++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++ beyond kyoto climate commitments: assessing the options prepared for...
TRANSCRIPT
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Beyond KyotoClimate Commitments:Assessing the Options
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change by
Daniel Bodansky
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Why commitments?
Climate change mitigation is a collective action problem– Climate change mitigation provides a
public good: benefits shared by everyone
– But the country undertaking mitigation gets only small fraction of benefits
> No incentive to act unilaterally– Action makes sense only if
reciprocated by other states
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
The role of commitments
• Commitments provide some assurance that others will act
• Even in absence of any “enforcement,” countries feel pressures to comply with commitments– Internalization of commitments:
domestic legal and political pressure to comply
– External pressure:• Reputation internationally• Public opinion
The Three W’s:What, When and Who?
• What should be the commitments?• Who should be subject to
commitments?• When should commitments apply?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What? – Legal form
• Binding vs. non-binding– Non-binding “commitments”
• Example: UNFCCC art. 4.2
– One-way (“no lose”) “commitments”• Analogy: CDM baselines
– Legally-binding commitments• Example: Kyoto targets and timetables
– Enforceable commitments
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What?: Substantive content
• Emission targets (“obligations of result”)– Absolute targets– Dynamic targets– Conditional targets– Sectoral targets
• Policies and measures (“obligations of conduct”)– Technology and
performance standards
– Taxes– Subsidy removal– Emissions trading– Technology R & D and
incentives
Types of Policy Instruments
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What?: Examples
Non-binding commitments
One-way Legally-binding
Enforceable
Non-binding vs. binding
TargetsAbsoluteDynamic
ConditionalSectoral
PAMsTech standards
TaxesSubsidies
ETR & D
Pol
icy
Inst
rum
ent
Kyoto targets
UNFCCC target
Kyoto, Art. 2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
When?
• When will commitment period begin?– If too far in future, lacks credibility– If too near-term, then inefficient:
premature capital retirement
• How long will commitment period last?– Indefinite duration: continues until
modified or terminated– Fixed duration
• Example: Kyoto: 5 years
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Who?
• Ways to differentiate commitments– Different
stringency– Different time
frames– Binding vs. non-
binding– Fixed vs.
conditional
• Bases for differentiation– Current emissions– Historical
emissions– Wealth/capacity– Like-minded
states
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
• Leakage• Effect on
technology change
• Education, public awareness
• Enforceability
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
•Market based approaches
•Flexibility:• Where• When• What
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
•Equity both•End in itself•Important factor in what is politically acceptable
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
•Ease of revision in light of new scientific and economic information
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
•Possibility of fragmented regime
•Potential linkages between systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
• Continuity with Kyoto
• Economic predictability
• Compatibility with development priorities
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Assessment criteria
• Policy– Environmental effectiveness– Cost effectiveness– Equity– Dynamic flexibility / scalability– Complementarity
• Politics– Negotiability– Enforceability
• Ease of monitoring
• Adequacy of domestic legal system
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Kyoto targets
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Pros Environmental
effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Equity Scalability Continuity
Cons Economic uncertainties Rigidity Negotiability Incompatibility with
development
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Dynamic targets
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Compared to Kyoto:
Pros Greater flexibility Easier to negotiate
Cons Less environmental
certainty
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Sectoral targets
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Compared to Kyoto
Pros Incremental > easier
to negotiate Easier to monitor
Cons Less efficient Competitiveness,
equity concerns
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Safety valve
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets: safety valve• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Compared to Kyoto
Pros Greater economic
certainty Could generate
development funds
Cons Less environmental
certainty Looks like a tax >
politically unacceptable?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Non-binding targets
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Attractive first step for developing countries??
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: Tech standards
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Pros Don’t need universal
acceptance Self-enforcing Easy to monitor
Cons Limit flexibility
Less efficient Potential lock-in of
inefficient technologies
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Specific options: R & D
• Kyoto-like targets• Dynamic national targets• Sectoral targets• Hybrid targets• Non-binding targets for
developing countries + graduation criteria
• Efficiency, technology standards
• R & D
Government track record on R & D mixed
But useful add-on to other commitments
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Conclusions
• One size may not fit all• If commitments variegated, they
should be as complementary as possible– Ensure adequate level of effort overall– Mix of commitments should be,
broadly speaking, equitable– Promote linkages between systems
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Extra slides
• Extra slides
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What are commitments? [option1]
• Commitments vs. obligations
• Commitments vs. voluntary obligations
Obligations: preexisting duties
Commitments: voluntarily undertaken, based on state interest
Commitments: performance not optional
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What are commitments [option 2]
Voluntary action
Acceptance voluntary: based on self-interest
Bound whether like it or not
Pre-existing dutiesCommitments
Obligations
Performance optional
But performance required
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
What are commitments? [option 3]
Acc
epta
nce
Preexisting duty
Voluntary
Performance/fulfillment
Voluntary Binding
Voluntary action
Commitment
Obligation
ReputationInternalization
Sanctions
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Example 1: Dual intensity targets
Non-binding commitments
One-way Legally-binding
Enforceable
Non-binding vs. binding
TargetsAbsoluteDynamic
ConditionalSectoral
PAMsTech standards
TaxesSubsidies
ETR & D
Pol
icy
Inst
rum
ent Strict
targetWeak target
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Example 2 : Safety valve
Non-binding commitments
One-way Legally-binding
Enforceable
Non-binding vs. binding
TargetsAbsoluteDynamic
ConditionalSectoral
PAMsTech standards
TaxesSubsidies
ETR & D
Pol
icy
Inst
rum
ent
Safety valve
When?: Possible Evolution of Commitments
Non-binding commitments
One-way Legally-binding
Enforceable
Non-binding vs. binding
Tim
e
Time1
Time2
Time3
Time3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Comparison of options
Targets PAMs
Kyoto Dynami
cSectoral Hybrid
Non-binding
Tech R & D
Environmental effectiveness
Cost effectiveness
Equity Scalability
Negotiability Enforceability