Assessing negative carbon dioxide emissions from the perspective of a national “fair share” of the remaining global carbon budget

  • Barry McMullinEmail author
  • Paul Price
  • Michael B. Jones
  • Alwynne H. McGeever
Original Article


We present an assessment of the plausible Paris-aligned fair share nett cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) quota for an example nation state, the Republic of Ireland. By Paris-aligned, we mean consistent with the Paris Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at Paris, France, in December 2015 (UNFCCC 2015). We compare and contrast this quota with both the aspirations expressed in the current Irish National Policy Position and current national emission projections. The fair share quota is assessed as a maximum of c. 391 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2), equal to 83 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) per capita, from 2015, based on a precautionary estimate of the global carbon budget (GCB) and specific interpretation of global equity. Given Ireland’s high current CO2 per capita emission rate, this would correspond to sustained year-on-year reductions in nett annual CO2 emissions of over − 11% per year (beginning as of 2016). By contrast, the CO2 mitigation target indicated in the National Policy Position corresponds to nett annual reduction rates in the range of only −4.7% per year (low ambition) up to a maximum of − 8.3% per year (high ambition), and projections based on current and immediately planned mitigation measures indicate the possibility, instead, of sustained increases in emissions at a rate of the order of + 0.7% per year. Accordingly, there is a large gap between Paris-aligned ambition and current political and policy reality on the ground, with a significant risk of early emergence of “CO2 debt” and tacit reliance on rapid deployment of currently speculative (at a relevant scale and feasible cost) negative CO2 emission technologies to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While the detailed policy situation will clearly differ from country to country, we suggest that this methodology, and its CO2debt framing, may be usefully applied in other individual countries or regions. We recommend that such framing be incorporated explicitly into a global mitigation strategy via the statements of nationally determined contributions required to be submitted and updated by all parties under the Paris Agreement processes.


Climate change mitigation Global carbon budget National carbon quota Climate policy Carbon debt Negative carbon dioxide emissions Carbon dioxide removal 


Funding information

This study is based on research supported by the Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland (EPA) Research Programme 2014–2020 (grant number 2016-CCRP-MS.36), as part of the IE-NETs project, Investigating the potential for Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) in Ireland.


  1. Alcott B (2010) Impact caps: why population, affluence and technology strategies should be abandoned. J Clean Prod 18:552–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen MR, Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Millar RJ, Cain M, Frame DJ, Macey AH (2018) A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1:16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson K, Bows A (2011) Beyond “dangerous” climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369:20–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson K, Broderick J (2017) Natural gas and climate change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Report commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe. Nov 2017.
  5. Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354:182–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson K, Stoddard I, Schrage J (2017) Koldioxidbudget och vägar till en fossilfri framtid för Järfälla kommun. Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development. Oct 2017.
  7. Bows-Larkin A (2015) All adrift: aviation, shipping, and climate change policy. Clim Pol 15:681–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E (2015) Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527:235–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CCAC (2016) First report of the Climate Change Advisory Council. Climate Change Advisory Council [Ireland] Dec 2016.
  10. CCAC (2018) Annual review 2018. Climate Change Advisory Council [Ireland]. Jul 2018.
  11. DECLG (2014) Climate action and low-carbon development: National Policy Position Ireland. Department of Environment Community and Local Government, Dublin Google Scholar
  12. Donner S, Zickfield K (2016) Canada’s contribution to meeting the temperature limits in the Paris Climate Agreement. 2016.
  13. Dorsch MJ, Flachsland C (2017) A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Glob Environ Politics 17:45–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EPA (2017) Ireland’s National Inventory Report 2017: greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2015 [UNFCCC NIR format data submission]. Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) 2017.
  15. EPA (2018a) Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions projections 2017–2035. Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland). May 2018.
  16. EPA (2018b) Ireland’s provisional greenhouse gas emissions 1990–2017. Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland). Dec 2018.
  17. Fuss S, Canadell JG, Peters GP, Tavoni M, Andrew RM, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Jones CD, Kraxner F, Nakicenovic N, le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Sharifi A, Smith P, Yamagata Y (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:850–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geden O, Löschel A (2017) Define limits for temperature overshoot targets. Nat Geosci 10:881–882. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gignac R, Matthews HD (2015) Allocating a 2°C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environ Res Lett 10:075004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glynn J, Gargiulo M, Chiodi A, Deane P, Rogan F, Ó Gallachóir B (2018) Zero carbon energy system pathways for Ireland consistent with the Paris Agreement. Clim Pol 19(1):30–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, Schlesinger WH, Shoch D, Siikamäki JV, Smith P, Woodbury P, Zganjar C, Blackman A, Campari J, Conant RT, Delgado C, Elias P, Gopalakrishna T, Hamsik MR, Herrero M, Kiesecker J, Landis E, Laestadius L, Leavitt SM, Minnemeyer S, Polasky S, Potapov P, Putz FE, Sanderman J, Silvius M, Wollenberg E, Fargione J (2017) Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:11645–11650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen J, Nazarenko L, Ruedy R, Sato M, Willis J, del Genio A, Koch D, Lacis A, Lo K, Menon S, Novakov T, Perlwitz J, Russell G, Schmidt GA, Tausnev N (2005) Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431–1435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holz C, Kartha S, Athanasiou T (2017) Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5°C-compliant global mitigation effort. Int Environ Agreements 18(1):117–134.
  24. IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018.
  25. IPCC (2014) AR5 Synthesis Report (fifth assessment). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014.
  26. Kartha S, Athanasiou T, Caney S, Cripps E, Dooley K, Dubash NK, Fei T, Harris PG, Holz C, Lahn B, Moellendorf D, Müller B, Roberts JT, Sagar A, Shue H, Singer P, Winkler H (2018) Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat Clim Chang 8:348–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuriakose J, Anderson K, Broderick J, McLachlan C (2018a) Quantifying the implications of the Paris Agreement for Greater Manchester. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Report commissioned by Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Mar 2018.
  28. Kuriakose J, Anderson K, Broderick J, McLachlan C (2018b) Quantifying the implications of the Paris Agreement for the city of Manchester. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Report commissioned by Manchester Climate Change Agency. Jul 2018.
  29. Larkin A, Kuriakose J, Sharmina M, Anderson K (2017) What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations. Clim Pol 18:690–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsson J, Elofsson A, Sterner T, Åkerman J (2019) International and national climate policies for aviation: a review. Clim Pol 19:787–799.
  31. Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Friedlingstein P et al (2018) Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 10:2141–2194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenzi D, Lamb WF, Hilaire J, Kowarsch M, Minx JC (2018) Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis. Nature 561:303–305.
  33. Mander S, Anderson K, Larkin A, Gough C, Vaughan N (2017) The role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage in meeting the climate mitigation challenge: a whole system perspective. Energy Procedia 114:6036–6043. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGeever AH, Price P, McMullin B, Jones MB (2019) Assessing the terrestrial capacity for negative emission technologies in Ireland. Carbon Manage 10:1–10.
  35. Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, de Oliveira Garcia W, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Lenzi D, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente Vicente JL, Wilcox J, del Mar Zamora Dominguez M (2018) Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 13:063001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ó Gallachóir B, Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, et al (2012) Irish TIMES energy systems model. Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland). 2012.
  37. Pan X, den EM, Höhne N et al (2017) Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environ Sci Pol 74:49–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peters GP (2018) Beyond carbon budgets. Nat Geosci 11:378–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters GP, Geden O (2017) Catalysing a political shift from low to negative carbon. Nat Clim Chang 7:619–621.
  40. Pierrehumbert RT (2014) Short-lived climate pollution. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 42:341–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Polimeni JM, Mayumi K (2008) The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements. Routledge.
  42. Priestley S (2019) UK carbon budgets. House of Commons Library (UK). 20 Feb 2019.
  43. Pye S, Li FGN, Price J, Fais B (2017) Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris Agreement era. Nat Energy 2:17024. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raupach MR, Davis SJ, Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Friedlingstein P, Jotzo F, van Vuuren DP, le Quéré C (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:873–879. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robiou du Pont Y, Jeffery ML, Gütschow J, Rogelj J, Christoff P, Meinshausen M (2016) Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat Clim Chang 7:38–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ (2017) A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355:1269–1271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Schaeffer M, Knutti R, Riahi K (2015) Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming. Environ Res Lett 10:075001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Friedlingstein P, Gillett NP, van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Allen M, Knutti R (2016) Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat Clim Chang 6:245–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogelj J, Schleussner C-F, Hare W (2017) Getting it right matters: temperature goal interpretations in geoscience research. Geophys Res Lett 44:10,662–10,665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sargl M, Wolfsteiner A, Wittmann G (2016) The Regensburg model: reference values for the (I)NDCs based on converging per capita emissions. Clim Pol 17:664–667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith P (2016) Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob Chang Biol 22:1315–1324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson RB, Cowie A, Kriegler E, van Vuuren DP, Rogelj J, Ciais P, Milne J, Canadell JG, McCollum D, Peters G, Andrew R, Krey V, Shrestha G, Friedlingstein P, Gasser T, Grübler A, Heidug WK, Jonas M, Jones CD, Kraxner F, Littleton E, Lowe J, Moreira JR, Nakicenovic N, Obersteiner M, Patwardhan A, Rogner M, Rubin E, Sharifi A, Torvanger A, Yamagata Y, Edmonds J, Yongsung C (2015) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith P, Haszeldine RS, Smith SM (2016) Preliminary assessment of the potential for, and limitations to, terrestrial negative emission technologies in the UK. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 18:1400–1405. Google Scholar
  54. Smith SM, Lowe JA, Bowerman NHA, Gohar LK, Huntingford C, Allen MR (2012) Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits. Nat Clim Chang 2:535–538.
  55. Solomon S, Pierrehumbert RT, Matthews D, Daniel JS, Friedlingstein P (2013) Atmospheric composition, irreversible climate change, and mitigation policy: introduction. In: Asrar GR, Hurrell JW (eds) Climate science for serving society. Springer, Netherlands, pp 415–436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change. United Nations. 1992.
  57. UNFCCC (2015) Decision 1/CP.21: Adoption of the Paris Agreement. United Nations 12 Dec 2015.
  58. van den Berg NJ, van Soest HL, Hof AF, den Elzen MGJ, van Vuuren DP, Chen W, Drouet L, Emmerling J, Fujimori S, Höhne N, Kõberle AC, McCollum D, Schaeffer R, Shekhar S, Vishwanathan SS, Vrontisi Z, Blok K (2019) Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Clim Chang.
  59. Winkler H, Höhne N, Cunliffe G, Kuramochi T, April A, de Villafranca Casas MJ (2018) Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed. Int Environ Agreements 18:99–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winning M, Pye S, Glynn J, et al (2018) How low can we go? The implications of delayed ratcheting and negative emissions technologies on achieving well below 2 °C. In: Limiting global warming to well below 2 °C: energy system modelling and policy development. Springer, pp 51–65.
  61. Yue X, Rogan F, Glynn J, Ó Gallachóir B (2018) From 2°C to 1.5°C: how ambitious can Ireland be? In: Limiting global warming to well below 2°C: energy system modelling and policy development. Springer, pp. 191–205.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Trinity CollegeUniversity of DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations