1. Clarisse Kehler Siebert Sivan Kartha Stockholm Environment Institute Seminar of the SEI programme Climate for Development 13 March 2009 Rights Based Approaches to Climate Change and the Greenhouse Development Rights framework

2. The Maldives Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights International Council on Human Rights Policy Oxfam Other advocacy organisations An emerging issue

3. Human rights law is relevant because climate change causes human rights violations. But a human rights lens can also be helpful in approaching and managing climate change. ~ Mary Robinson Relationship

4. climate change (policy) human rights (regime) Threaten fullfillment of fundamental rights: to life, food, clean water, livelihoods, development Legally-binding norms; needs → entitlements; rights imply corresponding duties; enforcement mechanisms phenomenon international effort Relationship

5. Application Funding for adaptation Climate technology policy Liability and compensation for climate damages Outreach/education/awareness

6. 6 Arctic Sea Ice “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. “This enormous ice retreat in the last two summers is the culmination of a thinning process that has been going on for decades, and now the ice is just collapsing.” Peter Wadhams, Cambridge University, Oct. 2008. 2005 2007

7. 7 Greenland Ice Sheet IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100” Hansen, 2007: “several meters by 2100”

8. 8 Carbon Cycle Feedbacks “Together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected.” (Canadell et al, 2007, PNAS)

9. 9 Tipping Elements in the Climate System  2ºC is already risking catastrophic, irreversible impacts. This climate crisis calls for an emergency program. Lenton et al, 2008

10. Global 2ºC pathways and their risks

11. Uncertain uncertainty ref: Baer and Mastrandrea (2006)

12. The climate challenge: a thought experiment What kind of climate regime can enable this to happen…? 12

13. 13 … in the midst of a development crisis? 2 billion people without access to clean cooking fuels More than 1.5 billion people without electricity More than 1 billion have poor access to fresh water About 800 million people chronically undernourished 2 million children die per year from diarrhea 30,000 deaths each day from preventable diseases

14. 14 A viable climate regime must… Ensure the rapid mitigation required by an emergency climate stabilization program Support the deep, extensive adaptation programs that will inevitably be needed While at the same time safeguarding the right to development

15. 15 A “Greenhouse Development Rights” approach to a global climate accord… Defines and calculates national obligations with respect to a development threshold Allows those people with incomes and emissions below the threshold to prioritize development Obliges people with incomes and emissions above the threshold (in both the North and South) to pay the global costs of an emergency climate program

16. 16 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)

17. 17 Burden-sharing in a global climate regime Define National Obligation (national share of global mitigation and adaptation costs) based on: Capacity: resources to pay w/o sacrificing necessities We use income (PPP), excluding income below the $20/day ($7,500/year) development threshold Responsibility: contribution to the climate problem We use cumulative CO 2 emissions, excluding “subsistence” emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below the development threshold)

18. 18 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”

19. 19 “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 Political Declaration Sapporo, Japan, 8 July 2008 in response to the G-8 statement, Hokkaido, Japan, 2008

20. 20 “Countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.” Al Gore (New York Times Op-Ed, 7/1/2007)

21. 21 Income and Capacity: showing projected national income distributions in 2010, and capacity in green

22. Calculating C and R } Average national per capita PPP income (WB- ICP) and Gini coefficients (WIID) Assume log-normal distribution All signatories to UNFCCC Int’l Energy Agency WEO-2007 projections

23. Emissions vs. Responsibility Cumulative fossil CO 2 (since 1990) showing portion considered “responsibility” 23

24. Population % Income ($/capita) Capacity % Responsibility % RCI (obligations) % EU 27 7.3 30,47228.8 22.625.7 - EU 15 5.8 33,75426.1 19.822.9 - Sweden 0.1435,587 0.65 0.32 0.49 - EU +12 1.5 17,708 2.7 2.8 2.7 - Poland 0.6 17,222 1.0 1.2 1.1 United States 4.5 45,64029.7 36.433.1 China19.7 5,899 5.8 5.2 5.5 India17.2 2,818 0.66 0.30 0.48 South Africa 0.7 10,117 0.6 1.3 1.0 LDCs11.7 1,274 0.11 0.04 0.07 Annex I18.7 30,92475.8 78.076.9 Non-Annex I81.3 5,09624.2 22.023.1 High Income15.5 36,48876.9 77.977.4 Middle Income63.3 6,22622.9 21.922.4 Low Income21.2 1,599 0.2 World100% 9,929 100 % 24 National obligations based on capacity and responsibility in 2010

25. Population % Income ($/capita) Capacity % Responsibility % RCI (obligations) % EU 276.6 38,38526.219.522.8 EU 155.3 41,42423.116.619.9 Germany1.1 44,0825.04.44.7 EU +121.3 25,9813.12.93.0 Poland0.5 24,7961.11.21.1 United States4.5 53,67126.431.829.1 China18.7 9,46810.010.810.4 India17.5 4,3741.60.71.2 South Africa0.7 14,0100.71.41.1 LDCs13.0 1,5670.1 Annex I17.2 38,42568.669.469.0 Non-Annex I82.8 6,99831.430.631.0 High Income14.6 44,36569.069.669.3 Middle Income62.1 8,79730.630.230.4 Low Income23.3 2,0220.30.20.3 World100.0 12,415100.0 25 National obligations based on capacity and responsibility in 2020

26. Population % Income ($/capita) Capacity % Responsibility % RCI (obligations) % EU 27 6.1 46,84623.715.619.6 EU 15 4.9 49,46820.512.816.7 Germany 1.0 54,2034.43.54.0 EU +12 1.1 35,5273.22.83.0 Poland 0.4 33,5511.1 United States 4.4 62,56023.927.025.4 China 17.7 13,67013.317.215.3 India 17.6 6,3533.01.72.3 South Africa 0.6 18,4100.81.61.2 LDCs 14.4 1,8400.170.080.12 Annex I 16.0 46,63562.359.460.9 Non-Annex I 84.0 9,06637.740.639.1 High Income 13.9 52,92862.559.661.1 Middle Income 60.7 11,72836.940.038.5 Low Income 25.4 2,4290.50.40.5 World100 15,095100% 26 National obligations based on capacity and responsibility in 2030

27. National obligations based on capacity and responsibility 201020202030 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 7.330,47228.822.625.722.919.6 EU 15 5.833,75426.119.822.919.916.7 EU +12 1.517,708 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 United states 4.545,64029.736.433.129.125.5 Japan 1.933,422 8.3 7.3 7.8 6.6 5.5 Russia 2.015,031 2.7 4.9 3.8 4.3 4.6 China19.7 5,899 5.8 5.2 5.510.415.2 India17.2 2,818 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.2 2.3 Brazil 2.9 9,442 2.3 1.1 1.7 South Africa 0.710,117 0.6 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 Mexico 1.612,408 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.5 LDCs11.7 1,274 0.1 0.04 0.1 Annex I18.730,92475.878.0776961 Non-Annex I81.3 5,09624.222.0233139 High Income15.536,48876.977.9776961 Middle Income63.3 6,22622.921.9223038 Low Income21.2 1,599 0.2 0.3 0.5 World1009,929 100 %

28. 201020202030 Income ($/capita) RCI (obligations) % Income ($/capita) RCI (obligations) % Income ($/capita) RCI (obligations) % EU 27 30,47225.7 38,38522.8 46,84619.6 EU 15 33,75422.9 41,42419.9 49,46816.7 Sweden 35,587 0.49 42,517 0.41 49,237 0.33 EU +12 17,708 2.7 25,981 3.0 35,527 3.0 Poland 17,222 1.1 24,796 1.1 33,551 1.1 United States 45,64033.1 53,67129.1 62,56025.4 China 5,899 5.5 9,46810.4 13,67015.3 India 2,818 0.5 4,374 1.2 6,353 2.3 South Africa 10,117 1.0 14,010 1.1 18,410 1.2 LDCs 1,274 0.07 1,567 0.10 1,840 0.12 Annex I 30,92476.9 38,42569.0 46,63560.9 Non-Annex I 5,09623.1 6,99831.0 9,06639.1 High Income 36,48877.4 44,36569.3 52,92861.1 Middle Income 6,22622.4 8,79730.4 11,72838.5 Low Income 1,599 0.2 2,022 0.3 2,429 0.5 World 9,929100% 12,415100.0 15,095100% 28 Income and obligations over time

29. Allocating global mitigation obligations among countries according to their “RCI” 29

30. 30

31. Example 1 The United States 31

32. Implications for United States US mitigation obligation amounts to a reduction target exceeding 100% after ~2025 (“negative emission allocation”). 32

33. 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. 33

34. In comparison to the more ambitious of US bills...

35. Example 2 China and India 35

36. 36 Implications for China 中国的测算结果

37. 37 A large 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

38. 38 Implications for India The majority of the reductions in the South are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.

39. Example 2 The European Union 39

40. 40 Implications for European Union

41. 41 Domestic reductions (~40% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of total EU obligation. The rest would have to be met internationally. Implications for European Union

42. 42 Implications for European Union -20% -30%

43. 43 Implications for European Union

44. EU15 and EU New Member States Obligation varies significantly among EU members

45. 45 Implications for Germany

46. Implications for Sweden

48. Implications for Poland: Capacity and costs If global costs were 1% of GWP… 20102020 Per capita income ($/yr)$17,759$26,434 % of population above DT84%94% Capacity (% of GDP)59%79% Obligation (% of GDP)1.20% Obligation (US$/yr/person)$252$336 Obligation (PLN/yr/person)479638

49. 49 Implications for Poland: emissions

50. Burden-sharing in the EU

51. EU vs 2ºc

52. US and China

53. MRV 53

54. What are the costs? 54

55. National Obligations in 2020 (if climate costs = 1% of GWP) Per capita Income ($/capita) National Capacity (Billion $) National Obligation (Billion $) National Obligation (% GDP) Ave. climate cost per person above threshold EU 27$38,385 $15,563$ 2161.12% $436 - EU 15 $41,424 $13,723$ 1881.12% $468 - Sweden $42,517 $ 338 $ 4 0.95% $404 - EU +12 $25,981 $ 1,840$ 281.09% $300 United States $53,671 $15,661$ 2751.51% $841 Japan $40,771 $ 4,139$ 621.23% $504 Russia $22,052 $ 1,927$ 411.40% $326 China $9,468 $ 5,932$ 980.73% $169 India $4,374 $ 972$ 110.19% $58 South Africa $14,010 $ 422$ 101.42% $395 Mexico $14,642 $ 1,009$ 150.84% $207 LDCs $1,567 $ 82$ 10.06% $58 Annex I $38,425 $40,722$ 6521.29% $529 Non-Annex I $6,998 $18,667$ 2920.66% $180 High Income $44,365 $40,993$ 6551.33% $602 Middle Income $8,797 $18,190$ 2860.69% $149 Low Income $2,022 $ 206$ 30.08% $51 World $12,415 $59,388$ 9441.00% $330

56. Funding Obligations (for funding target of = 1% of Annex 1 GDP) GDPCapacity Mexican "Green Fund" Contribution G77+China "Financial Mechanism" Contribution (Billion $) (% of GDP)(Billion $) EU 27 $ 15,237 $ 11,52875.7 $ 102 $ 132 EU 15 $ 13,426 $ 10,45177.8 $ 91 $ 118 EU +12 $ 1,811 $ 1,07659.4 $ 11 $ 14 United states $ 14,201 $ 11,90083.8 $ 131 $ 170 Norway $ 250 $ 21585.7 $ 2 Russia $ 2,098 $ 1,09452.1 $ 15 $ 20 China $ 7,962 $ 2,33129.3 $ 22 $ - India $ 3,314 $ 263 7.9 $ 2 $ - Brazil $ 1,879 $ 91248.5 $ 7 $ - South Africa $ 490 $ 24850.6 $ 4 $ - Mexico $ 1,352 $ 71352.7 $ 6 $ - LDCs $ 1,019 $ 43 4.2 $ 0 $ - Annex I $ 39,626 $ 30,33476.6 $ 305 $ 396 Non-Annex I $ 28,363 $ 9,70034.2 $ 92 $ - World $ 67,989 $ 40,03558.9 $ 396

57. 57 Final Comments The scientific evidence is a wake-up call. Carbon-based growth is no longer an option in the North, nor in the South. A rigorous, binding commitment to North-to-South flows of technology and financial assistance is critical. Domestic reductions in the North are only half of the North’s obligation. In principle, a corresponding commitment from the consuming class in the South is also necessary. In practice, Copenhagen will need to bring a period of trust- building. The alternative to something like this is a weak regime with little chance of preventing catastrophic climate change This is about politics, not only about equity and justice.

58. 58 www.GreenhouseDevelopmentRights.org Full report released at Poznan Sweden country report released in Sept Online calculator and dataset For information: skartha@sei.se

59. additional slides

60. Emergency pathways: details 2050 CO 2 emissions relative to 1990 Maximum rate of reductions Chance of exceeding 2ºC Peak concentration (Co 2 /CO 2-eq ) ppm Trajectory 1 (least stringent) 50% below3.4%/yr35-71%445 /500 Trajectory 2 65% below4.4%/yr30-66%435 / 485 Trajectory 3 (most stringent) 80% below6.0%/yr24-56%425 / 470 Baer and Mastrandrea (2007) Carbon concentrations in these scenarios peak and decline (rather than stabilize).