Climatic Change

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 131–145 | Cite as

Distributing the Global Carbon Budget with climate justice criteria

  • Olga AlcarazEmail author
  • Pablo Buenestado
  • Beatriz Escribano
  • Bàrbara Sureda
  • Albert Turon
  • Josep Xercavins


In this paper, a model for the distribution of the Global Carbon Budget between the countries of the world is presented. The model is based on the criteria of equity while also taking into account the different historical responsibilities. The Global Carbon Budget corresponds to the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions that can still be released into the atmosphere while maintaining the increase in the average earth surface temperature below 2 °C, and it is therefore compatible with the long-term objective defined in the Paris Agreement. The results of applying the model are shown both for the 15 emitters that currently top the ranking for world emissions as well as for the other countries, which are grouped together in three main groups: Other African, Other Latin American and Caribbean, and the Rest of the World. Mitigation curves compatible with the carbon budget allocated to the different countries are presented. When comparing each emitter’s historical emissions for the period 1971–2010 with the proposed distribution for the period 2011–2050 obtained using the model, it can be seen that developed countries must face the future with a greatly reduced carbon budget, whereas developing countries can make use of a carbon budget that is higher than their cumulative historical emissions. Finally, there is a discussion about how a model with these characteristics could be useful when implementing the Paris Agreement.



The authors want to thank Pepe Antequera, who unfortunately is no longer among us, for the time we spent together.

Funding information

The research leading to these results has received funding from "la Caixa" Banking Foundation.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2224_MOESM1_ESM.docx (152 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 151 kb)


  1. Arrhenius S (1896) XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine Series 5, 41(251), pp.237–276. Available at:
  2. Baer, P. et al., 2008. The greenhouse development rights framework 2nd edi., Berlin: Published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Christian Aid, EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environment InstituteGoogle Scholar
  3. Caney S (2009) Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions 1. Journal of Global Ethics 5(2):125–146 Available at: Accessed 18 Apr 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao J (2008) Reconciling Human Development and Climate Protection: Perspectives from Developing Countries on Post-2012 International Climate Change Policy. Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, (December 2008), p.31Google Scholar
  5. Frölicher TL, Winton M, Sarmiento JL (2013) Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage. Nat Clim Chang 4(1):40–44 Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Füssel HM (2010) How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: a comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Glob Environ Chang 20(4):597–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. German Advisory Council on Global Change (Wbgu) (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach, Available at:
  8. Gignac R, Matthews HD (2015) Allocating a 2 °C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environ Res Lett 10(7):75004 Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giménez-Gómez JM, Teixidó-Figueras J, Vilella C (2016) The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem. Clim Chang:1–11Google Scholar
  10. Herrington T, Zickfeld K (2014) Path independence of climate and carbon cycle response over a broad range of cumulative carbon emissions. Earth System Dynamics 5(2):409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holz C, Kartha S, Athanasiou T (2017) Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 18(1): 117–134.
  12. International Energy Agency (2015) India Energy Outlook - World Energy Outlook Special Report 2015, Available at: Accessed 3 June 2017
  13. IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. TF Stocker et al. (eds) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at:
  14. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. RK Pachauri & LA Meyer (eds) Geneva: IPCC. Available at:
  15. Jacoby HD et al. (2009) Sharing the burden of ghg reductions. Post-Kyoto International Climate Policy: Implementing Architectures for Agreement: Research from the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, (October), pp. 753–785Google Scholar
  16. Kanitkar, T. et al. (2010) Meeting equity in a finite carbon world: global carbon budgets and burden sharing in mitigation actions. In Paper presented at CASS Forum on Climate Justice and the Carbon Budget Approach. China: BeijingGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanitkar T et al (2013) Carbon budgets for climate change mitigation - a GAMS-based emissions model. Curr Sci 104(9):1200–1206 Available at: <Go to ISI>://WOS:000319783000022Google Scholar
  18. Keohane N, Petsonk A, Hanafi A (2015) Toward a club of carbon markets. Climatic Change, (Alternate Structures for Global Climate Action: Building Blocks Revisited)Google Scholar
  19. Liobikiené G, Butkus M (2017) The European Union possibilities to achieve targets of Europe 2020 and Paris agreement climate policy. Renew Energy 106:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthews HD et al (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459(7248):829–832 Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattoo A, Subramanian A (2012) Equity in climate change: an analytical review. World Dev 40(6):1083–1097. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyer A (2000) Contraction and convergence: the global solution to climate change, Green Books for the Schumacher SocietyGoogle Scholar
  23. Modi, N., 2015. The rich world must take greater responsibility for climate change. Financial Times, pp.7–9Google Scholar
  24. Müller B, Höhne N, Ellermann C (2009) Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Clim Pol 9(6):593–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neumayer E (2000) In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Econ 33(2):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ott HE et al. (2004) South-North dialogue on equity in the greenhouse: a proposal for an adequate and equitable global climate agreement, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Available at: Accessed 3 Oct 2011
  27. Parikh, J, Parikh K (2009) Climate change: a parking place model for a just global compact. (January 2015), pp.1–17Google Scholar
  28. Raupach MR et al (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4(October):873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shankar B et al (2017) Dietary and nutritional change in India: implications for strategies, policies, and interventions. Ann N Y Acad SciGoogle Scholar
  30. Srivastava L, Rehman IH (2006) Energy for sustainable development in India: linkages and strategic direction. Energy Policy 34(5):643–654 Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stua M (2017) From the Paris agreement to a low-carbon bretton woods. Springer International Publishing AG 2017Google Scholar
  32. UNDESA Population Division (2015) World population prospects the 2015 revision volume I: comprehensive tablesGoogle Scholar
  33. UNDESA Population Division (2017) World Population Prospects. The 2017 Revision. Available at: Accessed 13 Jan 2018
  34. UNEP (2015) The emission gap report 2015. A UNEP synthesis report, Available at:
  35. UNEP (2016) The emissions gap report 2016, Available at:
  36. UNFCCC (2013) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. Addendum, (January), pp.1–43. Available at:
  37. UNFCCC (2014) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twentieth session, held in Lima from 1 to 14 December 2014. Decision 1/CP.20, 1(February), pp.1–7Google Scholar
  38. UNFCCC (2015a) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 Addendum Contents Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session. Decision 1/CP.21 Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 1194(January), pp.1–36. Available at:
  39. UNFCCC (2015b) Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions, Available at:
  40. UNFCCC (2016) Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions : an update, (May), pp.1–75. Available at:
  41. United Nations (1992) United nations framework convention on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations (2015) Paris agreement. 21st Conference of the Parties, p.3Google Scholar
  43. van Vuuren DP et al (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Clim Chang 109(1):95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. World Resources Institute (2015) CAIT - Historical Emissions Data. Available at: Accessed 6 Aug 2016)
  45. Zickfeld K, Arora VK, Gillett NP (2012) Is the climate response to CO2 emissions path dependent? Geophys Res Lett 39(5):L05703 Available at: CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group on Governance of Climate Change, Research Group on Sustainability, Technology and HumanismUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations