Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 589175-NDdmN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

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

Number of Views:111
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 55
Provided by: PaulB181
Learn more at: http://www.in.boell.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World the Greenhouse Development Rights framework for burden-sharing in a global climate regime


1
Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained
Worldthe 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 sanjay.vashist_at_hbfasia.org
2
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.
2
3
Implication of 1 meter rise
Nile Delta 2000
3
4
Implication of 1 meter rise
Nile Delta 1 meter sea level increase
Nile Delta 2000
  • IPCC-AR4 0.18 0.59 m by 2100
  • Post-AR4 0.8 to 2.4 m by 2100 (Hansen
    several meters)

4
5
Global sinks are weakening
5
6
Tipping Elements in the Climate System
Lenton et al, 2008
Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible
impacts.
7
Global 2ºC pathways and their risks
8
  • The Deep Structure of the
  • Climate Problem

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
The climate challenge in three steps
Global 2ºc pathway
Emissions pathway in the developing world
Emissions pathway in the industrialized world
What kind of global climate deal can enable this
to happen?
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

13
14
Emissions per capita along a 2ºC pathway
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

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

17
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
A Greenhouse Development Rightsapproach 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 CO2 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
Income and Capacity income distributions
(relative to a development threshold)
24
Emissions and Responsibility fossil CO2 (since
1990) (showing portion defined as
responsibility)
25
National obligations based on national
capacity and responsibility
  Population Income (/capita) Capacity Responsibility RCI (obligations)
EU 27 7.3 30,472 28.8             22.6 25.7
- EU 15 5.8 33,754 26.1             19.8 22.9
- EU 12 1.5 17,708 2.7             2.8 2.7
Norway 0.07 52,406 0.54           0.26 0.40
United States 4.5 45,640 29.7             36.4 33.1
China 19.7 5,899 5.8             5.2 5.5
India 17.2 2,818 0.66           0.30 0.48
South Africa 0.7 10,117 0.6             1.3 1.0
LDCs 11.7 1,274 0.11           0.04 0.07
Annex I 18.7 30,924 75.8             78.0 76.9
Non-Annex I 81.3 5,096 24.2             22.0 23.1
High Income 15.5 36,488 76.9             77.9 77.4
Middle Income 63.3 6,226 22.9             21.9 22.4
Low Income 21.2 1,599 0.2             0.2 0.2
World 100 9,929 100          100 100
25
26
National obligations based on capacity and
responsibility
2010 2010 2010 2010 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)
EU 27 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
Switzerland 0.11 39,181 0.60 0.27 0.44 0.37 0.30
United states 4.5 45,640 29.7 36.4 33.1 29.1 25.5
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 0.5 1.2 2.3
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 0.2 0.3 0.5
World 100 9,929 100 100 100 100 100
27
  • Steps
  • Towards a Fair and Adequate
  • Global Accord

28
Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong
countries according to their RCI
28
29
Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong
countries according to responsibility capacity
29
30
  • Financial Implications

31
What are the costs?
Source Annual Cost (billions) Notes
Adaptation
World Bank (2006) 9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid
Oxfam International (2007) gt 50 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term.
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b) 49 - 171 Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177)
UNDP (2007) 86 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015
Mitigation
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a2007b) 380 Costs in 2030 to return emissions to 2007 levels. (Table 64, p. 196).
IPCC AR4 (2007 SPM Table 7) lt3 Costs as percentage of GWP in 2030 for stabilizing in 445 -535 ppm CO2e range.
Stern Review (2007, 2008) 1 (3) 2007 Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for 500-550 ppm CO2e. Target was revised in 2008 to 450-500 CO2e
European Commission (2009) 175 Bottom up analysis of incremental costs
31
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         15,563 216 1.12 436
- EU 15 41,424         13,723 188 1.12 468
- EU 12 25,981         1,840 28 1.09 300
Norway 61,605         274 3 1.02 630
United States 53,671         15,661 275 1.51 841
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
LDCs 1,567         82 1 0.06 58
Annex I 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         206 3 0.08 51
World 12,415         59,388 944 1.00 330
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.

33
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)

35
Example 1
  • The European Union

35
36
Implications for European Union
36
37
Implications for European Union
Domestic reductions (40 below 1990 by 2020) are
only part of total EU obligation. The rest would
be met internationally.
37
38
Implications for European Union
-20
-30
38
39
Implications for European Union
39
40
EU15 and EU New Member States
Obligation varies significantly among EU members
41
Example 2
  • The United States

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
Implications for China ???????
45
46
Implications for China ???????
A fraction of China's reduction, (and most of the
reductions in the South) are driven by
industrialized country reduction commitments.
46
47
Implications for India
The majority of the reductions in the South are
driven by industrialized country reduction
commitments.
47
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 obligationsamong
countries according to their RCI
50
51
Copenhagen phase - to 2017
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
  • Financial Implications

57
What are the costs?
Source Annual Cost (billions) Notes
Adaptation
World Bank (2006) 9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid
Oxfam International (2007) gt 50 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in immediate term.
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a,b) 49 - 171 Costs of adaptation in 2030 (summarized in Table IX-65, p. 177)
UNDP (2007) 86 Costs of adaptation in developing countries in 2015
Mitigation
UNFCCC Secretariat (2007a2007b) 380 Costs in 2030 to return emissions to 2007 levels. (Table 64, p. 196).
IPCC AR4 (2007 SPM Table 7) lt3 Costs as percentage of GWP in 2030 for stabilizing in 445 -535 ppm CO2e range.
Stern Review (2007, 2008) 1 (3) 2007 Costs percentage of GWP through 2050 for 500-550 ppm CO2e. Target was revised in 2008 to 450-500 CO2e
European Commission (2009) 175 Bottom up analysis of incremental costs
57
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         15,563 216 1.12 436
- EU 15 41,424         13,723 188 1.12 468
- EU 12 25,981         1,840 28 1.09 300
Norway 61,605         274 3 1.02 630
United States 53,671         15,661 275 1.51 841
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
LDCs 1,567         82 1 0.06 58
Annex I 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         206 3 0.08 51
World 12,415         59,388 944 1.00 330
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.

59
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)
About PowerShow.com