Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime Authored by.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime Authored by."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 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

3 3 Implication of 1 meter rise Nile Delta 2000

4 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 5 Global sinks are weakening

6 Tipping Elements in the Climate System Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible impacts. Lenton et al, 2008

7 Global 2ºC pathways and their risks

8 The Deep Structure of the Climate Problem 8

9 9

10

11

12 The climate challenge: in three steps What kind of global climate deal can enable this to happen…?

13 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

14 Emissions per capita along a 2ºC pathway

15 15 A viable climate regime must… Mitigation: emergency climate stabilization Adaptation: inevitable, increasingly urgent While safeguarding a right to development

16 Greenhouse Development Rights Towards Principle-based Global Differentiation 16

17 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 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 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 CO 2 emissions, excluding “subsistence” emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below the development threshold)

20 “Negotiations for a shared vision … must be based on an equitable burden sharing paradigm that ensures equal sustainable development potential for all citizens of the world and that takes into account historical responsibility and respective capabilities as a fair and just approach.” G-5 Declaration Sapporo, Japan June 2008 statement in response to the G-8, Hokkaido, Japan

21 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. ”

22 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 23 Income and Capacity income distributions (relative to a “development threshold”)

24 Emissions and Responsibility fossil CO 2 (since 1990) (showing portion defined as “responsibility”) 24

25 Population % Income ($/capita) Capacity % Responsibility % RCI (obligations) % EU , EU , EU , Norway , United States , China19.7 5, India17.2 2, South Africa , LDCs11.7 1, Annex I , Non-Annex I81.3 5, High Income , Middle Income63.3 6, Low Income21.2 1, World100% 9, % 25 National obligations based on national “capacity” and “responsibility”

26 National obligations based on capacity and responsibility Population (% of global) GDP per capita ($US PPP) Capacity (% of global) Responsibility (% of global) RCI (% of global) RCI (% of global) RCI (% of global) EU , EU , EU , Switzerland0.1139, United states 4.545, Japan 1.933, Russia 2.015, China19.7 5, India17.2 2, South Africa 0.710, Mexico 1.612, LDCs11.7 1, Annex I18.730, Non-Annex I81.3 5, High Income15.536, Middle Income63.3 6, Low Income21.2 1, World100%9, %

27 Steps Towards a Fair and Adequate Global Accord 27

28 Allocating global mitigation obligations among countries according to their “RCI” 28

29 Allocating global mitigation obligations among countries according to responsibility & capacity 29

30 Financial Implications 30

31 What are the costs? 31 SourceAnnual Cost (billions) Notes Adaptation World Bank (2006)$9 - 41Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid Oxfam International (2007)> $50Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term. UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b)$ Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177) UNDP (2007)$86Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015 Mitigation UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a;2007b) $380Costs 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 ppm CO 2 e range. Stern Review (2007, 2008)1% (±3%)2007: Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for ppm CO 2 e. Target was revised in 2008 to CO 2 e European Commission (2009)€175Bottom up analysis of incremental costs

32 National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP) Per capita Income ($/capita) National Capacity (Billion $) National Obligation (Billion $) National Obligation (% GDP) Ave. cost per person above threshold EU 27$38,385 $15,563$ % $436 - EU 15 $41,424 $13,723$ % $468 - EU +12 $25,981 $ 1,840$ % $300 Norway $61,605 $ 274 $ % $630 United States $53,671 $15,661$ % $841 Japan $40,771 $ 4,139$ % $504 Russia $22,052 $ 1,927$ % $326 China $9,468 $ 5,932$ % $169 India $4,374 $ 972$ % $58 South Africa $14,010 $ 422$ % $395 Mexico $14,642 $ 1,009$ % $207 LDCs $1,567 $ 82$ 10.06% $58 Annex I $38,425 $40,722$ % $529 Non-Annex I $6,998 $18,667$ % $180 High Income $44,365 $40,993$ % $602 Middle Income $8,797 $18,190$ % $149 Low Income $2,022 $ 206$ 30.08% $51 World $12,415 $59,388$ % $330

33 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.

34 The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework Authors Tom Athansiou (EcoEquity) Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute) Paul Baer (EcoEquity) Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI) Key Collaborators Jörg Haas (European Climate Foundation) Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation) Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid) Andrew Pendleton (IPPR) Antonio Hill (Oxfam) Supporters Christian 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)

35 Example 1 The European Union 35

36 36 Implications for European Union

37 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 38 Implications for European Union -20% -30%

39 39 Implications for European Union

40 EU15 and EU New Member States Obligation varies significantly among EU members

41 Example 2 The United States 41

42 Implications for United States US mitigation obligation amounts to a reduction target exceeding 100% after ~2025 (“negative emission allocation”). 42

43 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

44 Example 2 China and India 44

45 45 Implications for China 中国的测算结果

46 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 47 Implications for India The majority of the reductions in the South are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.

48 US and China

49 Obligations for Annex 1 countries according to their “RCI” in a Copenhagen phase (to 2020), and globally thereafter. 49

50 Allocating global mitigation obligations among countries according to their “RCI” 50

51 Copenhagen phase - to 2017

52

53

54

55

56 Financial Implications 56

57 What are the costs? 57 SourceAnnual Cost (billions) Notes Adaptation World Bank (2006)$9 - 41Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid Oxfam International (2007)> $50Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term. UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b)$ Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177) UNDP (2007)$86Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015 Mitigation UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a;2007b) $380Costs 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 ppm CO 2 e range. Stern Review (2007, 2008)1% (±3%)2007: Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for ppm CO 2 e. Target was revised in 2008 to CO 2 e European Commission (2009)€175Bottom up analysis of incremental costs

58 National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP) Per capita Income ($/capita) National Capacity (Billion $) National Obligation (Billion $) National Obligation (% GDP) Ave. cost per person above threshold EU 27$38,385 $15,563$ % $436 - EU 15 $41,424 $13,723$ % $468 - EU +12 $25,981 $ 1,840$ % $300 Norway $61,605 $ 274 $ % $630 United States $53,671 $15,661$ % $841 Japan $40,771 $ 4,139$ % $504 Russia $22,052 $ 1,927$ % $326 China $9,468 $ 5,932$ % $169 India $4,374 $ 972$ % $58 South Africa $14,010 $ 422$ % $395 Mexico $14,642 $ 1,009$ % $207 LDCs $1,567 $ 82$ 10.06% $58 Annex I $38,425 $40,722$ % $529 Non-Annex I $6,998 $18,667$ % $180 High Income $44,365 $40,993$ % $602 Middle Income $8,797 $18,190$ % $149 Low Income $2,022 $ 206$ 30.08% $51 World $12,415 $59,388$ % $330

59 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.

60 The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework Authors Tom Athansiou (EcoEquity) Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute) Paul Baer (EcoEquity) Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI) Key Collaborators Jörg Haas (European Climate Foundation) Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation) Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid) Andrew Pendleton (IPPR) Antonio Hill (Oxfam) Supporters Christian 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)


Download ppt "Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime Authored by."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google