Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer
Procedia Computer Science
Science 122
00 (2017)
(2017)000–000
362–369
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Information Technology and Quantitative Management (ITQM 2017)

Analysis and Predictions of Historical Responsibilities of Carbon

Mitigation Based on the RICE-2010 Model
Bin Li*, Tingting Li, Huifang Zeng
Business School, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China

Abstract

The background of the principle of historical Responsibilities (PHR) is that the allocation mechanism of carbon emission
space contained in the Kyoto Protocol results in static, dynamic and other unfairness to developing countries. However, with
the rapid increase of China’s carbon emissions in recent years, may China keep the relative advantages on historical
accumulation emissions and per capita emission in the future? This paper adopts RICE-2010 to predict the future carbon
emissions for major economies. We find that China may still keep a small advantage on per capita emissions, but will become
the largest responsible country after the middle of this century and continue to rank first. This means that the PHR will lead
China to the embarrassment of self-contradiction sooner or later. The PHR shall complete its “historical responsibility” of
correcting the defects of the Kyoto Protocol. China shall shift from the PHR to a somewhat more constructive strategy.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 5th International Conference on Information Technology
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the organizers of ITQM 2017
and Quantitative Management, ITQM 2017.
Keywords: carbon mitigation; principle of historical responsibilities; Kyoto Protocol

1. The Kyoto Protocol and the Principle of Historical Responsibilities

Although the international community achieved a consensus to adopt the necessary actions to inhibit global
warming more than 20 years ago, there has always been deep divergence on how the actions should be taken.
One idea is to avoid a nonreversible climate catastrophe, establish an upper limit to the volume of carbon
emissions, and allocate the volume for each economy. The other idea emphasizes that mitigation will not deplete
the development rights of a country, believes that developed countries will bear the historical responsibilities of
carbon emissions and provide funds and technology to support mitigation (Chen Ying [1]), and extends further
to propose a fairness doctrine that carbon emissions per capita be equal (He Jian Kun [2]). The Kyoto Protocol
represents the first idea, while China represents the second.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 86-153-6710-4227; fax: 86-731-5829-0306.

E-mail address: libin2000@163.net.

1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 5th International Conference on Information Technology and
Quantitative Management, ITQM 2017.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.381
 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369 363
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to shift climate change towards a temperature decline before global
warming exceeds an unknown threshold level. However, this idea has certain serious defects. The carbon
emissions per capita usually experience an initial increase; then it declines. This behavior is referred to as the
Carbon Kuznets Curve (CKC). In 1990, the levels of developed countries’ carbon emissions are approximately
at or near their peaks (Zhou Jun [3]). Conversely, carbon emissions per capita in developing countries are in an
increasing phase. When the proportions of the carbon emissions are determined based on the emission levels in
1990 according to the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries garner large quotas, while developing countries garner
small quotas due to their initial development phase. This static perspective of assigning property rights leads to
unfairness between different groups from the beginning of carbon mitigation. Moreover, ignoring CKC implies
long-run dynamic wealth allocation effects. Usually, the economic catch-up of developing countries is
accompanied by a process of deepening industrialization. They have to purchase additional carbon emissions
rights from developed countries. It essentially confers the fruits of poor countries to rich countries. Third, the
effect of pollution heaven intensifies the order of severity of unfairness. Enterprises in developed countries may
take the opportunities to transfer high pollution and high energy consumption industries to burgeoning economies
as an inexpensive means of achieving mitigation, while developing countries do not realize or prioritize the
environmental and climate issues due to urgent demands for economic growth. Fourth, the allocation space
contains rent-seeking opportunities. Firms may be induced to find rent-seeking approaches to obtain favor in
obtaining emissions rights or increasing the quota amount.
Since the Kyoto Protocol is regarded as harming developing countries’ growth potential, China adopts
Brazil’s proposal and emphasizes the principle of historical responsibilities (PHR). It uses historical emissions
accumulation as the standard of carbon emissions space allocation, so as to match responsibility and obligation.
As an extension to this idea, He Jian Kun [2] argues that allocation standards will be based on emissions per
capita or emissions accumulation per capita. Fan Gang [4] provide the principle of common but differentiated
carbon consumption rights, in which the allocation standard is based on how much carbon is emitted via
people’s consumption. These different versions of PHR emphasize the fairness of carbon mitigation.
Developing countries will gain a relatively large proportion of the carbon emissions space and the
corresponding development space.

Fig. 1. (a) Carbon emissions ratios of major economies to the global total; (b) Annual carbon emissions per capita of major economies

Data source: CDIAC.

364 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369
Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

The PHR begins with fairness; it also expects to assign historical responsibilities to maintain national
rights of development. As with the Kyoto Protocol, this principle also has a theoretical foundation in the Coase
theorem; what is different is that it recommends another carbon emissions allocation standard. The PHR’s
perspective and logic contributes to the practices of international carbon mitigation. Our concern is that, in a
dynamic changing environment, it is impossible for one country to retain historical emissions and emissions per
capita advantages forever. This point is particularly prominent when China is in its increasing CKC stage,
while many developed countries have previously switched to a CKC declining phase.
Figure 1 displays the ratio of carbon emissions of various countries or regions to global emissions and the
annual carbon emission per capita. It is obvious that China’s carbon emissions increase rapidly and exceed the
EU and the U.S.A. in 2003 and 2006, respectively. In 2012, global emissions 9.666 billion metric tons of carbon,
among which, China contributes approximately 28%, almost twice over 16% by the USA. China’s emissions per
capita are much lower than that of developed countries, but are obviously higher than that of India and have a
rapidly increasing trend in the recent 10 years.
Figure 1 indicates that China’s accumulation will be increasingly higher; at the same time, those of developed
countries will be increasingly lower. Then, do China’s advantages remain? Or, at what time will such advantages
end? This paper attempts to answer these questions by adopting the Nordhaus’ RICE-2010 model. The novelty
of the questions is the marginal contribution of this paper. As to the RICE-2010 model, we keep using its structure
and make small modifications by updating some parameters and initial values.
The structure of this paper is as follows. Part one introduces the research background and raise questions. Part
two describes the RICE-2010 model and predicts future emissions. Part three analyzes the principle of historical
responsibilities (PHR). The last part is concluding remarks.

2. Predicting Future Carbon Emissions Based on the RICE-2010 Model

This paper adopts the Nordhaus’s RICE-2010 model to predict the carbon emissions of various countries in
the future, so as to compute the historical responsibilities of major economies in the ensuing years. RICE-2010
is modified from the DICE model in William D. Nordhaus [5]; and is improved as an integrated assessment
model (IAM), as constructed in William D. Nordhaus [6-7]. IAM is a special type of dynamic computable general
equilibrium model. These models are usually based on the neoclassical economic growth model and are used to
analyze long-run changes in carbon emissions. These models’ prominent characteristics are combining an
economic system with carbon cycling and a climate system, and capturing mutual influences among different
systems using the numerical computation method. The scenario simulation method exogenously specifies the
future path for variables such as GDP, population and carbon emissions intensity; IAMs are different. In IAMs,
the GDP, the saving rates and the optimal carbon mitigation rate of a country are all endogenous. These variables
may adjust optimally according to changes in climate and economy situations. Therefore, IAMs are superior to
the scenario simulation method because it captures the long-run evolvement of sophisticated systems at a cost of
higher difficulties in computation. Among IAMs, the RICE-2010 is an outstanding model with a high academic
reputation.
RICE-2010 divides the world into 12 regions: the U.S.A., EU (26 countries, including the U.K.), Japan, Russia,
China, India, Middle East (15 countries), Africa (53 countries), Latin America (39 countries), other developed
countries (7 countries), east Europe and CIS (23 countries), and other Asia countries (28 countries). Each region
is an independent economic system. The model’s social welfare function is defined as a discounted sum of utility
caused by the consumption per capita in a period,

Li ,t  Ci ,t / Lt 
1

max  (1)
t (1   ) 1
Ct t
 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369 365
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

in which, parameter  (=1.5) is the social time preference rate,  (=1.5) is the marginal utility elasticity of
consumption, endogenous variable Ci,t is the aggregate consumption for region i in period t, and exogenous
variable Li,t is the population for region i in period t.
Every region has two kinds of factors: capital and labor. Ki,t is the capital stock. Given the rental rate ri ,t for
capital and wage rate  i,t for labor, every region chooses Ci,t to maximize the object function (1) subject to the
constraint of equation (2):

Ki ,t 1  ri ,t Ki ,t  i ,t Li ,t  Ci ,t  (1   ) Ki ,t (2)

in which parameter  is the discount rate for capital goods.

Suppose all markets of products and factors are competitive. The net output Yi,t in every region is formed by
capital and labor and reduced by climate damages and i,t of mitigation costs:

1
Yi ,t  1   i ,t  Ai ,t  Li ,t  K 
i 1i
i ,t
(3)
1  1,i  TAT (t )  2,i  TAT
2
(t )

A i,t is the total factors productivity and parameter i is the output elasticity of labor for region i. The fraction
on the right of equation (3) represents negative impacts from the increase in atmosphere temperature.  1,i and
 2,i are parameters of climate damages. TAT(t) is the extent by which the global average atmosphere temperature
is higher than the average from 1961 to 1990.  i,t is the portion by which the mitigation input occupies output.
This portion is relevant to the mitigation rate  i,t [0,1] :  i,t  cost i,t  (  i,t)2.8 in which cost i,t is the cost
coefficient of carbon mitigation that changes exogenously.  i,t is the control variable that is chosen by
representative micro-agents.
The relation between carbon emission E i,t and economic activities is

Ei ,t  Elandi  0.8t   i ,t  Yi ,t  (1  i ,t ) (4)

The first item on the right of equation (4) is the net CO2 emission generated from changes in land usages which
is specified to change exogenously. At initial of a period, the annual emissions are Elandi billion metric tons
of carbon (GTC), and those of the next period are 80% of the previous period.  i ,t is carbon emission
intensity, an exogenous variable.
RICE-2010 adopts a specific form for carbon cycling and climate change. The global total carbon emissions
is E t ; it enters the global carbon cycling process and influences the climate. Let MAT(t), MUP(t) and MLOW(t)
represent the reserves stored in the atmosphere, the earth’s surface and the deep ocean respectively. The carbon
cycling process can be described by the following reduced-form VAR:

 M AT (t )   Et   0.88 0.047 0   M AT (t  1) 
 M (t )    0    0.12 0.948 0.0008   M (t  1)  (5)
 UP       UP 
 M (t )   0   0 0.005 0.9993   M LOW (t  1) 
 LOW    

The changes in the density of CO2 in the atmosphere result in changes in the greenhouse effect, which is
measured by radiative forcing Ft :
366 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369
Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

3.8
Ft  ln  M AT (t )  M AT (1750)  (6)
ln 2

Equation (6) means that, if the carbon density in the atmosphere doubles relative to that in 1750, the level of
radiative forcing will increase by 3.8 times. Changes in radiative forcing will lead the atmosphere temperature
on the surface of earth TAT(t) and the temperature in the deep oceans TLOW(t) to change. The corresponding
reduced-form dynamic evolving VAR is:

TAT (t )  TAT (t  1)  0.208  [ Ft  3.8  TAT (t  1)  3.2

(7)
 0.31   TAT (t  1)  TLOW (t  1) ]

TLOW (t )  TLOW (t  1)  0.05   TAT (t  1)  TLOW (t  1)  (8)

In this model, representative micro-agents in every economy have two sets of choices. One choice is the
traditional intra-temporal consumption choice. Consuming more today means utility today is high, but capital
stock would be less tomorrow, then, the potential future consumption decreases. The other choice is the carbon
mitigation rate. One may either reduce the energy consumption to reduce the risks caused by global warming,
or maintain energy consumption habits and obtain high contemporary payoffs.
Since there are an excessive number of endogenous variables, it is unrealistic to analyse these
qualitatively. Numerical solutions are usually adopted. The parameters and initial values of the endogenous
variables in the model shall be determined at first. All parameters in the climate module and part of those in the
economic module have been designated in the above texts. Others are described here. All output elasticities of
capital are 0.3, in accordance with the corresponding values in RICE-2010. The discount rate is altered from
5% to 10% as 5% is low for China (Li Bin [8]). The beginning year is set in 2010 instead of 2005 in RICE-
2010. The population and initial GDP are updated according to the WDI database of the World Bank. Since the
initial saving rates have little influences on the computation of the model, this paper uses those in RICE-2010.
The initial values for important variables are listed in table 1.

Table 1. Initial values for variables of 12 economies

Starting year: 2010 GDP K j ,0 Pj ,0 rj ,0

U.S.A. 13.09 24.12 0.310 0.163
EU 14.79 26.45 0.549 0.168
Japan 3.90 7.18 0.127 0.163
Russia 2.01 3.30 0.142 0.183
East Europe and CIS 1.53 2.59 0.197 0.178
China 9.12 15.84 1.338 0.173
India 3.76 6.35 1.225 0.178
Middle East 2.59 4.02 0.217 0.193
Africa 2.75 4.51 1.020 0.183
Latin America 5.77 9.73 0.589 0.178
Other developed countries 3.98 7.11 0.122 0.168
Other Asian countries 3.39 5.72 1.032 0.178
Note: GDP, Ki,0, Pi,0, and ri,0 are the aggregate output, the capital stock, the population and the gross return rate of capital respectively; the
measurement units of GDP and capital are trillion dollars in constant 2005 purchasing power parity, and that of population is billion.
 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369 367
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

The software utilized to seek numerical solutions to this sophisticated model. is Premium Solver Platform
v11.5. Feasible solutions are obtained. Figure 2 displays the predictions for the future carbon emissions of
major countries. From the solid line in the figure, we can observe that China’s carbon emissions approach its
peak in 2020-2030, and then decline gradually. Throughout the 21st century, China’s contemporary carbon
emissions are highest among all economies. Among other major economies, Western developed countries are
basically in a CKC declining stage. These countries’ carbon emissions continue decreasing. India behaves
somewhat special. India needs a long time to pass through its development stage, and then shift. This behaviour
leads India to replace China as the largest economy with respect to carbon emission at the end of the 21st
century.

Fig. 2: Prediction on future carbon emissions

Fig. 3: (a) Prediction on carbon emissions per capita; (b) Future ratio of carbon emissions accumulation
368 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369
Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

3. Observing and Analyzing Historical Responsibilities

Fig. 3(a) displays the carbon emissions per capita of certain major economies in the future. Regarding this
aspect, China is low in 2010, but matches EU quickly, and then exceeds Russia and CIS between 2030 and
2040. In the following half of the century, the carbon emission per capita of China continues to rank fourth, far
below that of the U.S.A. and lower than those of high-income countries such as Japan. From the computation
results, we can observe that, although carbon emission per capita of China is higher than developed economies
such as EU, it continues to have certain advantages. At least this emissions statistic is not as conspicuous as the
period carbon emissions.
The most important question in this paper is in what period China’s advantages in historical accumulation
emissions will end. Based on CDIAC’s historical data and the carbon emissions estimated by RICE-2010,
future carbon emissions accumulation for various economies can be calculated. Dividing these figures by the
global total emissions accumulation at the same time point will provide the carbon emissions accumulation
ratios for every economy. The results are displayed in figure 3(b). The figure indicates that, in 2010, the ratio of
carbon emissions accumulation for China ranks lower than the U.S.A., the EU, Russia and CIS, but higher than
India and other high-income countries. Conversely, consistent with very high future carbon emissions, China’s
accumulation emissions ratio is also continuously increasing. This ratio will exceed that of Russia and CIS in
approximately 2020, that of the EU in 2040 and that of the U.S.A. in 2060. After 2060, China will continue to
rank first in the world. It is obvious that the advantage of China on historical responsibility is not unchangeable.
In the middle of this century, China replaces the U.S.A. to become the country with the highest ratio on
accumulation carbon emission. It means that the economy with the largest historical responsibility is China.
It is necessary to further ponder historical responsibilities. First, overly emphasizing historical
responsibility is a double-edged sword for China. This behaviour neglects the potential changes in future
responsibility. Currently, China does have certain advantages in emissions accumulation. However, when
China’s ratio of emissions accumulation becomes the highest globally in the future, China is likely to sink into
the embarrassment of self-contradiction. From this point, we can observe that the PHR is not sustainable.
Eventually, this principle will negatively affect China’s efforts to build a reputation as a responsible country.
Second, the PHR ignores scientific, technological and economic contributions behind historical emissions.
Beginning with the industrial revolution, the West leads in economic and technological aspects. Dozens of
brand new industries and uncountable new products emerge; these were unimaginable in the operating
mechanism of China’s previous agricultural society. Due to the continuous innovations of the West, many
other countries, including China, reaped huge benefits. Although industrial development leads to the problem
of global warming, it is basically a side effect, and the primary influence is the universal improvement of
human welfare. If an ocean island society stays at its conventional habits and its survival surroundings are
indeed affected by global warming, can its request to the West to bear responsibility be reasonable. China is a
beneficiary from the leading role of Western societies in technology and economies. It would be more rational
for China to participate in the problem solving process constructively; however, the PHR delivers a certain
impression of isolation from others.
Third, over emphasizing development rights may lead an irreversible climate catastrophe. Although the
solution of allocating carbon emission space in the Kyoto Protocol contains serious unfairness, its starting point
is sound in that it prevents global warming from achieving a threshold level. If we do not consider this kind of
risk and hold a position regarding which developing countries emit equal carbon emissions on par developed
countries, the huge population in these under-developed countries would greatly strengthen the extent of global
warming and increase the probability of an irreversible climate catastrophe.
Moreover, it is difficult to achieve the request that developed countries should provide funds and
technology free of charge for carbon mitigation, as economic entities are primarily private-owned enterprises.
In Western society, if a private company profits from low carbon technology, it has the right to refuse the
request to reveal the details of its technology to government. Technology transfer and similar occurrences are
not determined by governments in Western societies. Regarding funds, China is the second largest economy
 Bin Li et al. / Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017) 362–369 369
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000

and largest carbon emission country; it will act as a fund-delivering role instead of a receiving role.
Fifth, the PHR also ignores those useful attempts on the issue of carbon mitigation by developed countries.
Climate change is a by-product of industrial progress. The unveiling process of climate change’s influences is
very slow, and time is needed for extensive acknowledgement. With increasingly more and more knowledge on
the science of climate change, Western countries have indeed been continually acting on the issue of carbon
mitigation. Although the Kyoto Protocol triggers debates, it offers experience in designing more reasonable
carbon mitigation solutions.
In short, the PHR is proffered with the objective remedying unsoundness in the Kyoto Protocol. Under the
new situation that the Kyoto Protocol is unpopular among various countries, the PHR shall complete its
“historical responsibility”. China need adjust its strategies for participating international carbon mitigation.

4. Concluding Remarks

This paper investigates China’s historical responsibility in carbon emissions. One of the reasons by which
China uses the PHR to address the potential unsoundness in the Kyoto Protocol is that China has relative
advantages in historical accumulation emission and emissions per capita. However, since China’s annual
carbon emissions climbs increasingly higher, could this kind of advantages be retained continuously? If not,
China cannot always take the moral stand. We obtain help from the Nordhaus’ RICE-2010 model and
numerically compute a series of carbon emission of various economies from 2010 to the time when zero
emission is accomplished. Combining them with historical emission data, one can obtain the carbon emissions
accumulation ratios and the carbon emissions per capita for major economies in the future. Estimates indicate
that China will retain a small advantage on carbon emission per capita and do not rank in the front, but at the
aspect of ratio of accumulation emission, China will become the largest responsible country after the middle of
this century and continue to rank first. This finding means that the PHR will lead China to the embarrassment
of self-contradiction. China has to either adopt time-inconsistent actions to avoid such an embarrassment, or
bear the cost of damaging international reputation of responsible large country. More analysis indicates that the
PHR has other shortcomings. Therefore, the PHR shall be treated as an interim strategy. With situations
changing, China shall depart from it and adopt a somewhat more constructive strategy.

Acknowledgements

Thanks for the financial support by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 17BJY217).

References

[1] Chen Y, Pan JH, Zhuang GY. The historical responsibility for preventing global warming and the obligations of the north and the
south. The Journal of World Economy (China) 1999; 2: 62-80.
[2] He JK, Liu B, Chen WY. Analysis on the equity of global climate change issues. China Population,Resources and Environment
(China) 2004; 6: 12-15.
[3] Zhou J, Li B. International Comparative Analysis of Inflection Point of Per capita Carbon Emissions. Forum on Science and
Technology in China (China) 2015; 2: 155-160.
[4] Fan G, Su M, Cao J. An Economic Analysis of Consumption and Carbon Emission Responsibility. Economic Research Journal
(China) 2010; 1: 4-14.
[5] Nordhaus WD, Yang ZL. A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies. American
Economic Review 1996; 86(4): 741-765.
[6] Nordhaus WD, Boyer J. Warming the World: Economic Modeling of Global Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000.
[7] Nordhaus WD. Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the U.S.A. 2010; 107(26): 11721-11726.
[8] Li B. Comparative analysis of estimates on capital stock of China. J Quant Tech Econ (China) 2011; 12: 21-37.