1. After Copenhagen Jeffrey Frankel Harpel Professor, Harvard Kennedy School Harpel Professor, Harvard Kennedy School HUCE, March 2, 2010

2. 2 2 Questions 1.Copenhagen Accord = Progress ? 2.Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement: How to Set Emission Targets by Formula 3.Appendix: Country Emission Targets

3. 3 1. Progress? What is the definition? It is useless to evaluate negotiations by whether or not they produce a sweeping agreement. –Always keep in mind the Herculean tasks of bridging the gap between rich countries & poor, the gap between environmental aspirations & economic costs that people are willing to pay, the gap between what leaders are willing to say, & what commitments are enforceable and credible. Progress ≡ steps toward specific credible commitments by a large number of countries.

4. 4 The best recent news 102 countries (81% of global emissions), responded to the Jan.31, 2010, deadline of the Copenhagen Accord by submitting plans for reducing emissions. Six big non-Annex I countries named quantitative targets – They didn’t have to. – Of course many, like China, are vague about base year and seriousness of commitment India & China’s 2020 target ≈ BAU. –But that is not a problem. (It is what I had proposed.) It is an important step forward, –suggesting that Pres. Obama’s in-person breakthrough on the last day of COP15 may indeed lead somewhere.

5. 5 5 Emissions targets taken on under Copenhagen Accord (Jan 31, 2010 deadline)

6. 6 6

7. 7 Lessons from Copenhagen Progress is not possible in the UN Framework –Small member countries will obstruct. Delays due to walkout; 6 trouble-maker countries blocked adoption of “Copenhagen Accord.” –The UNFCCC Secretariat is not up to it: –Leaving 38,000-44,000 registrees out in the cold is unforgivable incompetence. The important decisions can only be made by a small steering group, like the old G-7.

8. 8 2009’s good global governance development: –Big emerging market countries finally have representation, now that the G-20 has supplanted the G-8. Korea chairs the G-20 in 2010, and may be able to bridge between Annex I & developing countries. Big Emitters Forum Mexico hosts next climate summit.

9. 9 unlike other approaches based purely on: –Science (concentration goals), –Ethics (equal emission rights per capita), –or Economics (cost-benefit optimization). Why the political approach? –Countries will not accept burdens that they view as unfair. –Above certain thresholds for economic costs, they will drop out. 2. Proposal: formulas for pragmatic targets, based on what emission paths are possible politically:

10. 10 Stage 2: When the time comes for developing country cuts, targets are determined by a formula incorporating 3 elements, designed so each is asked only to take actions analogous to those already taken by others: Stage 2: When the time comes for developing country cuts, targets are determined by a formula incorporating 3 elements, designed so each is asked only to take actions analogous to those already taken by others: –a Progressive Reduction Factor, –a Latecomer Catch-up Factor, and –a Gradual Equalization Factor. Stage 1: Annex I countries commit to the post-2012 targets that their leaders have already announced. Others commit immediately not to exceed BAU. Proposal

11. 11 Global peak date ≈ 2035 ◙ Constraints are satisfied: -- No country in any one period suffers a loss as large as 5% of GDP by participating. -- Present Discounted Value of loss < 1% GDP. ◙ In one version, concentrations level off at 500 ppm in the latter part of the century. Co-author: V.Bosetti

12. Paper: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/SpecificTargetsHPICA2009.doc Available at: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/currentpubsspeeches.htm#On%20Climate%20Change http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/SpecificTargetsHPICA2009.doc

13. 13 Appendices The targeted reductions from BAU agreed to at Kyoto in 1997 were progressive with respect to income. Cuts ↑ Incomes → This is how we set the parameter in the Progressive Reductions Factor

14. 14 The numbers submitted by countries, Jan. 31, 2010, under the Copenhagen Accord, were also progressive Income per capita Emissions targets for 2020 expressed vs. BAU (WITCH model) Cuts ↓

15. 15 Emissions path for rich countries Fig. 2b Predicted actual emissions exceed caps, by permit purchases.

16. 16 Emissions path for poor countries Fig. 4b Predicted actual emissions fall below caps, by permit sales.

17. 17 Price of Carbon Dioxide Fig. 6b rises slowly over 50 years, then rapidly.

18. 18 Concentrations stay below 500 ppm goal Fig. 7b