Browse all documents

Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This briefing analyzes the divergent methods used to quantify the GHG emissions impact of new fossil fuel infrastructure. It contrasts the 'literalist' view (full combustion emissions), the 'fatalist' view (zero net impact due to displacement), and the 'economist' view (increased consumption due to lower prices). The authors conclude that a net-zero impact is highly unlikely due to market responses and systemic 'lock-in' effects.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The document identifies three primary quantitative approaches to assessing the GHG emissions impact of fossil fuel infrastructure: the literalist, the fatalist, and the economist. The literalist perspective assigns a project the full emissions from processing and combustion, arguing that the carbon "uses up the globe’s remaining carbon “budget”". The fatalist perspective assumes the project has no net impact on global consumption because it would simply displace another resource, meaning the "fate of global fuel markets – and, to large extent, associated GHG emissions – is largely unaffected by the project". The economist perspective uses market logic to argue that expanding supply lowers prices and increases consumption.
  • A study commissioned by Greenpeace and conducted by Ecofys used a literalist approach to estimate that 14 major fossil fuel infrastructure expansions under consideration in 2020 were associated with over 6 gigatonnes CO2e, which was approximately 10% of projected global emissions for that year. The highest emissions were linked to coal mining expansions in Australia (0.8 Gt CO2e) and China’s western provinces (1.4 Gt CO2e).

Cite the original document

APA
Erickson, P., & Lazarus, M. (2013). Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DB-2013-Assessing-GHGs-fossil-fuel-infrastructure.pdf
Chicago
Erickson, Peter, and Michael Lazarus. Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2013. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DB-2013-Assessing-GHGs-fossil-fuel-infrastructure.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Erickson |first1=Peter |last2=Lazarus |first2=Michael |title=Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2013 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DB-2013-Assessing-GHGs-fossil-fuel-infrastructure.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{erickson2013assessing, author = {Erickson, Peter and Lazarus, Michael}, title = {{Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of New Fossil Fuel Infrastructure}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2013}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-DB-2013-Assessing-GHGs-fossil-fuel-infrastructure.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated