Transcript After Copenhagen - Harvard Kennedy School

After Copenhagen
Jeffrey Frankel
Harpel Professor, Harvard Kennedy School
HUCE, March 2, 2010
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
Emissions targets taken on under
Copenhagen Accord (Jan 31, 2010 deadline)
.
Reduction
Country
by 2020
Australia 5 to 25%
Canada
China
17%
40 to
45%
EU27 20% /
30%
India 20% to
25%
Indonesia 26%
Reduction
Share of CO2 Emissions
Reduction
Base
World
per capita
Type
1
Year
GHGs
(tCO2eq)1
2000
1.30%
27.4
2005
1.86%
24.9
N/A
16.64%
5.5
1990
11.69%
10.3
2005
4.32%
1.7
N/A
4.73%
9.3
.
Emission Reductions. A target which reduces a country's overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Business As Usual (BAU). A commitment to reduce emissions from the projection of the future if actions were not taken.
5
Carbon intensity. How much fossil fuels you have to burn to produce an economic unit. Reducing carbon intensity means
5
a country's GDP will continue to rise without carbon emissions rising at the same rate due to greater energy efficiency.
Emissions targets taken on under
Copenhagen Accord (Jan 31, 2010 deadline)
.
Reduction
Share of Emissions
Reduction
Base
World per capita
Type
Year
GHGs (tCO2eq)
Country
Reduction
by 2020
Japan
25%
1990
3.14%
10.6
Mexico
30%
N/A
1.58%
6.6
Russia
15 to
25%
34%
1990
4.64%
14.0
N/A
0.98%
9.0
30%
N/A
1.3%
11.8
17%
2005
South
Africa
South
Korea
US
.
15.78% 23.1
6
6
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.
7
• 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.
8
2. Proposal:
formulas for pragmatic targets,
based on what emission paths are possible politically:
• 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.
9
•
Proposal
Stage 1:
• Annex I countries commit to the post-2012
targets that their leaders have already announced.
• Others commit immediately not to exceed BAU.
•
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.
10
◙ In one version, concentrations level off at 500 ppm
in the latter part of the century.
◙ Constraints are satisfied:
-- No country in any one period suffers
Co-author: V.Bosetti
a loss as large as 5% of GDP by participating.
-- Present Discounted Value of loss < 1% GDP.
W orld Industrial Carbon Emissions
25
bau
15
10
Sim ulated
Em is s ions
5
0
20
05
20
20
20
35
20
50
20
65
20
80
20
95
GtC
20
Global peak
date ≈ 2035
11
Paper: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/SpecificTargetsHPICA2009.doc
Available at: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/currentpubsspeeches.htm#On%20Climate%20Change
Appendices
The targeted reductions from BAU agreed to at Kyoto
Cuts ↑
Percent reduction from 2010 business-as-usual .
in 1997 were progressive with respect to income.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
500
2.699
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
3.699
1996 GDP per capita (1987 US dollars, ratio scale)
50,000
4.699
Incomes →
13
This is how we set the parameter in the Progressive Reductions Factor
The numbers submitted by countries,
Jan. 31, 2010, under the Copenhagen Accord,
were also progressive
120%
China
100%
Emissions
targets
for 2020
expressed
vs. BAU
India
Russia
USA
Canada
80%
EU
S. Korea
Mexico
Japan
60%
Australi
a
(WITCH model)
Series1
Linear (Series1)
40%
Cuts ↓
20%
Income per capita
0%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
14
Emissions path for rich countries
Fig. 2b
OECD Emissions
7
6
GtC
5
BAU
Simulated Emissions
4
CAP
3
2
1
0
10
0
2
25
0
2
40
0
2
55
0
2
70
0
2
85
0
2
00
1
2
Predicted actual
emissions exceed
caps, by permit
purchases.
15
Emissions path for poor countries
Fig. 4b
NON OECD Emissions
20
BAU
13
GtC
Simulated Emissions
CAP
7
21
00
20
85
20
70
20
55
20
40
20
25
20
10
0
Predicted actual
emissions fall
below caps, by
permit sales.
16
Price of Carbon Dioxide
Fig. 6b
Price of Carbon Permits
1000
600
rises slowly over 50
years, then rapidly.
FRANKEL
Architecture
400
200
0
2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095
Zoom on Price of Carbon Permits
$/tCO2e
$/tCO2e
800
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FRANKEL
Architecture
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
17
Concentrations stay below 500 ppm goal
Fig. 7b
Carbon Conce ntrations (CO2 only)
800
bau
750
700
600
550
500
450
FRANK
EL
Archite
cture
400
350
300
20
05
20
15
20
25
20
35
20
45
20
55
20
65
20
75
20
85
20
95
21
05
ppmv
650
18