Responsibility For Carbon Emissions Research Articles

Consumption-based Carbon Emissions and International Carbon Leakage: An Analysis Based on the WIOD Database

The worldwide increase in consumption levels is a major cause of the dramatic rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A thorough understanding of the dynamics of consumption-based carbon emissions and the factors influencing it would facilitate the design of climate policies. This article employs data in the multi-regional input-output tables and on sectoral carbon emissions from the World Input-Output Database (WIOD) to develop a multi-regional input-out (MRIO) model, setting up a consumption-based carbon emission accounting inventory and analyzing global consumption-based carbon emissions and the spillover effects of international carbon emissions. The results show that global consumption- based carbon emissions in 2009 were 28850 Mt, of which about 20 percent were embodied in international trade. A large part of these emissions derived from production in and exports from China and the region comprising Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, Australia and Turkey (BRIIAT), production and exports which were consumed in NAFTA and the Eurozone. If the factor of international trade is taken into consideration, the inter-regional gap in carbon emission intensity narrows, ranging from 2.4 t (BRIIAT) to 14.7 t (NAFTA) consumption-based emissions per capita. Whereas embodied imported carbon accounted for 33 percent and 17 percent in NAFTA and the Eurozone respectively, 29 percent of China’s carbon emissions were caused by the consumption of other countries. Therefore, setting up a consumption-based carbon emission accounting inventory has become increasingly important for international climate negotiations. Moreover, allocating responsibility for carbon emissions between the producer and the consumer will help change the existing mode of consumption and promote emission reduction.

A framework to account for the tourism carbon footprint at island destinations

Given concerns over greenhouse gases and the role of tourism in generating such environmental externality, a consistent carbon measurement framework is needed. This paper combines principles derived from production and consumption accounting measures to better allocate the responsibility for carbon emissions. Utilizing a boundary that includes domestic tourism expenditure, inbound tourism expenditure, and local spending associated with outbound travel, this paper (a) proposes a framework to measure the domestic total carbon effect and foreign-sourced effect, and (b) applies the analytical framework to Taiwan. The empirical study indicates that the carbon emissions for domestic tourism industries, international aviation, and imports accounted for 47%, 28% and 25% of the tourism carbon footprint. It is suggested that an island's dependence on both aviation and international trade leads to a larger share of emissions outside their geographic territory with respect to tourism development.

Responsibility for Historic Carbon Emissions: Lessons from Tort and Statutory Compensation Schemes

Existing legal regimes dealing with analogous issues provide useful guideposts in considering the degree to which emitters bear responsibility for past carbon emissions. With regard to liability for environmental damage, the European Union but not the United States recognizes an exemption from liability if the harm was not understood at the time of the conduct. States have also been reluctant to accept strict liability for environmental damage under international law. Similarly, in European law, a defendant is usually not responsible if the state of scientific knowledge at the time did not enable the discovery of a product defect at the time the product was made. In the United States, many state governments recognize a similar limitation on products liability, although some do not. The problem of climate change is unique in some ways, and the legal system is not always the best gauge of ethical judgments. Nevertheless, understanding how societies have handled other cases of historical responsibility can illuminate the problem of climate justice. These analogous legal regimes suggest strongly that the right answer is somewhere between full responsibility for all historic carbon emissions and complete exoneration for those emitters.

Influence of the carbon cycle on the attribution of responsibility for climate change

The carbon cycle is one of the fundamental climate change issues. Its long-term evolution largely affects the amplitude and trend of human-induced climate change, as well as the formulation and implementation of emission reduction policy and technology for stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Two earth system models incorporating the global carbon cycle, the Community Earth System Model and the Beijing Normal University-Earth System Model, were used to investigate the effect of the carbon cycle on the attribution of the historical responsibility for climate change. The simulations show that when compared with the criterion based on cumulative emissions, the developed (developing) countries’ responsibility is reduced (increased) by 6 %–10 % using atmospheric CO2 concentration as the criterion. This discrepancy is attributed to the fact that the developed world contributed approximately 61 %–68 % (61 %–64 %) to the change in global oceanic (terrestrial) carbon sequestration for the period from 1850 to 2005, whereas the developing world contributed approximately 32 %–49 % (36 %–39 %). Under a developed world emissions scenario, the relatively larger uptake of global carbon sinks reduced the developed countries’ responsibility for carbon emissions but increased their responsibility for global ocean acidification (68 %). In addition, the large emissions from the developed world reduced the efficiency of the global carbon sinks, which may affect the long-term carbon sequestration and exacerbate global warming in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to further consider the interaction between carbon emissions and the carbon cycle when formulating emission reduction policy.

The responsibility for carbon emissions and carbon efficiency at the sectoral level: Evidence from China

This work reviews benefit-based principles to measuring responsibility for carbon emissions at the sectoral level using environmental input–output analysis. Several new emissions multipliers are proposed to measure sectoral carbon efficiency. These principles are used in an empirical analysis of carbon emissions in China, and differences between the principles are compared. The results indicate that all principles considered can prevent double-counting of emissions but that different principles may lead to significantly different attributions of responsibility for carbon emissions and to different multiplier values for particular sectors. Electricity and heat supply is found to be the sector with the highest emissions responsibility under all but the consumer responsibility principle, as well as the highest carbon multiplier under all principles. However, this sector's responsibility under producer responsibility principles is greater than that under other principles. Basic metals and transportation and post and telecommunication are among the top five sectors with the greatest responsibilities under all but the consumer responsibility principle, whereas construction has the highest consumer responsibility among all sectors. The pros and cons and policy implications of each principle are also discussed.

Fueling Injustice: Globalization, Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Climate Change

The globalization of economic production fundamentally reshapes how a ‘fair’ solution to the climate change problem must be forged. Emissions are increasing sharply in developing countries as wealthy nations ‘offshore’ the energy- and natural resource-intensive stages of production. We review a new and relatively under-utilized theory of ‘ecologically unequal exchange’ and apply it to the case of climate change. We describe four distinct principles that have been proposed to assign responsibility for carbon emissions, discuss their inadequacies, and briefly lay out some ‘hybrid’ proposals currently under consideration. We suggest combining hybrid proposals with environmental aid packages that help poorer nations transition from carbon-intensive pathways of development to more climate-friendly development trajectories, using remuneration from the so-called ‘ecological debt’. In the context of deadlock over a completely inadequate Kyoto Protocol, we argue that fairness principles, climate science, and an understanding of globalization and development must be integrated. La globalización de la producción económica cambia completamente la forma de cómo una “simple”solución al problema del cambio climatológico debe de ser alterado. Las emisiones han aumentado bruscamente en los países en desarrollo mientras que los países ricos operan en el extranjero las fases intensas de producción de energía y utilización de recursos naturales. Hemos revisado una teoría nueva y relativamente poco utilizada de ‘intercambio ecológico desigual’ y la hemos aplicado al caso del cambio del clima. Describimos cuatro principios distintos que se propusieron para asignar la responsabilidad a las emisiones de carbón, discutimos sus faltas de adecuación y planeamos brevemente unas propuestas ‘híbridas'que se encuentran actualmente bajo consideración. Sugerimos combinar las propuestas híbridas con los paquetes de ayuda para el medio ambiente que ayuden a las naciones más pobres a hacer la transición de las vías intensivas de desarrollo de carbón a trayectorias de desarrollo más adaptable al clima, usando renumeración de la llamada ‘deuda ecológica’. En el contexto sobre un Protocolo de Kyoto estancado y completamente inadecuado, discutimos que la justicia, ciencia climatológica y el entendimiento de globalización y desarrollo deben integrarse.

CARBON DEBT AND THE (IN)SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORY

My aim in this paper is to discuss the so-called (historical) carbon debt to see who should take responsibility for past carbon emissions and why, and indeed what role we should accord to history when looking for just allocation of duties to cover the costs associated with anthropogenic climate change. I shall argue that the beneficiary pays account, slightly modified, is the most promis ing approach. I also argue that carbon debt should not be interpreted as a call for reparations. Rather, what matters is restoring equality and this requires respecting the entitlements of all individuals to have their vital interests protected. Taking past emissions into account is significant insofar as it shows that the wealth of the affluent industrial countries is not morally protected as it is a consequence of activities that harm the entitlements of others.