An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon

Abstract

The rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is critical to achieving a well-below 2°C world. An emerging body of research explores the implications of this phase-out for fossil fuel producing countries, including the perceived tension between least-cost and most-equitable pathways. Here we present modelling, which redistributes remaining fossil fuel production towards developing countries. We show that redistribution is challenging due to large economic disincentives required to shift production, and offers limited economic benefit for developing countries given the long timeframe required to effect change, and the wider impact of rising fuel import and energy systems costs. Furthermore, increases in production shares are offset by shrinking markets for fossil fuels, which are part dependent on carbon capture and storage (CCS). We argue that while there is a weak economic case for redistribution, there is a clear role for equity principles in guiding the development of supply side policy and in development assistance.

The geopolitics of energy system transformation: A review

“…McGlade and Ekins (2015) adopt a cost-optimal approach to leaving fossil fuels in the ground, although they have been criticised for ignoring political economic and justice considerations (Pye et al, 2020). But the fact remains that their scenario remains the most likely to play out in the future due to a lack of adequate global governance to manage the high-carbon transition (Rayner, 2020).…”

Trends in fossil fuel extraction

“…The median pathways shown in Figure 1 are primarily driven by cost-optimization considerations and depend on many underlying socioeconomic assumptions, such as the levels of carbon capture and storage than can be coupled with fossil fuel or biomass burning, and the expansion of electric or other alternative-fuel vehicles. Furthermore, as Pye et al (2020) noted, this approach does not take into account the political economy and equity issues of fossil fuel production and use.…”

“…Furthermore, a number of scholars have begun exploring approaches and principles for sharing a limited budget of fossil fuel extraction, many of whom have emphasised the importance of considering equity principles (Armstrong, 2020;Caney, 2016;Kartha et al, 2016;Le Billon & Kristoffersen, 2019;Lenferna, 2017;Muttitt & Kartha, 2020;Pye et al, 2020). For example, Caney (2016) proposed three criteria for defining an equitable allocation: a country's level of development, its historical responsibility in terms of past extraction and benefits accrued, and the availability of other resources for development.…”

“…We are motivated both by the importance of managing fossil fuel supply in effective global climate policy (Piggot et al, 2020), and also by the equity implications of a rapid transition away from the commodities -coal, oil, and gas -that some communities (and some countries) depend on for their livelihoods. Indeed, in considering fossil fuel supply as an equity issue, we are building on a rapidly growing literature on equity considerations in the transition away from fossil fuel extraction (Armstrong, 2020;Caney, 2016;Kartha et al, 2016;Le Billon & Kristoffersen, 2019;Lenferna, 2017;Muttitt & Kartha, 2020;Pye et al, 2020;SEI et al, 2020) Accordingly, we present a simple analysis on where fossil fuel extraction has happened historically, and where it will continue to occur and expand if current economic trends continue without new policy interventions. By employing some simple scenario analysis, we also demonstrate how the phase-out of fossil fuel production is likely to be inequitable among countries, if not actively and internationally managed.…”

Contrasting Suitability and Ambition in Regional Carbon Mitigation

“…Scenarios with higher mitigation targets tend to have higher global average RCCs. This is because higher emissions mitigation will lead to a higher marginal mitigation cost [28][29][30] . In GTAP-E, the emission mitigation through carbon tax raises the cost of fossil fuel use and thus reduces the industrial production and GDP.…”