Achieving the 1.5 °C goal with equitable mitigation in Latin American countries

Vol.:(0123456789) Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10101-5 1 3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Achieving the1.5 °C goal withequitable mitigation inLatin American countries CindyRamírez‑Padilla1· AlbertTuron1· CristiánRetamal1· OlgaAlcaraz1 · BàrbaraSureda1 Received: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 21 December 2023 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract During the past years, the impact of climate change in Latin America has become more evident. It is affecting its natural resources and delaying sustainable development. Achieving the 1.5 °C long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement while ensuring the right to sustainable development is of particular interest to regions with high vulnerability and low adaptation capacity for climate change, such as Latin America. This article analyzes whether the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted within the Paris Agreement framework by Latin American countries align with achieving the 1.5 °C goal. For this analysis, the global carbon budget from 2020 onwards, compatible with the 1.5 °C global temperature scenario, is distributed among countries using two dimensions of equity (equality and historical responsibility). Then, the carbon budget allocated to Latin American countries is compared with the cumulative emissions implied in two scenarios. The first one is the NDC scenario that assumes the implementation of the NDCs submitted until December 31, 2022. The second scenario adds the goal of ending deforestation by 2030, signed by several countries of this region in the Global Leaders Declaration on Forest. Two main conclusions are obtained from the analysis of the cited scenarios. First, Latin American countries will consume 77% of their carbon budget in 2030 by implementing their NDCs. Second, this percentage could be reduced to 58% if Latin American countries reach zero emissions from the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry sector by 2030. If achieved, the region would be on track to reach the 1.5 °C global goal. Keywords Latin America· Paris Agreement· NDC· Mitigation· Carbon budget· Equity * Olga Alcaraz [email protected] 1 Group onGovernance ofClimate Change, UPC Sustainability Science andTechnology Research Group, Escola d’Enginyeria de Barcelona Est, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Campus Diagonal Besòs, Edifici A (EEBE). C. Eduard Maristany, 10-1408019Barcelona, Spain Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 2 of 21 1 Introduction Latin America is highly exposed, vulnerable, and impacted by climate change. In this region, the impacts are magnified by inequalities, poverty, and land use changes mainly due to deforestation, which implies loss of biodiversity and soil degradation. Also, changes in the precipitation patterns and extreme temperatures are impacting agriculture production (Barcena etal. 2020; IPCC 2022a). In addition, future climate projections for Latin America suggest temperature increases and changes in precipitation will intensify the already existing vulnerabilities in this region. It is expected that due to droughts and shrinking glaciers, the region’s risk of food and water insecurity will be accentuated. Also, there is an increasing risk for people and infrastructure caused by floods and landslides and the risk to human health related to the intensification of epidemics. Some of them are interlinked risks that could surpass the public service systems (Reyer etal. 2017; Nagy etal. 2018; IPCC 2022a). For all the reasons mentioned above, countries must undertake adaptation and mitigation efforts to combat climate change and promote cooperation strategies within Latin America and in the framework of the multilateral climate agenda, the Paris Agreement (PA). The PA, adopted in 2015, is the multilateral agreement for climate change governance. It establishes the goal of maintaining the average temperature increase well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit this increase to 1.5 °C relative to preindustrial levels (United Nations 2015). According to the IPCC’s Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), in scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C, anthropogenic net GHG emissions must be reduced by 43% by 2030 relative to the 2019 level (IPCC 2022b). In addition, according to Working Group I, limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires maintaining the cumulative CO2 emissions, until reaching net-zero CO2, below the remaining global carbon budget (RGCB), which is only 400 GtCO2 from 2020 onwards (67% likelihood) (IPCC 2021). The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the PA’s cornerstone for achieving the long-term temperature goal. In a five-year cycle, at maximum, countries communicate mitigation commitments in their NDC that will contribute to achieving the PA’s goals. Regarding the current NDCs, the result of the Synthesis Report published by the UNFCCC Secretariat in October 2022 is of concern. This report assesses the aggregated effect of the 166 latest available NDCs. These include the NDCs submitted by all Parties to the PA as of September 23, 2022. The report confirms that total global GHG emission levels, considering the implementation of the NDCs, are estimated to be 0.6% lower in 2030 than in 2019. Based on the latest NDCs, the same report states that cumulative CO2 emissions in 2020–2030 would likely amount to 430 GtCO2 (UNFCCC 2022a). Thus, the RGCB compatible with the 1.5 °C goal (67% of likelihood) will be exhausted by 2030. Observing the gap between the current mitigation commitments and the 1.5 °C goal mentioned above, it is urgent to perform an analysis that contributes to closing this gap (den Elzen etal. 2022). Besides, we should keep in mind that Article 2 of the PA sets out its implementation to reflect equity and the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR&RC). And also, Article 4 establishes that the long-term temperature goal has to be achieved based on equity and in the context of sustainable development, including efforts to eradicate poverty. According to Article 4, subsequent NDCs must reflect the highest possible ambition under the CBDR&RC principle (United Nations 2015). Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 3 of 21 5 Equity permeates the PA and is deeply rooted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (United Nations 1992). Despite this, a consensus on how to operationalize equity in climate change mitigation has never been attained within the UNFCCC. Mattoo and Subramanian (2012) review on Equity and Climate Change highlights four dimensions for applying equity in mitigation. These dimensions are also included in the AR5 and are as follows: equality, operationalized by allocating the same emissions per capita, based on the idea that all the planet’s inhabitants have the same rights; historical responsibility, based on the necessity to compensate for the harm caused to others; capacity, based on the ability to pay to undertake mitigation actions; and the preservation of the right to sustainable development (IPCC 2014). We differentiate two main approaches among the models that aim to operationalize the equity dimensions mentioned above. One approach is that of models that aim to distribute emissions reduction efforts among countries (Winkler and Marquard 2012). In this group, we find the Greenhouse Development Rights framework (Baer etal. 2008) and the Climate Equity Reference Framework (Holz etal. 2019). These models distribute the burden of emissions reductions and adaptation to climate change by assessing capacity and responsibility. It is worth noting the analysis by Robiou Du Pont etal. (2017) in which cost-optimal mitigation scenarios are represented based on different equity dimensions. A different approach includes models that distribute the RGCB or the right to future emissions based on equity instead of distributing emissions reductions. In this group, we find analyses from the (German Advisory Council on Global Change 2009; Kanitkar etal. 2013; Raupach etal. 2014; Gignac and Matthews 2015; Alcaraz etal. 2018). Raupach’s model allows weighting the result of an equal distribution of the RGCB with a distribution based on the current emissions level (following the inertia principle). Models by the German Advisory Council on Global Change, Kanitkar, Gignac, and Alcaraz are based on the principle of equality and theyconsider the differentiated historical responsibility of countries. Considerations of the date to begin historical responsibility are also debatable (Neumayer 2000; Müller etal. 2009; Höhne etal. 2011). Some authors sustain that historical responsibility should be considered starting from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Moreover, taking into account the industrialization process, with its consequent associated emissions, allowed the development of several countries and their current population to enjoy greater levels of well-being (Cao 2008; Kanitkar etal. 2013). Some authors consider that the international community was only fully aware of the climate change threat until the beginning of the 1990s (Baer etal. 2008; German Advisory Council on Global Change 2009; Parikh and Parikh 2009). In 1990, the IPCC published its first assessment report, and from that moment started the work that led to the approval and subsequent ratification of the UNFCCC document. When the UNFCCC entered into force, no state could claim ignorance of the damage of greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, could not evade their responsibility. It is worth mentioning that some authors highlight the unequal historical responsibility of countries and the need to concede carbon space to countries with more challenges in terms of development needs (Winkler etal. 2013; Bruckner etal. 2022), among which we observe Latin American and Caribbean countries. All Latin American (LATAM) countries have presented their first NDC and an updated or reviewed version of their first NDC (except for Guyana) (UNFCCC 2022b). Considering LATAM countries demonstrated political will to address climate change and their current development needs, the analysis of this region under the prism of equity is deemed of particular interest to policy-makers. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 4 of 21 Recent research is tracking the progress of countries’ climate policies. These include LATAM countries and the compatibility in their NDC to achieve the PA’s long-term goals (Robiou Du Pont etal. 2017; Kemp-Benedict etal. 2018; CAT 2022; MSSRF 2022). Nevertheless, we observe a lack of research considering all LATAM countries and integrating a regional analysis. This article aims to analyze if LATAM countries updated NDC are fair and ambitious in a mitigation scenario compatible with the 1.5 °C global temperature goal. The Model of Climate Justice (MCJ) (Alcaraz etal. 2018) will be used for the analysis. The model applies equity criteria to allocate future cumulative CO2 emissions compatible with the 1.5 °C long-term temperature goal. In other words, the MCJ allows us to determine the carbon budget that would be available for Latin America at a country and regional level. We then compare the estimated available carbon budget for LATAM countries with the share of their budget consumed within their first submitted NDC. This analysis will allow us to evaluate LATAM countries based on their present circumstances. 2 Methodology 2.1 Studied countries The article analyzes 20 countries from Latin America, excluding the Caribbean region. These countries include Mexico and countries from the Central and South American subregions (United Nations classification) (UNDESA 2022). Table1 shows the emissions profile and several development indicators from LATAM countries included in this analysis. The historical CO2 emissions data is obtained from the Climate Watch dataset (Climate Watch 2022). It is essential to highlight that according to the information complementing the database, emissions from the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector present a high uncertainty, between 50 and 70%. In contrast, the uncertainty from data excluding LULUCF is lesser, approximately 8%. Uncertainties related to LULUCF data are widely acknowledged and it is necessary to reduce them (Gütschow etal. 2021; McGlynn etal. 2022; Friedlingstein etal. 2022). Regarding LATAM CO2 emissions, excluding LULUCF, the cumulative per capita emissions from 1990 to 2019 and for 2019 are below the world average. In contrast, these numbers drastically change when we include LULUCF emissions. In this case, aggregated LATAM emissions are above the world average. For several LATAM countries (Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Guyana, Nicaragua, Peru, Paraguay, and Suriname), the LULUCF sector represents more than 2/3 of their total CO2 emissions. A relevant exception is Uruguay, which has negative cumulative emissions per capita from 1990 to 2019, including LULUCF. Although the region has many similarities, significant differences are observable in their development indicators. LATAM countries classified by the World Bank as lower-middle income (World Bank 2022a), such as Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and some upper-middle income countries such as Guatemala and Belize, have considerably low GDP (PPP) per capita than the rest of them. They all have a GDP (PPP) per capita below 10,000 USD, which is lower than the world average (17,587 USD). Table1 also presents development indicators that give a more comprehensive picture of the region. It is evident that some countries in the region have development needs. The following should be highlighted: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua have a Human Development Index (HDI) below 0.7; and Belize, Guyana, Honduras, Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 5 of 21 5 Table 1 Indicators from Latin American countries and development indicators, Latin American total, and world aggregate. Population data from UNDESA (UNDESA 2022), emissions from the Climate Watch dataset (Climate Watch 2022), GDP from World Bank (World Bank 2023). Poverty headcount ratio at US$2.15 a day and Gini Index from World Bank (World Bank 2020, 2022a); Human Development Index from (UNEP 2020) Population (2019) Cumulative CO2 em. including LULUCF per capita (1990– 2019) Cumulative CO2 em. excluding LULUCF per capita (1990– 2019) CO2 em. excluding LULUCF per capita (2019) GDP (PPP) per capita (2019) Poverty headcount ratio at US$2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (2019*) Human Development Index (2019) Gini Index (2019*) Millions tCO2tCO2tCO2USD (% of pop.) Argentina 44.6 5.4 3.8 3.8 23,187 0.8 0.85 42.9 Belize 0.4 20.5 2.0 1.7 9491 18.0 0.71 53.3 Bolivia 11.7 8.5 1.4 1.9 8947 1.9 0.72 41.6 Brazil 211.0 6.5 1.9 2.1 15,362 5.4 0.77 53.5 Chile 18.9 1.2 3.7 4.8 25,430 0.7 0.86 44.9 Colombia 49.8 3.5 1.5 1.6 15,856 5.3 0.77 51.3 Costa Rica 5.1 1.1 1.5 1.6 22,560 1.1 0.82 48.2 Ecuador 17.2 4.3 2.1 2.3 11,970 3.6 0.76 45.7 El Salvador 6.3 1.2 1.0 1.2 9403 1.4 0.68 38.8 Guatemala 17.0 1.8 0.8 1.1 8837 9.5 0.64 48.3 Guyana 0.8 16.0 2.3 3.5 13,247 11.9 0.71 45.1 Honduras 9.9 1.7 0.9 1.0 5900 12.7 0.63 48.2 Mexico 124.6 3.8 3.9 3.6 20,337 3.1 0.78 45.4 Nicaragua 6.6 4.3 0.7 0.8 5613 3.9 0.66 46.2 Panama 4.2 3.7 2.2 3.2 33,133 1.0 0.82 49.8 Paraguay 6.5 10.5 0.9 1.3 14,278 1.0 0.73 45.7 Peru 32.6 3.9 1.3 1.7 13,381 3.0 0.78 41.6 Suriname 0.6 14.1 3.9 4.4 19,341 18.4 0.75 57.9 Uruguay 3.4 − 1.1 1.8 1.9 24,237 0.1 0.82 39.7 Venezuela 29.3 9.4 5.3 3.8 17,273 ** 7.1 0.72 44.8 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 6 of 21 To avoid missing data from 2019, data from the last year available is used: *Belize (1999); Chile (2020); Guatemala (2014); Guyana (1998); Mexico (2020); Nicaragua (2014); Suriname (1999); Venezuela (2006). **Venezuela (2011) Table 1 (continued) Population (2019) Cumulative CO2 em. including LULUCF per capita (1990– 2019) Cumulative CO2 em. excluding LULUCF per capita (1990– 2019) CO2 em. excluding LULUCF per capita (2019) GDP (PPP) per capita (2019) Poverty headcount ratio at US$2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (2019*) Human Development Index (2019) Gini Index (2019*) Millions tCO2tCO2tCO2USD (% of pop.) Latin America 600.3 5.1 2.5 2.6 18,808 4.3 0.77 World 7703 4.5 4.3 4.6 17,587 8.4 0.74 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 7 of 21 5 and Suriname are countries where more than 10% of their population lives with less than US$2.15 a day. Similarly, it is also important to note that in most of these countries, the income distribution inequality based on the Gini index is higher than 40, excepting El Salvador and Uruguay. This fact indicates concerning levels of inequality in Latin America; the top 10% captures 55% of national income (Chancel etal. 2022). There are other interesting observations from the analyzed development indicators. Suriname has a GDP (PPP) per capita above the world average; however, with 18.4%, it has the highest population living on US$2.15 a day in the region. Some countries have similar GDP (PPP) per capita levels, for example, Belize and Bolivia, with different percentages of their population living with less than US$2.15, 18% and 1.9%, respectively. 2.2 The model ofclimate justice In this research, the Model of Climate Justice (MCJ) is used to distribute the global carbon budget compatible with the 1.5°C goal (400 GtCO2 with 67% likelihood) available from 2020 onwards among countries (Alcaraz etal. 2018). The global scenario considered is the WITCH-GLOBIOM 4.4 CD-LINKS_NPi2020_400 World Emissions|CO2 published in the AR6 Scenarios Database (Byers etal. 2022). This scenario is compatible with a global emissions scenario limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C with respect to preindustrial temperature with no or limited overshoot. Additionally, for the inputs to the MCJ, CO2 historical emissions data are obtained from the Climate Watch dataset (Climate Watch 2022). The historical population and prospects data were retrieved from the UNDESA medium variant scenario (UNDESA 2022). The global carbon budget is distributed using the MCJ, considering equality and historical responsibility dimensions. It allocates the same level of emissions per capita for all countries. Then, it corrects the allocation taking into account countries’ historical responsibility. The period used for historical responsibility is from 1990 to 2019, the available period in the dataset. The resulting distribution allocates more emissions to countries with emissions per capita below the world average and vice versa. For further insights into the mathematical details of the MCJ, the authors recommend reading Annex I contained in the supplementary electronic material of the O. Alcaraz etal. (2018) article. The results obtained are the net CO2 emissions allocations for LATAM countries from 2020 onwards. In other words, this is the carbon budget that would be available for each country from 2020. Once we have obtained the carbon budget allocations, we compare the results with two scenarios: o NDC scenario (NDC). Attending to the mitigation commitments stated in the NDC, we trace a mitigation pathway between 2020 and 2030 for CO2 emissions, including LULUCF. Next, we estimate the cumulative emissions implied by this pathway for the 2020–2030 period. o NDC with Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use scenario (NDC w GLDF). This scenario is constructed considering compliance with the objectives of the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use (UK-COP26 2021). These objectives include “working collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.” All LATAM countries have signed the abovementioned Declaration except Bolivia and Venezuela. For countries that have signed the Declaration with positive LULUCF emissions, a linear mitigation pathway for LULUCF CO2 emissions that lead to zero in 2030 has been traced. While for CO2 emissions excluding LULUCF, Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 8 of 21 a mitigation pathway has been assumed until 2030, applying the emission reductions provided in the NDC. Finally, we calculate the sum of the cumulative emissions between 2020 and 2030 that both pathways imply. For Bolivia, Venezuela, and countries in the Declaration with negative emissions for the LULUCF sector (Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay), the NDC scenario’s cumulative emissions are maintained. 2.3 The NDCs The updated and submitted NDC by LATAM countries until December 2022 are considered for analysis in this article (UNFCCC 2022b). By December 31, 2022, eighteen LATAM countries had submitted their updated NDC or their second NDC, complying with the provisions in paragraphs 23 and 24 of decision 1/cp.21 (UNFCCC 2015). Table2 summarizes the mitigation targets and information submitted within LATAM countries’ NDC. Although several countries present conditional targets that depend on external climate finance, only unconditional targets are considered for this article. Estimating the cumulative emission that each country’s NDC implies for the 2020–2030 period requires knowing in advance the estimated value of their emissions level in 2030. Table 2 Information about the Latin American countries’ NDCs (UNFCCC 2022b) and, in the last column, the projection of the emissions in 2030 according to the authors Note: *Ecuador presents 2025 targets instead of 2030. **Venezuela’s NDC is fully conditional to international support, so no reduction objective is presented Reference indicator Reference year Target in 2030 Emission target in 2030 (MtCO2) Argentina Absolute goal target 359 MtCO2198 Belize Non-quantifiable 5.3 Bolivia Non-quantifiable 111 Brazil Base year 2005 − 50.0% 716 Chile Cumulative emissions 1100 MtCO2eq 24 Colombia BAU 2015 − 51.0% 99 Costa Rica Absolute goal target 9.11 MtCO2eq 0.1 Ecuador BAU 2010 − 9.0% * 93 El Salvador BAU 2016 − 39.0% 4.4 Guatemala BAU 2017 − 11.2% 20 Guyana Non-quantifiable 19 Honduras BAU 2012 − 16.0% 19 Mexico BAU 2013 − 35.0% 445 Nicaragua Non-quantifiable 43 Panama Non-quantifiable 23 Paraguay BAU 2014 − 10.0% 92 Peru BAU 2010 − 30.0% 134 Suriname Non-quantifiable 11 Uruguay Absolute goal target 2019 9.267 MtCO26.4 Venezuela BAU 2012 ** 461 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 9 of 21 5 It should be noted that, unlike other countries, the updated Chilean NDC presents a commitment based on cumulative emissions for 2020–2030 and a reduction target to be achieved by 2030. In addition to submitting an absolute target for 2030, Costa Rica also presented its commitment for cumulative emissions between 2021 and 2030. We consider this type of commitment more robust than those based on a target year since it offers information about the country’s overall projected emissions to be released into the atmosphere. Therefore, the temperature increase produced by such emissions can be estimated more accurately (Matthews etal. 2020). The calculation method for the resulting emissions in 2030 for each NDC depends on the country’s type of commitment. Note that emissions estimations are calculated for CO2 emissions. At the same time, the majority of the studied NDC present their objectives for all GHG. The 2030 emissions target in Table2 is estimated assuming the same reduction applied to CO2 emissions. El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela present their emission target for CO2, so that assumption is not needed in those cases. • For those countries presenting a target as a percentage reduction from a base year, 2030 emissions are calculated by applying the reduction directly to the historical emissions from the base year. • For countries with an absolute emission reduction target, emissions reductions are determined based on the historical data presented in the NDC and then applied to the historical emissions from the Climate Watch dataset. Note that this may lead to different emissions values for 2030 than those presented as a target in the NDC. • For countries with targets based on a business as usual (BAU) scenario, the slopes of the NDC-supplied BAU scenario are applied to the historical Climate Watch dataset and then the reduction target in the NDC is applied to the year 2030 of this scenario. • For those cases in which the NDC does not present a quantifiable emissions reduction target, a linear trend scenario is calculated based on their historical data. After estimating target emissions for 2030 from each country, a linear trajectory between 2019 (the last year of historical data) and 2030 is assumed. For countries considering an emission reduction target for 2025, the emissions level at 2025 is estimated according to their target type. Therefore, to determine the emissions in 2030, a linear trend between 2019 and 2025 is projected. The emissions trajectory between 2019 and 2025 was assumed to continue at the same rate after 2025 until 2030. Finally, the cumulative emissions are calculated by adding up all the emissions between 2020 and 2030. It should be noted that since 2019 is the last year of historical emissions used, the effect that COVID-19 had on emissions will not be reflected in this study. The calculated cumulative emissions according to the NDCs will likely to be overestimated because the actual 2020 and 2021 emissions will be lower than the estimated levels in this analysis. 3 Results anddiscussion 3.1 Cumulative emissions allocated bytheMCJ toLATAM countries Figure 1 compares the historical cumulative CO2 emissions, including LULUCF, with the remaining carbon budget allocated using the MCJ that considers equality Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 16 of 21 decrease of emissions during the last years that is not accompanied of GDP growth but by its stagnation. Decoupling CO2 per capita and GDP per capita is key to building development trajectories compatible with the ambitious 1.5 °C goal. Some recommendations to accomplish this are as follows: promoting technological innovations and energy efficiency that would help reduce energy intensity; implementing renewable energy technologies that would reduce carbon intensity; and promoting low-emissions lifestyles by increasing public awareness around energy and emissions savings (Chen etal. 2018; Yao etal. 2019). 4 Conclusions Latin America faces the tremendous challenge of advancing along the path of sustainable development while overcoming the structural conditions that make it one of the regions in the world with the most inequalities. In addition, the highly climate-vulnerable region must face the impacts of climate change and promote climate resilience for its population. Latin America requires attending to development challenges while attending to their commitments within the PA’s framework and contributing to achieving the 1.5 °C global temperature stabilization goal. According to the PA, this contribution should be made based on equity while promoting transparency and environmental integrity (United Nations 2015). The scientific community warns that the 1.5 °C global temperature average stabilization scenario is highly ambitious for all countries. As a result, it requires drastic emissions reductions, approximately 7.6% annually globally (IPCC 2018; Höhne etal. 2020), and maintaining the cumulative emissions from 2020 until reaching carbon neutrality within a significantly reduced remaining global carbon budget, around 400 GtCO2 (IPCC 2021). Although the energy sector emissions dropped in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, during 2021, the emissions rebounded due to the post-COVID-19 economic recovery (Friedlingstein etal. 2022). Therefore, the world seems far from achieving the 1.5 °C goal. In this context, policy-makers from developing countries need analyses that asses mitigation goals under the prism of equity to propose arguments and strategies that align policies with the PA’s global goals. The analysis in this research article is based on carbon budgets. We believe this is one way to strengthen transparency and promote environmental integrity. Formulating mitigation goals using the carbon budget and estimating the 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 CO2emissions per capita (tCO2 ) GDP-PPP per capita (USD 2017) Lan America 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 CO2emissions per capita (tCO2 ) GDP-PPP per capita (USD 2017 ) World Fig. 3 Evolution of CO2 emissions excluding LULUCF and GDP per capita for the LATAM region compared with the world evolution Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 17 of 21 5 cumulative CO2 emissions that NDCs imply will reduce uncertainty on the aggregated effect of all NDCs. Moreover, it allows many developing countries, such as LATAM countries, to support their ambition arguments quantitively and based on equity and CBDR&RC principles, alleviating the increasingly limited capacity of the atmosphere to absorb CO2 emissions without exceeding the agreed temperature goal. Latin America is the region with the greatest contribution of the LULUCF sector to the total CO2 emissions, which exceed 50% (Climate Watch 2022). Regarding development, indicators situate countries approximately on the world average, and there are no least developing countries in the regions. The carbon budget allocated using the MCJ to Latin America from 2020 onwards amounts to 35.65 GtCO2. This figure is 54% lower than the budget consumed from 1990 to 2019, and the percentage reduction is similar to what should be done globally. In the two considered scenarios, the estimate of the net cumulative CO2 for 2020–2030 is below the carbon budget allocated for this region. Specifically, 77% of the carbon budget is consumed in the “NDC” scenario, and 58% is consumed in the “NDC w GLCF” scenario. Although both consumptions are above 55% (considered optimal), the “NDC w GLCF” scenario evidences that achieving ending with deforestation and reducing LULUCF emissions to zero would put Latin America in the 1.5 °C pathway. Moreover, the carbon budget consumption percentages might be reduced due to emissions reductions resulting from the policies stated but not quantified in countries’ NDC. As we evaluate the detail of LATAM countries, we observe three major groups: • On the one hand, countries with very high deforestation rates are directly related to land change for extensive agriculture and livestock (Belize as an example). Generally, these countries have the worst economic and development indicators and have greater levels of inequality. It has been found that for these countries to stay within their carbon budget fair share, they must end deforestation and undertake a transition to land use management that provides local communities and indigenous peoples a sustainable model of life in harmony with the natural environment. • On the other hand, we observe countries with fossil resources and economies based on exploiting these resources (for example, Venezuela). These countries should articulate policies to ensure a just transition of their energy sector to a low-emission development model. • Finally, countries with net CO2 far below the world average. All these countries could use a carbon budget higher than their historical emissions. Some of these countries have CO2 removals in their LULUCF sector that compensate for the emissions from other sectors and good development indicators (for example, Uruguay). Others, on the contrary, are countries that still have significant development challenges for the future (Honduras, for example), and their remaining carbon budget should give them space to address their development needs. Therefore, gradually advancing toward a low-emissions economy. Beyond the analysis presented in this article, we argue that the logic of the carbon budget should be intrinsic to the NDC. From the perspective of environmental integrity, assessing the cumulative net carbon emissions during the implementation period of every NDC can help estimate the contribution to the temperature goals (Matthews etal. 2020). Accordingly, in the effort toward a strengthened, transparent, and more ambitious implementation of the PA, countries must be able to set their mitigation goals by quantifying the carbon budget they will use. Such quantification will allow developing countries to Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 18 of 21 declare the atmospheric space they consider theirs fairly and guarantee the right to sustainable development and achievement of human rights. In addition, worldwide, it will allow monitoring of the consumption of the remaining global carbon budget compatible with the 1.5 °C goal, and, when the budget runs out, to make evident the enormous responsibility that will be put onto the future generations, a fact that constitutes a severe challenge for intergenerational equity. Last but not least, the global health crisis caused by COVID-19 highlighted the need to establish international cooperation mechanisms and promote systemic transformations. These transformations will enable the world to face the climate change challenge, in line with what the IPCC has warned for many years. In this sense, it is fundamental to realize that these systemic transformations require a new political and economic ethos. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been an increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that has no historical precedents. This is the cause of global warming that constitutes a severe threat to the viability of terrestrial ecosystems and the future of humanity (Guterres 2020). Some initiatives like the ones cited in this work, like the “Regulation on deforestation-free products” approved by the UE27 or initiatives that support local communities for forest ecosystem restoration, can help promote a paradigm shift for natural resources management in Latin America to ensure its population well-being and reduce inequalities. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express our most sincere gratitude to the reviewers for the many suggestions they have sent us and for the time they have dedicated to revising the article. Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Alcaraz O, Buenestado P, Escribano B etal (2018) Distributing the Global Carbon Budget with climate justice criteria. Clim Change. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105840182224-0 Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S, Kemp-Benedict E (2008) The right to development in a climate constrained world. The Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Second Edition Executive Summary, September 2008 Barcena A, Samaniego J, Peres W, Alatorre JE (2020) The climate emergency in Latin America and the Caribbean: the path ahead – resignation or action?, ECLAC Book. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago Bruckner B, Hubacek K, Shan Y etal (2022) Impacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions. Nat Sustain 5:311–320. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4189302100842-z Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 19 of 21 5 Byers E, Krey V, Kriegler E, et al (2022) AR6 Scenarios Database. Int Inst ApplSyst Anal 10.5281/ zenodo.5886912 Cao J (2008) Reconciling human development and climate protection: perspectives from developing countries on post-2012 international climate change policy. 2008-25. Mass.: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. Discussion Paper, Cambridge CAT (2022) Countries NDC tracker. In: Clim. Action Tracker. https:// clima teact iontr acker. org/ count ries/. Accessed 10 Jul 2022 Chancel L, Piketty T, Saez E, Zucman G, etal. (2022) World inequality report 2022. Country sheets. World Inequality Lab Chen J, Wang P, Cui L etal (2018) Decomposition and decoupling analysis of CO2 emissions in OECD. Appl Energy 231:937–950. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apene rgy. 2018. 09. 179 Climate Watch (2022) Climate Watch data. In: GHG Emiss. Washington, DC World Resour. Institute. https:// www. clima tewat chdata. org/ ghgemiss ions. Accessed 22 Dec 2022 Commision E (2021) European Commission proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free products. Off J Eur Union 0366:80 Conservation International (2022) Our Future Forest - Amazonia Verde. https:// www. conse rvati on. org/ proje cts/ ourfuturefores tsamazo niaverde. Accessed 3 Jan 2023 den Elzen MGJ, Dafnomilis I, Forsell N, etal (2022) Updated nationally determined contributions collectively raise ambition levels but need strengthening further to keep Paris goals within reach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 27 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1102702210008-7 Du Pont YR, Jeffery ML, Gütschow J etal (2017) Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat Clim Chang 7:38–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nclim ate31 86 Eckstein D, Künzel V, Schäfer L (2021) . Who suffers most from extreme weather events 2000–2019. Global climate risk index 2021, Germanwatch ECLAC (2022) CEPALSTAT Country Profiles. https:// estad istic as. cepal. org/ cepal stat/ Perfi lesNa ciona les. html? idioma= engli sh. Accessed 1 Dec 2020 FAO (2021) AQUASTAT. Dissemination system. In: Access to safe drinking-water. https:// data. apps. fao. org/ aquas tat/? lang= en& share=f18ed2 f0fbce34ee8ae6278feb 69e52 17. Accessed 22 Dec 2022 Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O’Sullivan M etal (2022) Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth Syst Sci Data 14:1917–2005. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5194/ ESSD1419172022 Garcia B, Pauwels L (2022) La Lucha contra la Deforestación a Través de las Cadenas de Suministro Globales: ¿Una Oportunidad de Reenfocar la Cooperación Ambiental en América Latina? In: Simposio sobre derecho internacional Latinoamericano 352–359 German Advisory Council on Global Change (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. https:// www. wbgu. de/ en/ publi catio ns/ publi cation/ speci alreport2009 Gignac R, Matthews HD (2015) Allocating a 2 °C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environ Res Lett 10:75004. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 17489326/ 10/7/ 075004 Global Health Observatory (2022) SDG 7.1.2 Indicator: Access to clean fuels for cooking. https:// www. who. int/ data/ gho/ data/ indic ators/ indic atordetai ls/ mca/ propo rtionofpopul ationwithprima r yrelia nceoncleanfuelsandtechn ologi esforcooki ng- (-)- (sdg-7. 1.2). Accessed 2 Feb 2023 Guterres A (2020) The Secretary-General Address at Columbia University: "The State of the Planet". UN. ECA. https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10855/ 44143 Gütschow J, Günther A, Pflüger M (2021) The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series v2.3.1 (1750-2019). 10.5281/zenodo.5494497 Guzmán S, de la Fuente A (2020) Results report for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2020. GFLAC and sustainable finance for the future. Sustainable Finance Index. https:// fd310 67a8e9b4ab4a7bed3068 9ad3a a1. files usr. com/ ugd/ 32948d_ 45d55 02a4f e4467 cb159 f60f0 32553 47. pdf? index= true Höhne N, den Elzen M, Rogelj J etal (2020) Emissions: world has four times the work or one-third of the time. Nature 579:25–28.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ d4158602000571-x Höhne N, Blum H, Fuglestvedt J, etal (2011) Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty Holz C, Kemp-Benedict E, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2019) The Climate Equity Reference Calculator. J Open Source Softw 4:1273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21105/ joss. 01273 IPCC (2014) AR5 WGIII-CH4: Sustainable development and equity. In: Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 5 Page 20 of 21 efforts to eradicate poverty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 616. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97810 09157 940 IPCC (2021) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Press IPCC (2022a) AR6 WGII-CH12: Central and South America. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1689–1816, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97810 09325 844. 014 IPCC (2022b) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97810 09157 926. 001 IPCC (2022c) AR6 WGIII - Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97810 09157 926. 002 Kanitkar T, Jayaraman T, D’Souza M, Purkayastha P (2013) Carbon budgets for climate change mitigation - a GAMS-based emissions model. Curr Sci 104:1200–1206 Kemp-Benedict E, Athanasiou T, Baer P, etal (2018) Calculations for the Climate Equity Reference Calculator (CERc) 5 10.5281/ZENODO.1748847 Matthews HD, Tokarska KB, Nicholls ZRJ etal (2020) Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets to guide climate policy. Nat Geosci 13:769–779. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4156102000663-3 Mattoo A, Subramanian A (2012) Equity in climate change: an analytical review. World Dev 40:1083– 1097. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2011. 11. 007 McGlynn E, Li S, Berger FM et al (2022) Addressing uncertainty and bias in land use, land use change, and forestry greenhouse gas inventories. Clim Change 170:1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1058402103254-2 MSSRF (2022) Climate Equity Monitor. In: Clim. Chang. Gr. M.S. Swaminathan Res. Found. http:// clima teequ itymo nitor. in/ ndcsumma ries. html# annex1. Accessed 10 Jul 2022 Müller B, Höhne N, Ellermann C (2009) Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Clim Policy 9:593–611. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3763/ cpol. 2008. 0570 Nagy GJ, Leal Filho W, Azeiteiro UM, etal (2018) An assessment of the relationships between extreme weather events, vulnerability, and the impacts on human wellbeing in Latin America. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1509 1802 Neumayer E (2000) In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Econ 33:185–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S09218009(00) 00135-X NICFI (2022) Norway’s International Climate and Forest Iniciative. https:// www. nicfi. no/. Accessed 2 Jan 2023 Parikh J, Parikh K (2009) Climate Change: a parking place model for a just global compact. Mimeo, Inc.: New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–17. https:// www. resea rchga te. net/ profi le/ JyotiParikh2/ publi cation/ 26510 4060_ Clima te_ Change_ A_ Parki ng_ Place_ Model_ for_A_ Just_ Global_ Compa ct/ links/ 54abc 0800c f2ce2 df668 f840/ Clima teChangeAParki ngPlaceModelfor-AJustGlobalCompa ct. pdf Raupach MR, Davis SJ, Peters GP etal (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:873–879. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nclim ate23 84 Reyer CPO, Adams S, Albrecht T etal (2017) Climate change impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean and their implications for development. Reg Environ Chang 17:1601–1621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s101130150854-6 Robalino-López A, Mena-Nieto Á, García-Ramos JE, Golpe AA (2015) Studying the relationship between economic growth, CO2 emissions, and the environmental Kuznets curve in Venezuela (1980–2025). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:602–614. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rser. 2014. 08. 081 Tritsch I, Arvor D (2016) Transition in environmental governance in the Brazilian Amazon: emergence of a new pattern of socio-economic development and deforestation. Land Use Policy 59:446–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2016. 09. 018 UK-COP26 (2021) Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. https:// ukcop 26. org/ glasg owleade rsdecla rationonfores tsandlanduse/ UNDESA (2022) World Population Prospects 2022. https:// popul ation. un. org/ wpp/. Accessed 22 Dec 2022 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2024) 29:5 1 3 Page 21 of 21 5 UNEP (2020) Download Data | Human Development Reports. http:// hdr. undp. org/ en/ conte nt/ downl oaddata. Accessed 27 Apr 2021 UNFCCC (2022a) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report by the secretariat. FCCC/PA/CMA/2022/4. https:// unfccc. int/ docum ents/ 619180 UNFCCC (2015) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 Addendum Contents Part two: action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session. Decis 1/CP21 Adopt Paris Agreem 01194:1–36 UNFCCC (2022b) NDC Registry. https:// unfccc. int/ NDCREG. Accessed 3 Jan 2023 United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change. FCC/INFORMAL/84/ Rev.1 GE.14-20481 United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement. 21st Conf Parties 3 FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 Wang Q, Li L (2021) The effects of population aging, life expectancy, unemployment rate, population density, per capita GDP, urbanization on per capita carbon emissions. Sustain Prod Consum 28:760–774. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. spc. 2021. 06. 029 Winkler H, Letete T, Marquard A (2013) Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria. Clim Policy 13:411–432. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14693 062. 2013. 777610 Winkler H, Marquard A (2012) Methodologies for carbon b udgets in South Africa Report prepared for Sustainable Energy Africa. Sustain Energy Africa Low-carbon Econ Work Program Support Natl Plan Comm World Bank (2020) Poverty headcount ratio at $2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (% of population). https:// data. world bank. org/ indic ator/ SI. POV. DDAY. Accessed 12 Dec 2022 World Bank (2021) The World Bank’s Global Electrification Database. https:// track ingsd g7. esmap. org/ data/ files/ downl oaddocum ents/ sdg-7. 1.1access_ to_ elect ricity. xlsx. Accessed 12 Dec 2022 World Bank (2022a) Gini index. https:// data. world bank. org/ indic ator/ SI. POV. GINI. Accessed 3 Jan 2023 World Bank (2022b) World Bank classification by income. https:// datah elpde sk. world bank. org/ knowl edgeb ase/ artic les/ 906519worldbankcount ryandlendi nggroups. Accessed 3 Jan 2023 World Bank (2022c) Exports of goods and services (% of GDP) | Data. https:// data. world bank. org/ indic ator/ NE. EXP. GNFS. ZS? view= chart. Accessed 1 Dec 2022 World Bank (2023) GDP, PPP (constant 2017 international $). https:// data. world bank. org/ indic ator/ NY. GDP. MKTP. PP. KD. Accessed 3 Jan 2023 Yao S, Zhang S, Zhang X (2019) Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: a revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective. J Clean Prod 235:1338–1352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 07. 069 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.