Upload
adanna
View
44
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime. Authored by Tom Athanasiou, Paul Baer from Ecoequity and Sivan Kartha from SEI. Presented by Sanjay Vashist , Heinrich Boell Stiftung - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World
the Greenhouse Development Rights framework
for burden-sharing in a global climate regime
Authored by Tom Athanasiou, Paul Baer from Ecoequity and Sivan Kartha from
SEI
Presented by Sanjay Vashist, Heinrich Boell Stiftung
2
Arctic Sea Ice melting faster than expected
“The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing.” Mark Serreze, NSIDC, Oct. 2007.
2005 2007
3
Implication of 1 meter riseNile Delta
2000
4
Implication of 1 meter rise
IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100”Post-AR4: “0.8 to 2.4 m by 2100“ (Hansen: “several meters“)
Nile Delta
2000
Nile Delta
1 meter sea level
increase
5
Global sinks are weakening
Tipping Elements in the Climate System
Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible impacts.
Lenton et al, 2008
Global 2ºC pathways and their risks
The climate challenge: in three steps
What kind of global climate deal can enable this to happen…?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
An
nu
al carb
on
dio
xid
e e
mis
sio
ns (
GtC
O2
/yr)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
An
nu
al carb
on
dio
xid
e e
mis
sio
ns (
GtC
O2
/yr)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
An
nu
al carb
on
dio
xid
e e
mis
sio
ns (
GtC
O2
/yr)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
An
nu
al carb
on
dio
xid
e e
mis
sio
ns (
GtC
O2
/yr)
13
… in the midst of a development crisis?
• 2 billion people without access to clean cooking fuels
• About 800 million people chronically undernourished
• More than 1 billion have poor access to fresh water
• 2 million children die per year from diarrhea
• 30,000 deaths each day from preventable diseases
• More than 1.5 billion people without electricity
Emissions per capita along a 2ºC pathway
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Per
capi
ta e
mis
sion
s (t
CO
2/ca
pita
)
Annex 1 per capita
non-Annex 1 per capita
15
A viable climate regime must…
• Mitigation: emergency climate stabilization
• Adaptation: inevitable, increasingly urgent
• While safeguarding a right to development
Greenhouse Development Rights
Towards Principle-based Global Differentiation
16
17
The Greenhouse Development Rights approach to burden-sharing in a global
climate regime
• Defines and calculates national obligations with respect to a development threshold
• Allows people with incomes and emissions below the threshold to prioritize development
• Obliges people with incomes and emissions above the threshold (in both the North & South) to share the global costs of an emergency climate program
18
A “development threshold” ?
What should a “Right to Development” safeguard?
Traditional poverty line: $1/day? …$2/day? (“destitution line” and “extreme poverty line” of World Bank, UNDP,
etc.)
Empirical analysis: $16/day(“global poverty line,” after Pritchett/World Bank (2006))
For indicative calculations, consider development threshold 25% above global poverty line
about $20/day ($7,500/yr; PPP-adjusted)
19
A “Greenhouse Development Rights”approach to burden-sharing
Define National Obligation (national share of global mitigation and adaptation costs) based on:
Capacity: resources to pay w/o sacrificing necessities We use income, excluding income below a “development threshold” of $20/day ($7,500/year, PPP)
Responsibility: contribution to climate change We use cumulative CO2 emissions, excluding “subsistence” emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below the development threshold)
UNFCCC: The principles
“The Parties should protect the
climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. ”
UNFCCC: The preamble
“Acknowledging the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate
international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”
23
Income and Capacity income distributions (relative to a “development
threshold”)
Emissions and Responsibility fossil CO2 (since 1990) (showing portion defined as
“responsibility”)
24
Population
%
Income ($/capita)
Capacity
%
Responsibility%
RCI (obligations)
%
EU 27 7.3 30,472 28.8 22.6 25.7
- EU 15 5.8 33,754 26.1 19.8 22.9
- EU +12 1.5 17,708 2.7 2.8 2.7
Norway 0.07 52,406 0.54 0.26 0.40
United States 4.5 45,640 29.7 36.4 33.1
China 19.7 5,899 5.8 5.2 5.5
India 17.2 2,818 0.66 0.30 0.48
South Africa 0.7 10,117 0.6 1.3 1.0
LDCs 11.7 1,274 0.11 0.04 0.07
Annex I 18.7 30,924 75.8 78.0 76.9
Non-Annex I 81.3 5,096 24.2 22.0 23.1
High Income 15.5 36,488 76.9 77.9 77.4
Middle Income 63.3 6,226 22.9 21.9 22.4
Low Income 21.2 1,599 0.2 0.2 0.2
World 100% 9,929 100 % 100 % 100 %25
National obligations based on national “capacity” and “responsibility”
National obligations based on capacity and responsibility
2010 2020 2030
Population
(% of global)
GDP per capita
($US PPP)
Capacity (% of
global)
Responsibility
(% of global)
RCI(% of global)
RCI (% of
global)
RCI (% of global)
EU 27 7.3 30,472 28.8 22.6 25.7 22.9 19.6
- EU 15 5.8 33,754 26.1 19.8 22.9 19.9 16.7
- EU +12 1.5 17,708 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.0
Switzerland 0.11 39,181 0.60 0.27 0.44 0.37 0.30
United states
4.5 45,640 29.7 36.4 33.1 29.1 25.5
Japan 1.9 33,422 8.3 7.3 7.8 6.6 5.5
Russia 2.0 15,031 2.7 4.9 3.8 4.3 4.6
China 19.7 5,899 5.8 5.2 5.5 10.4 15.2
India 17.2 2,818 0.66 0.30 0.5 1.2 2.3
South Africa 0.7 10,117 0.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2
Mexico 1.6 12,408 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5
LDCs 11.7 1,274 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.12
Annex I 18.7 30,924 75.8 78.0 77 69 61
Non-Annex I 81.3 5,096 24.2 22.0 23 31 39
High Income 15.5 36,488 76.9 77.9 77 69 61
Middle Income
63.3 6,226 22.9 21.9 22 30 38
Low Income 21.2 1,599 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5
World 100% 9,929 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to their “RCI”
28
Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to responsibility &
capacity
29
Financial Implications
30
What are the costs?
31
Source Annual Cost (billions)
Notes
Adaptation
World Bank (2006) $9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid
Oxfam International (2007) > $50 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term.
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b) $49 - 171 Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177)
UNDP (2007) $86 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015
Mitigation
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a;2007b)
$380 Costs in 2030 to return emissions to 2007 levels. (Table 64, p. 196).
IPCC AR4 (2007: SPM Table 7) <3% Costs as percentage of GWP in 2030 for stabilizing in 445 -535 ppm CO2e range.
Stern Review (2007, 2008) 1% (±3%) 2007: Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for 500-550 ppm CO2e. Target was revised in 2008 to 450-500 CO2e
European Commission (2009) €175 Bottom up analysis of incremental costs
National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP)
Per capitaIncome
($/capita)
NationalCapacity(Billion $)
NationalObligation(Billion $)
NationalObligation(% GDP)
Ave. cost per person above
threshold
EU 27 $38,385 $15,563 $ 216 1.12% $436
- EU 15 $41,424
$13,723 $ 188 1.12% $468
- EU +12 $25,981
$ 1,840 $ 28 1.09% $300
Norway $61,605
$ 274 $ 3 1.02% $630
United States $53,671
$15,661 $ 275 1.51% $841
Japan $40,771
$ 4,139 $ 62 1.23% $504
Russia $22,052
$ 1,927 $ 41 1.40% $326
China $9,468 $ 5,932 $ 98 0.73% $169
India $4,374 $ 972 $ 11 0.19% $58
South Africa $14,010
$ 422 $ 10 1.42% $395
Mexico $14,642
$ 1,009 $ 15 0.84% $207
LDCs $1,567 $ 82 $ 1 0.06% $58
Annex I $38,425
$40,722 $ 652 1.29% $529
Non-Annex I $6,998 $18,667 $ 292 0.66% $180
High Income $44,365
$40,993 $ 655 1.33% $602
Middle Income
$8,797 $18,190 $ 286 0.69% $149
Low Income $2,022 $ 206 $ 3 0.08% $51
World $12,415
$59,388 $ 944 1.00% $330
33
Final Comments• The scientific evidence shows that a maximum
tolerable warming of 2C implies a very strict remaining carbon budget. (≤ 700 GtCO2 over this century)
• Carbon-based growth is no longer an option in the North, nor the South.
• Rigorous, binding commitments to substantial emissions reductions are critical, but even ambitious Annex 1 cuts leave very little remaining budget for the non-Annex 1 countries.
• Technology & financial resources to enable developing countries to keep within this budget is critical.
• The alternative to something like this is a weak climate regime with little chance of preventing catastrophic climate change.
• This is about politic reality, not just equity and justice.
The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse
Development Rights Framework AuthorsTom Athansiou (EcoEquity)Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute)Paul Baer (EcoEquity)Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)
Key CollaboratorsJörg Haas (European Climate Foundation)
Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation)Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid)
Andrew Pendleton (IPPR)Antonio Hill (Oxfam)
SupportersChristian Aid (UK)Oxfam (International)European Aprodev Network The Heinrich Böll Foundation (Germany) MISTRA Foundation CLIPORE Programme (Sweden)Stockholm Environment Institute (Int’l)Rockefeller Brothers Fund (US)Town Creek Foundation (US)
Example 1
The European Union
35
36
Implications for European Union
37
Domestic reductions (~40% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of total EU
obligation. The rest would be met internationally.
Implications for European Union
38
Implications for European Union
-20%
-30%
39
Implications for European Union
EU15 and EU New Member States
Obligation varies significantly among EU members
Example 2
The United States
41
Implications for United States
US mitigation obligation amounts to a reduction target exceeding 100% after ~2025 (“negative emission allocation”).
42
Implications for United States
Here, physical domestic reductions (~25% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of the total US obligation. The rest would be met internationally.
43
Example 2
China and India
44
45
Implications for China中国的测算结果
46
A fraction of China's reduction, (and most of the reductions in the South) are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.
Implications for China中国的测算结果
47
Implications for India
The majority of the reductions in the South are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.
US and China
Obligations for Annex 1 countries according to their “RCI” in a Copenhagen phase (to 2020), and
globally thereafter.
49
Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to their “RCI”
50
Copenhagen phase - to 2017
Global CO2 emissionsIndustrialized world vs developing world
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
CO
2 em
issi
on
s (G
tCO
2/yr
) Developing World
Industrialized world
Global CO2 emissionsIndustrialized world vs developing world
(proportional shares)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
CO
2 em
issi
on
s (G
tCO
2/yr
) Developing World
Industrialized world
Global CO2 emissionsshowing industrialized world "borrowed emissions"
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
CO
2 em
issi
on
s (G
tCO
2/yr
)
Developing world
Industrialized world "borrowed emissions"
Industrialzed world proportional share
Global CO2 emissionsshowing industrialized world "borrowed emissions"
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
CO
2 em
issi
on
s (G
tCO
2/yr
) Developing World
Industrialized world "borrowed emissions"
Industrialzed world proportional share
Financial Implications
56
What are the costs?
57
Source Annual Cost (billions)
Notes
Adaptation
World Bank (2006) $9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid
Oxfam International (2007) > $50 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term.
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b) $49 - 171 Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177)
UNDP (2007) $86 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015
Mitigation
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a;2007b)
$380 Costs in 2030 to return emissions to 2007 levels. (Table 64, p. 196).
IPCC AR4 (2007: SPM Table 7) <3% Costs as percentage of GWP in 2030 for stabilizing in 445 -535 ppm CO2e range.
Stern Review (2007, 2008) 1% (±3%) 2007: Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for 500-550 ppm CO2e. Target was revised in 2008 to 450-500 CO2e
European Commission (2009) €175 Bottom up analysis of incremental costs
National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP)
Per capitaIncome
($/capita)
NationalCapacity(Billion $)
NationalObligation(Billion $)
NationalObligation(% GDP)
Ave. cost per person above
threshold
EU 27 $38,385 $15,563 $ 216 1.12% $436
- EU 15 $41,424
$13,723 $ 188 1.12% $468
- EU +12 $25,981
$ 1,840 $ 28 1.09% $300
Norway $61,605
$ 274 $ 3 1.02% $630
United States $53,671
$15,661 $ 275 1.51% $841
Japan $40,771
$ 4,139 $ 62 1.23% $504
Russia $22,052
$ 1,927 $ 41 1.40% $326
China $9,468 $ 5,932 $ 98 0.73% $169
India $4,374 $ 972 $ 11 0.19% $58
South Africa $14,010
$ 422 $ 10 1.42% $395
Mexico $14,642
$ 1,009 $ 15 0.84% $207
LDCs $1,567 $ 82 $ 1 0.06% $58
Annex I $38,425
$40,722 $ 652 1.29% $529
Non-Annex I $6,998 $18,667 $ 292 0.66% $180
High Income $44,365
$40,993 $ 655 1.33% $602
Middle Income
$8,797 $18,190 $ 286 0.69% $149
Low Income $2,022 $ 206 $ 3 0.08% $51
World $12,415
$59,388 $ 944 1.00% $330
59
Final Comments• The scientific evidence shows that a maximum
tolerable warming of 2C implies a very strict remaining carbon budget. (≤ 700 GtCO2 over this century)
• Carbon-based growth is no longer an option in the North, nor the South.
• Rigorous, binding commitments to substantial emissions reductions are critical, but even ambitious Annex 1 cuts leave very little remaining budget for the non-Annex 1 countries.
• Technology & financial resources to enable developing countries to keep within this budget is critical.
• The alternative to something like this is a weak climate regime with little chance of preventing catastrophic climate change.
• This is about politic reality, not just equity and justice.
The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse
Development Rights Framework AuthorsTom Athansiou (EcoEquity)Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute)Paul Baer (EcoEquity)Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)
Key CollaboratorsJörg Haas (European Climate Foundation)
Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation)Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid)
Andrew Pendleton (IPPR)Antonio Hill (Oxfam)
SupportersChristian Aid (UK)Oxfam (International)European Aprodev Network The Heinrich Böll Foundation (Germany) MISTRA Foundation CLIPORE Programme (Sweden)Stockholm Environment Institute (Int’l)Rockefeller Brothers Fund (US)Town Creek Foundation (US)