Analysis of Carbon Emissions and Policy Scenarios

This analysis examines historical data on carbon emissions and evaluates policy scenarios for reducing emissions. The policies evaluated include the polluter pays principle, capacity to pay, and contraction and convergence. The analysis also proposes a scheme for allocation and incentives for action.

1. Explore the historical (pre-2010) data with a few simple calculations
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Carbon emmitted
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
YEar
Carbon emmitted in million tonnes
By observing the above line graph there is a degree of homogeneity that can be seen
in the shape of the curves for various countries. China is unique from the others by its
greater rise in the CO2 emissions. The rise has gone past the 2000 million tones which
were experienced in 2009. The CO2 emission was only 500 million as at 1980. The
rest of the curves are relatively constant experiencing a rate of emission which is less
than 1700 million tones. The European nations are some of the highest CO2 emitters,
the USA and China and “non-annex” further filling the list.
When the world curve is looked at a significant increase in the carbon emission rate is
observed between 1980 and 2010. The figures increase to over 8500 million in 2009
up from 5000 million tones. CO2 emission is constantly increasing around the globe.

1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Emission per capita in Millions of tons
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Emmission/capita
From the graph the global CO2 emission is observed to be between 14 and 16 million
tons per inhabitant between 1980-2010. Each of the curves has a slight variation from
each other though differ when it comes to the function of each country.
The curve of the European Union is the highest, this is observed by it being the first in
this chart between 1980-2010 with a constant value of 8 million tons per inhabitant.
The United States follows suit with a value of 3 million tons per inhabitant. This
indicated that the rate of carbon emission experiences a very small variation over time
if compared to the total emission experienced in the region which is experiencing an
increase over the period.

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
GDP/capita (Billion constant 2000 US$)
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
YEar
GDP/capita
The GDP per capita curve overally indicate that GDP is increasing the case scenario
with CO2 emission. The highest curve represents the United States which has
increased from 29 to 39 billion constants 2000 US dollars in the period 1980-2010.
This is followed by the European Union (EU) which have increased from 12 to 20
billion constants 2000 US dollars between the period.

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission Intensity
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Intensity of Emmission
In this last graph we can observe that despite the global increase in the emission of
CO2, there has been a decrease in the emission intensity from 1980 when emissions
are reported in relation to the GDP. Russia leads in the emission intensity followed by
China. Both countries though have a declining curve.
FUTURE POLICY SCENARIOS
2. The “polluter” pays principle

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission Intensity
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Intensity of Emmission
Based on the emissions from !980 the polluter pays principle dictates that China, The
USA, other non-Annex1 countries as well as the European Union should significantly
cut their emissions. The value of the reduction value is 3% less global emissions
yearly. For every year from 2015 onwards the difference in world emissions is
multiplied by a country’s specific proportion of the world carbon emission. The value
is afterward subtracted from a county’s total carbon emission indicted in the previous
year. The pattern replicates till 2050.
Due to their minimal developments the LCD countries don’t have to cut their carbon
emissions. The Russian Federation together with the EU follows a similar projection.
EU though need to cut its carbon emission a little bit considering their greater
emission in the past. The reduction of emission by India will be very little as the
country has contributed minimally to carbon emission in the past.
3. Capacity to pay

1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
2028
2031
2034
2037
2040
2043
2046
2049-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Capacity to Pay
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Carbon Emissions (million tonnes)
Evaluation based on nations capacity to pay indicates that the most developed
counties that are the US, EU and Other Annex1 countries possess the greatest ability
to\ pay considering their higher GDP. The capacity to pay was reached after
considering the summed GDP of each nation on a global scale from 1989. This was
applied in evaluating the capacity to cut the carbon emission by 3% as from 2015. I
took 3% of the previous yeas carbon emitted and multiplied it by the country’s world
GDP proportion. The value was then deducted the total emission recorded by each
country in the previous period.
The less developed nations whose GDP is still relatively low like India and the LCDs
are required to make little carbon emission reduction as they have the minimal
capacity. This also applies to the Russian Federation. China and other Non-Annex
counters need to cut carbon emission though not to the magnitude of the US, EU and
Other Annex1. Developed nations like EU and US possess a greater capacity to cut
carbon emission. With this their emission should be a negative value from 2030
onwards
4. Equal per-capita emissions principle

1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
2028
2031
2034
2037
2040
2043
2046
2049
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contraction and Convergence
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Contaction and convergence
The contraction section that is 2015-2030 is calculated from the countries emission
per capita taking a 3% decrease in the annual world emission.
The formula applied is;
2030 emmission−2015 emission
2030−2015 ∗( given year−2015 )+(country 2015 emission)
After obtaining the total contraction emission its further divided by the total years to
obtain the mean value of emissions annually given the 3% worldwide decrease
agenda. The obtained value is thereafter multiplied by (given year-2015). This
allocates the amount obtained for each year prior to the year is calculated. Finally, the
number is added to the emission as at the beginning of 2015. With this a linear path is
generated based on the global 3% decrease and specific counties emissions. From this
scheme more, developed countries will decrease their emissions while the developing
nations continue to develop and increase emissions up to around 2030. Considering
that the scheme demands that the US and Russia make the very big cut in emission in
brief period it may be difficult to implement unless there is a target emission

reduction roadmap. In the case of China, the country must cut the emission to the pre-
2012 level in the same time span that it took to increase to the current the 2002 level.
5. Compare outcomes
Making a comparison of the polluter pays, contraction and convergence and the pay
scenarios, the EU, USA and Other Annex nations will feel an impact that corresponds
to the nations respective carbon emissions. The three are all required to cut their
emissions at a similar rate in the three policies. The greatest and fastest emission
reduction being under the contraction and reduction policy. Due to this situation it
may be hard to persuade the counties to accept the c & C scenario considering the
availability of other policies that will see them emit less in a quick span. The
contraction and convergence policy is advantageous to the less developed nations like
India and the LDCs as they have room to increase emission before they decrease in
2030 onwards. Should this policy be accepted then it will need strict regulations to
allow for successful implementation as its quite demanding. The polluter pays the
most average for all the nations. The capacity to pay principle is a bit fair though not
as strict as the contraction and convergence scenario. The capacity to pay allows the
nations with the greatest capability and higher GDP to participate more in reducing
the global carbon emissions. The less developed nations will be more comfortable
with the capacity to pay as their low GDP followed by increased emissions may give
them a room even to increase the carbon emission slightly as they undergo
industrialization.
Considering the high probability of the US and EU to reject the capacity to pay
policy, the policy may face hurdles implementing as the two nations play bigger roles
in global agreements. This policy though ethically should be accepted as it gives room
for the underdeveloped nations to improve their economic welfare.
6. Scheme for allocation

1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
2019
2022
2025
2028
2031
2034
2037
2040
2043
2046
2049
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Capacity to Pay by Emissions Percentage
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Year
Capacity to Pay * Percent Emissions
My policy will accommodate the capacity to pay, the proportion of total emission and
the C&C framework. In the period 1980-2015 each counties capacity to pay have
been multiples by the world emission percentage. This takes in to account a nations
emission reduction capacity as well as being responsible for the past emissions. In the
contraction which is the period 2016-2030 a similar formula as the one applied in the
C&C scheme is used. With that the model avails more reasons to accept this policy
than the C&C scenario. This is because if you leave China out other nations are
experiencing a gradual decrease in emissions rather than going for a rapid emission
decrease that will be hard to achieve.
7. Incentives for action

Polluter Pays Capacity to Pay My Scheme C&C
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Comparison of policies
United States European Union Russian Federation
Other "Annex1" Countries* China India
LDCs** Other Non-Annex1
Global Percentage
Total emission reduction in the 2050-2015
Country Polluter Pays Capacity to Pay Suggested
Scheme
C&C
United States 1378.13544 1899.85129 1378.1354 4.187793
European Union 1066.22963 1652.89805 1066.2296 1.738363
Russian Federation 471.69391 67.436492 471.69392 2.8036706
Other "Annex1" Countries* 736.806789 1293.83449 736.80679 2.3352196
China 1150.44731 350.776889 1150.4473 1.812275
India 265.479838 117.676268 265.47984 0.0787923
LDCs** 27.9173301 35.5432295 27.917330 -0.29057
Other Non-Annex1 1222.06809 900.761649 1222.0681 0.5024867
The polluter pays scheme is harder on China as its implementation will demand that they
instantly cut their emissions. As the policy is severely controlled by the past emissions Non-
Annex nations, EU, USA and China will be the nations greatly affected by the policy. The
capacity to pay case rather have lower incentives. The values here are obtained from the GDP
which is an indicator of economic capability’s policy will heavily affect the industrialized
nations if you compare it to the other policies. There will be little incentive4s to commit to

this policy rather than from China who will see their emission reduction condition slightly
lightened in comparison to the other policies.
The suggested scheme appears simpler to the polluter pays though the polluter pays to occur
frequently and demand that developing nations cut emissions while the suggested scheme
allows room for the developing nations to slightly increase their emissions and decrease later
at the convergence stage. The scheme is therefore friendly and will be supported by the less
industrialized nations rather than the polluter pays principle. In the case of contraction and
convergence the stake seems high for the industrialized states as they will be responsible for a
very high cut in the carbon emission within a very short period. This though is ethically
supported as at from 2030 equal per capita emission is achieved and from here onwards all
the nations may now contribute the same amount of emission per capita. The policy cultivates
a sense of equity and equality worldwide.
Overrally, the polluter pays policy may be endorsed by several nations since its
implementation is gradual and its simple for all. Nations are demanded to cut emissions
considering their historical damages. With this it will be hard for a country to claim unfair
treatment in any way. The only set back is that the policy will be hard on nations like China
and Russia who in the past have contributed highly to carbon emission, yet they lack the
capacity to cut the emissions
References
Benson, E., & Napier, P. (2012). Connecting Values: Teaching Sustainability to Communication
Designers. Design and Culture.
Kinsella, S. (2007). The State of the Paper Industry Monitoring the Indicators of Environmental
Performance. Environmental Paper Network.