Climatic Change

, Volume 150, Issue 1–2, pp 15–28 | Cite as

Global carbon budgets and the viability of new fossil fuel projects

  • Mark JaccardEmail author
  • James Hoffele
  • Torsten Jaccard


Policy-makers of some fossil fuel-endowed countries wish to know if a given fossil fuel supply project is consistent with the global carbon budget that would prevent a 2 °C temperature rise. But while some studies have identified fossil fuel reserves that are inconsistent with the 2 °C carbon budget, they have not shown the effect on fossil fuel production costs and market prices. Focusing on oil, we develop an oil pricing and climate test model to which we apply future carbon prices and oil consumption from several global energy-economy-emissions models that simulate the energy supply and demand effects of the 2 °C carbon budget. Our oil price model includes key oil market attributes, notably upper and lower market share boundaries for different oil producer categories, such as OPEC. Using the distribution of the global model results as an indicator of uncertainty about future carbon prices and oil demand, we estimate the probability that a new investment of a given oil source category would be economically viable under the 2 °C carbon budget. In our case study of Canada’s oil sands, we find a less than 5% probability that oil sands investments, and therefore new oil pipelines, would be economically viable over the next three decades under the 2 °C carbon budget. Our sensitivity analysis finds that if OPEC agreed to reduce its market share to 30% by 2045, a significant reduction from its steady 40–45% of the past 25 years, then the probability of viable oil sands expansion rises to 30%.


Carbon budget 2 °C Oil sands Oil pipelines Oil price models Energy-economy-emissions models 



We acknowledge helpful comments from Jotham Peters, Nic Rivers, Tiffany Vass, Duncan Noble, Michael Lazarus, Harro van Asselt, and the anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2206_MOESM1_ESM.docx (394 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 393 kb)
10584_2018_2206_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (54 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 54 kb)


  1. Aguilera RF (2014) Production costs of global conventional and unconventional petroleum. Energy Policy 64:134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilera R, Radetzki M (2015) The price of oil, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Canada-U.S. (2016) Canada-U.S. joint statement on climate, energy and Arctic leadership. Northern and indigenous affairs Canada.
  4. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) (2015) Statistical Handbook.
  5. Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) (2014) Study no. 141: Canadian oil sands supply costs and development projects (2014–2048).
  6. Chan G et al (2012) The Canadian oil sands industry under carbon constraints. Energy Policy 50:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016) Methodology for estimating the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with major oil and gas projects undergoing federal review. Canada Gazette, Part I.
  8. Erickson P, Lazarus M (2014) Impact of the keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4(9):778–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faehn T et al (2017) Climate policies in a fossil fuel producing country: demand versus supply side policies. Energy J 38:77–102Google Scholar
  10. International Energy Agency (2013a) Redrawing the Energy Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report, Paris.
  11. International Energy Agency (2013b) World Energy Outlook 2013, Paris.
  12. International Energy Agency (2013c) Reserves to Resources 2013: Oil, gas and coal technologies for the energy markets of the future, Paris.
  13. International Energy Agency (2013d) Oil Medium Term Oil Market Report 2013, Paris.
  14. International Energy Agency (2015) World Energy Outlook 2015, Paris.
  15. IPCC (2014) Intergovernmental panel on climate change, Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaccard M (2005) Sustainable fossil fuels: the unusual suspect in the quest for clean and enduring energy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Krey V et al (2014) Getting from here to there—energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang 123:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kriegler E et al (2015) Making or breaking climate targets: the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technol Soc Chang 90A:24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Livernois J, Thille H (2015) Empirical evidence on the theory of nonrenewable resource economics, In Halvorsen and Layton (eds), Handbook on the Economics of Natural Resources, 41–65, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UKGoogle Scholar
  20. McCollum D et al (2014) Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds. Clim Chang 123:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Obama B (2015) Statement by the president on the keystone XL pipeline, The White House: Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, D.C.
  24. OPEC (2016) Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Annual Statistical Bulletin, Vienna.
  25. Palen W et al (2014) Consider the global impacts of oil pipelines. Nature 510:465–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogelj J et al (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinn H-W (2012) The green paradox: a supply-side approach to global warming, The MIT Press, Cambridge USGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith J (2009) World oil: market or mayhem? J Econ Perspect 23:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (2014) Venezuela Analysis Brief.
  30. Van der Zwann B et al (2013) A cross-model comparison of global long-term technology diffusion under a 2° C climate change control target. Climate Change Economics, 4(4)Google Scholar
  31. Victor D (2011) Global warming gridlock: creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resource and Environmental ManagementSimon Fraser UniversityVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations