The Kaya Identity has long been used as a simple yet rigorous way to assess options in energy and climate policy. Its shortcoming is that it fails to address the very wide range of non-energy factors. This paper presents a simple extension of the Kaya Identity – the Emissions Quantification Tool or EQT – that incorporates the missing factors while retaining the mathematical transparency of the original. The tool allows national policies to be analysed and compared with international standards for allowable quotas, from which shortfalls or ‘carbon debts’ can be calculated. It can be used to represent almost any conceivable decarbonisation programme, testing assumptions and revealing necessary rates of change. The paper demonstrates the use of the tool by analysing prevailing UK policy and variant scenarios. The results are often surprising.
References
1.
EhrlichP.R., and HoldrenJ.P. (1971) Impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217.
2.
EhrlichP.R., KareivaP.M., and DailyG.C. (2012) Securing natural capital and expanding. equity to rescale civilization. Nature, 486, 68.
3.
KayaY., and YokoboriK. (1997) Environment, energy, and economy: strategies for sustainability.United Nations University Press, Tokyo and New York.
4.
TukkerA., HuppesG., GuinéeJ., HeijungsR., de KoningA., van OersL., SuhS., GeerkenT., Van HolderbekeM., JansenB., and NielsenP. (2006) Environmental impacts of products. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective. Technological Studies. EU report number 22284EN.
5.
AndersonK., and BowsA. (2008) Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 366, 3863–3822.
6.
MeadowsD.H., RandersJ., and MeadowsD.L. (2004) Limits to growth: the 30-year update.Chelsea Green, White River Junction, VT.
7.
TurnerG. (2008) A comparison of the limits to growth with thirty years of reality. CSIRO Working Paper Series 2008–09. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.
SchellnhuberH.J., and KlingenfeldD. (2011) Fairness and physics–observing first principles in global climate policy. Global Change, Peace and Security, 23, 427–433.
HelmD., SmaleR., and PhillipsJ. (2007) Too good to be true?The UK's climate change record.http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/656 [accessed April 2015].
12.
DruckmanA., and JacksonT. (2009) The carbon footprint of UK households 1990–2004: a socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multiregional input output model. Ecol. Econ., 68, 2066–2077.
LentonT.M., and VaughanN.E. (2009) The radiative forcing potential of different decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change. Energy, 30, 2654–2671.
RhodesJ., and KeithD. (2005) Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage. Biomass Bioenerg., 29, 440–450.
17.
ReadP. (2008) Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay. Climatic Change, 87, 305–320.
18.
AudsleyE., AngusA., ChattertonJ.C. (2011) Food, land and greenhouse gases. Committee on Climate Change, DECC, UK.
ReadP., and LermitJ. (2005) Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to climate geoengineering options. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 2559.
31.
GoughC., and UphamP. (2010) Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review. Tyndall Working Paper 147. Tyndall Consortium Institution, Manchester.
32.
IMechE (2009) Mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, UK.
33.
Zero-Carbon Australia (2010) Beyond zero emissions, zero-carbon Australia, http://www.bze.org.au [accessed March 2016].
34.
GreenwayD.E. (1996) Henry Archdeacon of Huntingdon. Historia anglorum. The history of the English people.Oxford Medieval Texts, Oxford.
35.
SundquistE. (1993) The global carbon dioxide budget, Science, 259, 934.
36.
LeQuereC., RaupachM.R., CanadellJ.G., and MarlandG. (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat. Geosci., 2, 831.
37.
MeinshausenM., MeinshausenN., HarelW. (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature, 458, 1158–1162.
38.
MessnerD., SchellnhuberH.J., RahmstorfS., and KlingenfeldD. (2010) The budget approach: a framework for a global transformation toward a low-carbon economy. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 2, 031003
39.
YuS., GaoX., MaC., and ZhaiL. (2011) Study on the concept of per capita cumulative emissions and allocation options. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2, 79–85.
40.
WisemanJ., and EdwardsT. (2012) Post carbon pathways: a critical overview of post carbon economy transition plans.Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Victoria, Australia.
PetersG.P., and HertwichE.G. (2008) CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 1401–1407.
43.
DavisS.J., and CaldeiraK. (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 5687–5692.
44.
CaldeiraK., and DavisS.J. (2011). Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions: A matter of time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., USA, 108, 8533.
45.
KanitkarT., JayaramanT., D'SouzaM., and PurkayasthaP. (2013) Carbon budgets for climate change mitigation–a GAMS-based emissions model. Curr. Sci., 104, 1200–1206.
46.
WeiT., YangS., MooreJ.C. (2012) Developed and developing world responsibilities for historical climate change and CO2 mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 12911–12915.
47.
HöhneN., and BlokK. (2005) Calculating historical contributions to climate change: Discussion of the Brazilian Proposal. Climatic Change, 71, 141.
48.
RandersJ., and GildingP. (2010) “The one degree war plan”, Journal of Global Responsibility, 1, 170–188.
49.
ScottK., OwenA., and BarrettJ. (2013) Estimating emissions associated with future UK consumption patterns.DECC: Committee on Climate Change, University of Leeds, UK.
50.
IEAGHG (2009) Biomass CCS study.IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme, Cheltenham, UK.
51.
SternN. (2009) Blueprint for a safer planet.The Bodley Head, London.
52.
BowenA., CampiglioE., and TavoniM. (2013) A macroeconomic perspective on climate change mitigation: Meeting the financing challenge. Grantham Institute Working Paper 122. Grantham Research Institute–London School of Economics.
