Transcript National Obligation - Greenhouse Development Rights

Showdown in Copenhagen
The Climate Negotiations face Reality
Tom Athanasiou
EcoEquity
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)
The Science
Arctic Sea Ice melting faster than expected
2005
2007
“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.
4
Sea levels rising faster than expected
Nile Delta
2000
5
Sea levels rising faster than expected
Nile Delta
1 meter
2000sea
level
increase
IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100”
Post-AR4: “0.8 to 2.4 m by 2100“ (Hansen: “several meters“)
6
Global sinks are weakening
7
Tipping Elements in the Climate System
Lenton et al, 2008
Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible impacts
The climate crisis demands an emergency mobilization
The Emergency Pathway
9
Global 2ºC pathways and their risks
The Deep Structure of the
Climate Problem
12
The deep structure of the climate problem
What kind of climate regime can enable this to happen…?
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
The Deep Structure
of the Climate Solution
15
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”
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
19
Greenhouse Development Rights
Towards Principle-based Global
Differentiation
20
The Greenhouse Development Rights
approach to effort 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 the $20/day
($7,500/year, PPP) development threshold
Responsibility: contribution to climate change
We use cumulative CO2 emissions, excluding “subsistence”
emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below
the development threshold)
21
Income and Capacity: showing projected
national income distributions in 2010, and capacity in green
24
Emissions vs. Responsibility
Cumulative fossil CO2 (since 1990) showing portion
considered “responsibility”
25
National obligations
based on capacity and responsibility
2010
2020
2030
Population
(% of global)
GDP per capita
($US PPP)
Capacity
(% of global)
Responsibility
(% of global)
RCI
(% of
global)
RCI
(% of
global)
RCI
(% of
global)
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
United States
4.5
45,640
29.7
36.4
33.1
29.1
25.5
Australia
0.31
33,879
1.68
1.52
1.39
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
0.48
1.18
2.34
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
EU 27
0.2
0.3
0.5
Steps
Towards a Fair and Adequate
Global Accord
27
The Framework Convention
The North pays the full incremental costs of the climate transition
Annex 2 is to “provide such financial resources, including for the transfer of
technology, needed by the developing country Parties to meet the
agreed full incremental costs of implementing measures” (UNFCCC, Art.
4.3)
These include full incremental costs associated with the “development,
application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices
and processes to control greenhouse gas emissions” and the
formulation and implementation of “national and, where appropriate,
regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change”.
(UNFCCC, Art. 4.1)
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement
their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective
implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments
under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of
technology and will take fully into account that economic and social
development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding
priorities of the developing country Parties.” (UNFCCC, Art. 4.7)
28
The Bali Action Plan
“To launch a comprehensive process to enable the full,
effective and sustained implementation of the Convention ...
1(b)(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally
appropriate mitigation commitments or actions,
including quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives, by all developed country Parties, while
ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into
account differences in their national circumstances;
1(b)(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by
developing country Parties in the context of sustainable
development, supported and enabled by technology,
financing and capacity-building, in a measurable,
reportable and verifiable manner;”
29
Allocating global mitigation obligations
among countries according to their “RCI”
30
Copenhagen phase - to 2017
After 2017 - Global burden sharing
National / Regional Examples
33
Implications for United States
US mitigation obligation amounts to a reduction target exceeding
100% after ~2025 (“negative emission allocation”).
35
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.
36
Implications for China
中国的测算结果
38
Implications for China
中国的测算结果
A large fraction of China's reduction, (and most of the reductions in the South) are
driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.
39
Financial Implications
42
What are the costs?
Source
Annual Cost
(billions)
Notes
Adaptation
World Bank (2006)
$9 - 41
Oxfam International (2007)
> $50
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b)
UNDP (2007)
$49 - 171
$86
Costs to mainstream adaptation in
development aid
Costs of adaptation in developing
countries in immediate term.
Costs of adaptation in 2030
(summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177)
Costs of adaptation in developing
countries in 2015
Mitigation
UNFCCC Secretariat
(2007a;2007b)
$380
Costs in 2030 to return emissions to
2007 levels. (Table 64, p. 196).
IPCC AR4 (2007: SPM Table 7)
<3%
Costs as percentage of GWP in 2030 for
stabilizing in 445 -535 ppm CO2e range.
Stern Review (2007, 2008)
European Commission (2009)
2007:1% (±3%) 2008: 2007: Costs percentage of GWP through
“450 may be substantially 2050 for 500-550 ppm CO2e. Target
was revised in 2008 to 450-500 CO2e
> 2% GDP”
€175
Bottom up analysis of incremental costs
43
National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP)
Per capita
Income
($/capita)
National
Capacity
(Billion $)
National
Obligation
(Billion $)
National
Obligation
(% GDP)
Average
obligation per
capita above
dev threshold
$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
United States
$53,671
$15,661
$ 275
1.50%
$841
Australia
$37,999
$
$
14
1.60%
$611
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
$
$
1
0.06%
$58
EU 27
LDCs
Annex I
$1,567
720
82
$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
$
$
0.08%
$51
206
3
Climate obligations, imagined as a
(mildly progressive) tax
Note: European Union effort-sharing proposal estimates global mitigation costs at
€175 billion, or about .25% of projected 2020 Gross World Product
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, by the North, to substantial
technology & financial assistance is critical. (“MRV for MRV”)
Domestic reductions in the North are only half of the North’s
obligation.
• The Copenhagen showdown:
– In principle, a corresponding commitment from the consuming class in
the South is also necessary.
– In practice, the Copenhagen Period must be based on “trust-building
while acting.”
• 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.
46
www.GreenhouseDevelopmentRights.org
• Full report released at Poznan
• Access to online calculator and dataset
• National and regional reports available
Email info: [email protected]
47