries, China is by far the largest emitter of non-energy use emissions (122 ± 18 Mt CO₂). Our research deepens the understanding of non-energy use and related CO₂ emissions in countries for which detailed emission inventories do not yet exist. Despite existing model uncertainties, we recommend NEAT-SIMP to inventory experts for preparing correct and complete non-energy use emission estimates for any country in the world.     

The emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the 2 °C climate goal: Options for closing and risks that could widen the gap

As part of the Copenhagen Accord, Annex I Parties (industrialised countries) and non-Annex I Parties (developing countries) have submitted reduction proposals (pledges) and mitigation actions to the UNFCCC secretariat. Our calculations show that if the current reduction offers of Annex I and non-Annex I countries are fully implemented, global greenhouse gas emissions could amount to 48.6-49.7 GtCO₂eq by 2020. Recent literature suggests that the emission level should be between 42 and 46 GtCO₂eq by 2020 to maintain a “medium” chance (50-66%) of meeting the 2 °C target. The emission gap is therefore 2.6-7.7 GtCO₂eq. We have identified a combined set of options, which could result in an additional 2.8 GtCO₂eq emission reduction. This would lead to an emission level just within the range needed. The options include reducing deforestation and emissions from bunker fuels, excluding emissions allowance increases from land use and forestry rules, and taking into account the national climate plans of China and India. However, there are also important risks that could widen the emissions gap, like lower reductions from countries with only a conditional pledge and the use of Kyoto and/or trading of new surplus emission allowances.     

Evaluating the Bonn–Marrakesh agreement

This article evaluates the environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency of the Kyoto Protocol after the Bonn Agreement and the Marrakesh Accords. The US withdrawal has by far the greatest impact in reducing the environmental effectiveness, lowering the price of traded emission permits and reducing Annex I abatement costs. The decisions on sinks imply that the Annex I CO₂-equivalent emissions without the US will come out at about 1/2% below base-year level, instead of over 4% below base-year level. Without US participation, the emission permit price is estimated to be low. Therefore, banking hot air by Russia and the Ukraine is of absolute importance for the development of a viable emissions trading market, and would also enhance the environmental effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.     

Evaluating the Bonn—Marrakesh agreement

Abstract

This article evaluates the environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency of the Kyoto Protocol after the Bonn Agreement and the Marrakesh Accords. The US withdrawal has by far the greatest impact in reducing the environmental effectiveness, lowering the price of traded emission permits and reducing Annex I abatement costs. The decisions on sinks imply that the Annex I CO₂-equivalent emissions without the US will come out at about 1/2% below base-year level, instead of over 4% below base-year level. Without US participation, the emission permit price is estimated to be low. Therefore, banking hot air by Russia and the Ukraine is of absolute importance for the development of a viable emissions trading market, and would also enhance the environmental effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.     

Trade in ‘virtual carbon’: Empirical results and implications for policy

The fact that developing countries do not have carbon emission caps under the Kyoto Protocol has led to the current interest in high income countries in border taxes on the ‘virtual’ carbon content of imports. We use GTAP data and input-output analysis to estimate the flows of virtual carbon implicit in domestic production technologies and the pattern of international trade. The results present striking evidence on the wide variation in the carbon-intensiveness of trade across countries, with major developing countries being large net exporters of virtual carbon. Our analysis suggests that a tax on virtual carbon could lead to very substantial effective tariff rates on the exports of the most carbon-intensive developing nations. As an illustration, we find that average tariff rates of 10%, 8% and 12% would be faced by imports from China, India and South Africa if carbon is taxed at $50/ton CO₂. Moreover, there is wide variation in intensiveness across sectors within countries with implications for the disparate effective tariff burdens on particulars parts of the economies of these countries. Such empirical findings, we argue, are useful for framing on-going discussions about the principles and practice of border taxes on virtual carbon.     

Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III, summarises in Box 13.7 the required emission reduction ranges in Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group, to achieve greenhouse gas concentration stabilisation levels between 450 and 650 ppm CO₂-eq. The box summarises the results of the IPCC authors’ analysis of the literature on the regional allocation of the emission reductions. The box states that Annex I countries as a group would need to reduce their emissions to below 1990 levels in 2020 by 25% to 40% for 450 ppm, 10% to 30% for 550 ppm and 0% to 25% for 650 ppm CO₂-eq, even if emissions in developing countries deviate substantially from baseline for the low concentration target. In this paper, the IPCC authors of Box 13.7 provide background information and analyse whether new information, obtained after completion of the IPCC report, influences these ranges. The authors concluded that there is no argument for updating the ranges in Box 13.7. The allocation studies, which were published after the writing of the IPCC report, show reductions in line with the reduction ranges in the box. From the studies analysed, this paper specifies the “substantial deviation” or “deviation from baseline” in the box: emissions of non-Annex I countries as a group have to be below the baseline roughly between 15% to 30% for 450 ppm CO₂-eq, 0% to 20% for 550 ppm CO₂-eq and from 10% above to 10% below the baseline for 650 ppm CO₂-eq, in 2020. These ranges apply to the whole group of non-Annex I countries and may differ substantially per country. The most important factor influencing these ranges above, for non-Annex I countries, and in the box, for Annex I countries, is new information on higher baseline emissions (e.g. that of Sheehan, Climatic Change, 2008, this issue). Other factors are the assumed global emission level in 2020 and assumptions on land-use change and forestry emissions. The current, slow pace in climate policy and the steady increase in global emissions, make it almost unfeasible to reach relatively low global emission levels in 2020 needed to meet 450 ppm CO₂-eq, as was first assumed feasible by some studies, 5 years ago.     

‘Bubbling’ and the Kyoto mechanisms

Abstract

The Kyoto Protocol allows a group of Annex B countries to fulfill their emissions limitation commitments jointly by forming a “bubble” equal to their collective commitment. Annex B countries, whether members of a bubble or not, can use the Kyoto mechanisms to help meet their emissions limitation commitments. I argue that Kyoto mechanism rules should be applied to Parties individually regardless of their membership in a bubble. This means there are virtually no advantages to joining a bubble, but it is not clear that the option to form a bubble should confer benefits on the members relative to other Annex B Parties that do not join a bubble.     

Emission scenarios and global climate protection

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of a wide range of emission scenarios in protecting climate (where ‘protecting climate’ Is used here to mean minimizing ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ which results in impacts to society and the natural environment). Under baseline (no action) conditions there is a significant Increase in emissions, temperature and climate impacts. Controlling only CO₂ emissions (ie freezing emissions in year 2000 at 1990 levels, and decreasing them afterwards at 1%/yr) and only in Annex I countries, does not significantly reduce the impacts observed under the baseline scenario. However, impacts are substantially reduced when emissions are controlled in both Annex I and non-Annex I countries, and when both CO₂ and non-CO₂ emissions are controlled. It was also found that stabilizing CO₂ in the atmosphere below 450 ppm substantially reduces climate impacts. But in order to follow the pathway to stabilization at 450 ppm specified by the IPCC, global emissions can only slightly increase in the coming decades, and then must be sharply reduced. On the other hand, stabilizing CO₂ in the atmosphere above 450 ppm can have significant impacts, which indicates that stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will not necessarily provide a high level of climate protection. Results from these and other scenarios are synthesized and related to climate protection goals through a new concept — ‘safe emission corridors’. These corridors indicate the allowable range of near-term global emissions (equivalent CO₂) which complies with specified short- and long-term climate goals. For an illustrative set of climate goals, the allowable anthropogenic global emissions in 2010 are computed to range from 7.3 to 14.5 GtC/yr equivalent CO₂ (1990 level = approximately 9.6 GtC/ yr); when these limits are set twice as strict (ie divided by two), the allowable range becomes 7.6 to 9.3 GtC/yr. To fall within this lower corridor, global emissions must be lower in 2010 than in 1990.     

Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies

Methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation and manure management represent about 40% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector and are projected to increase substantially in the coming decades, with most of the growth occurring in non-Annex 1 countries. To mitigate livestock methane, incentive policies based on producer-level emissions are generally not feasible because of high administrative costs and producer transaction costs. In contrast, incentive policies based on sectoral emissions are likely administratively feasible, even in developing countries. This study uses an economic model of global agriculture to estimate the effects of two sectoral mitigation policies: a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme based on average national methane emissions per unit of commodity. The analysis shows how the composition and location of livestock production and emissions change in response to the policies. Results illustrate the importance of global mitigation efforts: when policies are limited to Annex 1 countries, increased methane emissions in non-Annex 1 countries offset approximately two-thirds of Annex 1 emissions reductions. While non-Annex 1 countries face substantial disincentives to enacting domestic carbon taxes, developing countries could benefit from participating in a global sectoral emissions trading scheme. We illustrate one scheme in which non-Annex 1 countries collectively earn USD 2.4 billion annually from methane emission permit sales when methane is priced at USD 30/t CO₂-eq.     

A no cap but trade proposal for emission targets

One problem in international climate policy is the refusal of large developing countries to accept emission reduction targets. Brazil, China and India together account for about 20% of today's CO₂ emissions. We analyse the case in which there is no international agreement on emission reduction targets, but countries do have domestic targets, and trade permits across borders. We contrast two scenarios. In one scenario, Brazil, China and India adopt their business as usual emissions as their target. In this scenario, there are substantial exports of emission permits from developing to developed countries, and substantial economic gains for all. In the second scenario, Brazil, China and India reduce their emissions target so that they have no net economic gain from permit trade. Here, developing countries do not accept responsibility for climate change (as they bear no net costs), but they do contribute to an emission reduction policy by refusing to make money out of it. Adopting such break-even targets can be done at minor cost to developed and developing countries (roughly $2 bn/year each in extra costs and forgone benefits), while developing countries are still slightly better off than in the case without international emissions trade. This result is robust to variations in scenarios and parameters. It contrasts with Stewart and Wiener (2003) who propose granting ‘hot air’ to developing countries to seduce them to accept targets. In 2020, China and India could reduce their emissions by some 10% from the baseline without net economic costs.     

‘Bubbling’ and the Kyoto mechanisms

The Kyoto Protocol allows a group of Annex B countries to fulfill their emissions limitation commitments jointly by forming a “bubble” equal to their collective commitment. Annex B countries, whether members of a bubble or not, can use the Kyoto mechanisms to help meet their emissions limitation commitments. I argue that Kyoto mechanism rules should be applied to Parties individually regardless of their membership in a bubble. This means there are virtually no advantages to joining a bubble, but it is not clear that the option to form a bubble should confer benefits on the members relative to other Annex B Parties that do not join a bubble.     

Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol

Deliberate land management actions that enhance the uptake of CO₂ or reduce its emissions have the potential to remove a significant amount of CO₂ from the atmosphere over the next three decades. The quantities involved are large enough to satisfy a substantial portion of the Kyoto Protocol commitments for many countries, but are not large enough to stabilise atmospheric concentrations without also implementing major reductions in fossil fuel emissions. ‘Sinks’ can be deployed relatively rapidly at moderate cost and thus could play a useful bridging role while new energy technologies are developed.There is no difference in climatological effect between CO₂ taken up by the land and CO₂ reductions due to other causes. There are potential regulatory differences, related to the security with which the CO₂ is held and to the accuracy with which it can be measured and verified. A variety of policy approaches are available to address these differences.     

Responsibility for Past and Future Global Warming: Uncertainties in Attributing Anthropogenic Climate Change

During the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, Brazil proposed a methodology to link the relative contribution of Annex I Parties to emission reductions with the relative contributions of Parties to the global-mean temperature increase. The proposal was not adopted during the negotiations but referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice for consideration of its methodological aspects. In this context we analyze the impact of model uncertainties and methodological choices on the regionally attributed global-mean temperature increase. A climate assessment model has been developed to calculate changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, global-mean temperature and sea-level rise attributable to individual regions. The analysis shows the impact of the different choices in methodological aspects to be as important as the impact of model uncertainties on a region's contribution to present and future global temperature increases. Choices may be the inclusion of the anthropogenic non-CO₂ greenhouse gas emissions and/or theCO₂ emissions associated with land-use changes. When responsibility to global temperature change is attributed to all emitting Parties, the impacts of modeling uncertainties and methodological choices on contributions of individual Parties are considerable. However, if relative contributions are calculated only within the group of Annex I countries, the results are less sensitive to the uncertainty aspects considered here.     

Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol

Abstract

Deliberate land management actions that enhance the uptake of CO₂ or reduce its emissions have the potential to remove a significant amount of CO₂ from the atmosphere over the next three decades. The quantities involved are large enough to satisfy a substantial portion of the Kyoto Protocol commitments for many countries, but are not large enough to stabilise atmospheric concentrations without also implementing major reductions in fossil fuel emissions. ‘Sinks’ can be deployed relatively rapidly at moderate cost and thus could play a useful bridging role while new energy technologies are developed.

There is no difference in climatological effect between CO₂ taken up by the land and CO₂ reductions due to other causes. There are potential regulatory differences, related to the security with which the CO₂ is held and to the accuracy with which it can be measured and verified. A variety of policy approaches are available to address these differences.     

Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock

Following IPCC guidelines (IPCC 2006), we estimate greenhouse gas emissions related to livestock in 237 countries and 11 livestock categories during the period 1961–2010. We find that in 2010 emissions of methane and nitrous oxide related to livestock worldwide represented approximately 9 % of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global GHG emissions from livestock increased by 51 % during the analyzed period, mostly due to strong growth of emissions in developing (Non-Annex I) countries (+117 %). In contrast, developed country (Annex I) emissions decreased (?23 %). Beef and dairy cattle are the largest source of livestock emissions (74 % of global livestock emissions). Since developed countries tend to have lower CO₂-equivalent GHG emissions per unit GDP and per quantity of product generated in the livestock sector, the amount of wealth generated per unit GHG emitted from the livestock sector can be increased by improving both livestock farming practices in developing countries and the overall state of economic development. Our results reveal important details of how livestock production and associated GHG emissions have occurred in time and space. Discrepancies with higher tiers, demonstrate the value of more detailed analyses, and discourage over interpretation of smaller-scale trends in the Tier 1 results, but do not undermine the value of global Tier 1 analysis.     

A Method for Estimating the Cost of CO2 Mitigation through Afforestation

The Kyoto Protocol allows Annex I countries to use afforestation (theconversion of non-forest landto forest) to meet emissions reduction targets. We present a new method forestimating the cost of CO₂mitigation through afforestation based on econometric models of land use. Landuse models are developed from dataon observed land allocation decisions and quantify the relationship betweenthe share of land in forest and the netreturns to forestry, among other land use determinants. The econometricapproach measures the actual responsesby landowners to observed changes in net returns, in contrast to earlierstudies in which landowner responses aredictated by the researcher. Models are estimated for Maine, South Carolina,and Wisconsin. The estimated modelsare used to simulate subsidies for afforestation, which imply increases inforest area and net reductions inatmospheric CO₂ concentrations. Average cost measures – totalsubsidies divided by total carbon sequestered –are derived for afforestation programs with and without timber harvesting. Theuse of econometric land use modelsin integrated assessments of climate change is explored. We model the effectson land use patterns and the costsof CO₂ mitigation of changes in the net returns to agricultureinduced by climate change.     

Reducing emissions from deforestation—The “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical simulations

Despite accounting for 17–25% of anthropogenic emissions, deforestation was not included in the Kyoto Protocol. The UN Convention on Climate Change is considering its inclusion in future agreements and asked its scientific board to study methodological and scientific issues related to positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation. Here we present an empirically derived mechanism that offers a mix of incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation, conserve and possibly enhance their ecosystem's carbon stocks. We also use recent data to model its effects on the 20 most forested developing countries. Results show that at low CO₂ prices (～US$ 8/t CO₂) a successful mechanism could reduce more than 90% of global deforestation at an annual cost of US$ 30 billion.