The scientific and political views of carbon budget for global climate governance

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2018.042

Abstract

Abstract:

IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report has further elaborated and clarified that the global mean temperature increase is nearly linearly proportional to the total cumulative carbon (CO₂) emissions. Despite the scientific uncertainties, the international community has reached certain scientific and political consensus on limiting the global mean temperature increase to below 2℃ relative to the pre-industrial level and the global cumulative carbon emissions (the carbon budget) compatible with this target. But how to incorporate the goal of carbon budget into policy decisions and practical actions is still a significant issue facing the policy makers. Therefore, the discussion to establish an effective integrated carbon budget management framework aimed at avoiding human-induced greenhouse gas emissions that danger the climate system, would be a positive approach in the new model of climate governance to realize the global emission reduction target, and with its scientific and political concepts to enable the policy dialogues and enhance actions.

Key words: Carbon budget, Cumulative carbon emissions, Temperature rise target, Emission reduction

Xiao-Ting CHEN, Ying CHEN. The scientific and political views of carbon budget for global climate governance[J]. Climate Change Research, 2018, 14(6): 632-639.

References

[1]	United Nations. Paris Agreement 2017 [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2018- 01- 10].
[2]	WMO. WMO greenhouse gas bulletin, 2017 [EB/OL]. 2017 [2018-01-10].
[3]	WMO. WMO statement on the state of the global climate 2017 [EB/OL]. 2017 [2018-01-10].
[4]	Allen M R, Frame D J, Huntingford C , et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne[J]. Nature, 2009,458(7242):1163-1166
[5]	Matthews H D, Gillett N P, Stott P A , et al. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions[J]. Nature, 2009,459(7248):829-832
[6]	Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare B , et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2℃[J]. Nature, 2009,458(7242):1158-1162
[7]	Gillett N P, Arora V K . Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations[J]. Journal of Climate, 2013,26:6844-6858
[8]	Zickfeld K, Eby M, Matthews H D , et al. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United State of America, 2009,106(38):16129-16134
[9]	IPCC. Climate change 2014: summary for policymakers [R/OL]. 2015 [2018-01-10].
[10]	Rodhouse P G, Roden C M . Carbon budget for a costal inlet in relation to intensive cultivation of suspension-feeding bivalve mollusks[J]. Marin Ecology Progress Series, 1987,36:225-236
[11]	Yanagi T, Saino T, Ishimaru T , et al. A carbon budget in Tokyo Bay[J]. Journal of Oceanography, 1993,49(3):249-256
[12]	UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 [R/OL]. 2007 [2018-01-10].
[13]	Nordhaus W D . Strategies for the control of carbon dioxide [C]. New Haven: Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University, 1977
[14]	Jaeger C C, Jaeger J . Three views of two degrees[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2011,11(S1):15-26
[15]	IPCC. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996
[16]	European Commission. Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees celsius [EB/OL]. 2007 [ 2018- 01- 10].
[17]	滕飞, 何建坤, 高云 , 等. 2℃温升目标下排放空间及路径的不确定性分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2013,9(6):414-420
[18]	傅莎, 邹骥, 张晓华 , 等. IPCC第五次评估报告历史排放趋势和未来减缓情景相关核心结论解读分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2014,10(5):323-330
[19]	Millar R J, Fuglestvedt J S, Friedlingstein P , et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5℃[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2017,10:741-747
[20]	Goodwin P, Katavouta A, Roussenov V M , et al. Pathways to 1.5℃ and 2℃warming based on observational and geological constraints[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2018,11:102-107
[21]	崔学勤, 王克, 傅莎 , 等. 2℃和1.5℃目标下全球碳预算及排放路径[J]. 中国环境科学, 2017,37(11):4353-4362
[22]	Rogerlj J, Schaeffer M, Freidlingstein P , et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unraveled[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016,6:245-252
[23]	Government of France. Adoption of the national low-carbon strategy for climate [EB/OL]. 2015 [ 2018-01-10].
[24]	Greenford D H, Matthews H D . Canada’s next budget update should include carbon [EB/OL]. National Newswatch, 2018 [ 2018-05-10]. /
[25]	孙永平, 胡雷 . 全球气候治理模式的重构与中国行动策略[J]. 南京社会科学, 2017 (6):29-37
[26]	UNEP. The emissions gap report 2017: a UN environment synthesis report [R/OL]. 2017 [2018-02-15].
[27]	WRI. CAIT climate data explorer [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2017- 11- 28].
[28]	US Department of Energy. United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution [R/OL]. 2015 [ 2018-02-15].
[29]	Climate Interactive. Analysis: U.S. role in the Paris Agreement [EB/OL]. 2017 [ 2018-02-27]. /
[30]	Geden O . Politically informed advice for climate action[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2018,11:380-383
[31]	Matthews H D, Solomon S, Pierrehumbert R . Cumulative carbon as a policy framework for achieving climate stabilization[J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2012 (370):4365-4379
[32]	柴麒麟, 傅莎, 郑晓奇 , 等. 中国重点部门和行业碳排放总量控制目标及政策研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017,27(12):1-7
[33]	杨秀, 王雪纯, 周泽宇 , 等. 我国低碳省份和低碳城市试点进展与分析[C]// 王伟光,郑国光. 应对气候变化绿皮书. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2016: 162-176
[34]	涂建明, 邓玲, 沈永平 , 等. 企业碳预算的管理设计与制度安排: 以发电企业为例[J]. 会计研究, 2016,3:64-71
[35]	章勇 . 英国碳预算对中国的启示[J]. 科技促进发展, 2010 (7):79-81