Abstract
With national governments almost universally pledging to achieve net zero emissions, a key uncertainty is how net zero policies will affect global equity. It is unclear which policy measures are available for achieving net zero equitably, what the social and environmental implications of these measures will be under global pathways, or how they might be implemented in ways that advance rather than undermine equity. By means of three stylized future pathways, we show that there are potentially serious international and domestic equity effects from global net zero policies, as well as opportunities to achieve an equitable net zero future for all through appropriate policy design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
16 May 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03361-8
Notes
This difference in ambition shifts the net zero milestone by at least a decade - a fact which appears absent from public discourse to date.
According to the Net Zero Tracker data, the level of official commitment ranges from being enshrined in law (13 countries), legislation under consideration (3 countries), in an official policy document (53 countries), or in active discussion (76 countries).
Future work could compare the equity implications of scenarios for net zero CO2 against net zero GHGs.
These two categories are inspired by but differ slightly from Caney’s (2014) distinction between “harm avoidance justice” and “burden-sharing justice”.
We refer to ‘developed’ and ‘develo**’ countries following the UNFCCC. We also take into account that in the spirit of Paris Agreement, developed countries are obliged to lead mitigation and climate finance, while emerging economies are invited to contribute on a voluntary basis. Thus, the dichotomy between Annex I and Non-Annex I countries is not the only reference point for the CBDR&RC.
In our stylized pathways, we depict the share of CDR undertaken by OECD and non-OECD countries based on the equity principle of cumulative historic emissions, as reported in Fyson et al. (2020).
We focus on CO2 emissions alone. All pathways result in cumulative emissions of 525 GtCO2 over the course of the century, which is close to the budget to stay below warming of 1.5 °C with a probability of 50% (see Table A1 in the Appendix). These pathways serve to illustrate different possibilities for remaining within a given cumulative emissions budget by 2100.
For such quantified scenarios, see Rogelj et al. (2018).
Shue (1993) coined the term ‘subsistence emissions’ but never endorsed the substantive view that became associated with it.
References
Allen MR, Frame DJ, Huntingford C, Jones CD, Lowe JA, Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458(7242):1163–1166. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08019
Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354(6309):182–183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
Bauer N, Bertram C, Schultes A, Klein D, Luderer G, Kriegler E, Popp A, Edenhofer O (2020) Quantification of an efficiency-sovereignty trade-off in climate policy. Nature 588(7837):261–266. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2982-5
Böhringer C, Carbone JC, Rutherford TF (2012) Unilateral climate policy design: efficiency and equity implications of alternative instruments to reduce carbon leakage. Energy Econ 34(S2):S208–S217
Caney S (2014) Two kinds of climate justice: avoiding harm and sharing burdens. J Polit Philos 22(2):125–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12030
Clémençon R (2016) The two sides of the paris climate agreement: dismal failure or historic breakthrough? J Environ Dev 25(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496516631362
Cosbey A, Wooders P, Dröge S, Fischer C, Reinaud J, Stephenson J, Weischer L (2012) A guide for the concerned: guidance on the elaboration and implementation of border carbon adjustment’. Entwined Policy Report No. 3. https://www.iisd.org/publications/guide-concerned-guidance-elaboration-and-implementation-border-carbon-adjustment
Creutzig F, Ravindranath NH, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Bright R, Cherubini F, Chum H, Corbera E, Delucchi M, Faaij A, Fargione J, Haberl H, Heath G, Lucon O, Plevin R, Popp A, Robledo-Abad C, Rose S, Smith P, … , Masera O (2015) Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy 7(5):916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
Dooley K, Holz C, Kartha S, Sonja Klinsky J, Roberts T, Shue H, Winkler H et al (2021) Ethical Choices behind Quantifications of Fair Contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim Chang 11(4):300–305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01015-8
Dröge S, Fischer C (2020) Pricing carbon at the border: key questions for the EU. ifo DICE Report 18(1):30–34. ifo Institute München. https://www.ifo.de/publikationen/2020/aufsatz-zeitschrift/pricing-carbon-border-key-questions-eu
European Commission (2021) Fit for 55': delivering the EU's 2030 climate target on the way to climate neutrality. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550&from=EN
Fuss S, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Jones CD, Lyngfelt A, Peters GP, Van Vuuren DP (2020) Moving toward net-zero emissions requires new alliances for carbon dioxide removal. One Earth 3(2):145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.002
Fuss S, Canadell JG, Peters GP, Tavoni M, Andrew RM, Ciais P, Jackson RB et al (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4(10):850–853. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392
Fyson CL, Baur S, Gidden M, Schleussner C-F (2020) Fair-share carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility. Nat Clim Chang 10:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0857-2
Guterres A (2021) Secretary-general calls latest IPCC climate report ‘code red for humanity’, stressing ‘irrefutable’ evidence of human influence. United Nations Press Release SG/SM/20847. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm
Hayward T (2012) Climate change and ethics. Nat Clim Chang 2(12):843–848. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1615
Honegger M, Michaelowa A, Roy J (2021a) Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals. Climate Policy 21(5):678–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1843388
Honegger M, Poralla M, Michaelowa A, Ahonen H-M (2021b) Who is paying for carbon dioxide removal? designing policy instruments for mobilizing negative emissions technologies. Front Clim 3:672996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.672996
Honegger M, Reiner D (2018) The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim Pol 18(3):306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1413322
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global Warming of 1.5℃. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, et al (eds) World Meteorological Organization, Geneva
Jakob M, Steckel JC, Flachsland C, Baumstark L (2015) Climate finance for develo** country mitigation: blessing or curse? Climate Dev 7(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.934768
Kartha S, Athanasiou T, Caney S, Cripps E, Dooley K, Dubash NK, Fei T et al (2018) Cascading biases against poorer countries. Nat Clim Chang 8(5):348–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0152-7
Lenzi D (2018) The ethics of negative emissions. Global Sustainability 1(e7):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.5
Lenzi D (2021) On the permissibility (or otherwise) of negative emissions. Ethics, Policy & Environment 24:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249
Lenzi D, Kowarsch M (forthcoming) Integrating justice in climate policy assessments: towards a deliberative transformation of feasibility. In Kenehan S, Corey K. Climate Justice and Political Feasibility. Rowman & Littlefield (forthcoming).
Mehling MA, van Asselt H, Das K, Droege S, Verkuijl C (2019) Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am J Int Law 113(3):433–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2019.22
Michaelowa A, Allen M, Sha Fu (2018) Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°c – can humanity rise to the challenge? Clim Pol 18(3):275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1426977
van der Ploeg F (2011) Natural resources: curse or blessing? J Econ Lit 49(2):366–420. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.2.366
Rajamani L (2016) Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 paris agreement: interpretive possibilities and underlying politics. Int Comp Law Q 65(2):493–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000130
Rogelj J, Geden O, Cowie A, Reisinger A (2021) Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature 591(7850):365–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00662-3
Rogelj J, Popp A, Calvin KV, Luderer G, Emmerling J, Gernaat D, Fujimori S et al (2018) scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °c. Nat Clim Chang 8(4):325–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
Shue H (1993) Subsistence emissions and luxury emissions. Law Policy 15(1):39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1993.tb00093.x
Shue H (2017) Climate dreaming: negative emissions, risk transfer, and irreversibility. J Hum Rights Environ 8(2):203–216. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2017.02.02
Shue H (2018) Mitigation gambles: uncertainty, urgency and the last gamble possible. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2119):20170105. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0105
Shue H (2019) Subsistence protection and mitigation ambition: necessities, economic and climatic. Br J Polit Int Relat 21(2):251–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118819071
van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat DEHJ, van den Berg M, Bijl DL, de Boer HS, Daioglou V et al (2018) Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °c target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat Clim Chang 8(5):391–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8
Ward H, Steckel JC, Jakob M (2019) How global climate policy could affect competitiveness. Energy Econ 84(October):104549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104549
Funding
Dominic Lenzi’s research was supported by the RIVET project, funded by Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (grant number: 2020–00202).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This work has not been previously published in any form, nor is under review elsewhere.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: typos in author name and affiliations were corrected
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lenzi, D., Jakob, M., Honegger, M. et al. Equity implications of net zero visions. Climatic Change 169, 20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03270-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03270-2