Global Solidarity in a Climate Constrained World

the 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@hbfasia.org

2

Arctic Sea Ice melting faster than expected

“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.

2005 2007

3

Implication of 1 meter riseNile Delta

2000

4

Implication of 1 meter rise

IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100”Post-AR4: “0.8 to 2.4 m by 2100“ (Hansen: “several meters“)

Nile Delta

2000

Nile Delta

1 meter sea level

increase

5

Global sinks are weakening

Tipping Elements in the Climate System

Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible impacts.

Lenton et al, 2008

Global 2ºC pathways and their risks

The climate challenge: in three steps

What kind of global climate deal can enable this to happen…?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al carb

on

dio

xid

e e

mis

sio

ns (

GtC

O2

/yr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al carb

on

dio

xid

e e

mis

sio

ns (

GtC

O2

/yr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al carb

on

dio

xid

e e

mis

sio

ns (

GtC

O2

/yr)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al carb

on

dio

xid

e e

mis

sio

ns (

GtC

O2

/yr)

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

Emissions per capita along a 2ºC pathway

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Per

capi

ta e

mis

sion

s (t

CO

2/ca

pita

)

Annex 1 per capita

non-Annex 1 per capita

15

A viable climate regime must…

• Mitigation: emergency climate stabilization

• Adaptation: inevitable, increasingly urgent

• While safeguarding a right to development

Greenhouse Development Rights

Towards Principle-based Global Differentiation

16

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

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 Rights”approach 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)

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. ”

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”)

Emissions and Responsibility fossil CO2 (since 1990) (showing portion defined as

“responsibility”)

24

 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

National obligations based on national “capacity” and “responsibility”

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)

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 %

Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to their “RCI”

28

Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to responsibility &

capacity

29

Financial Implications

30

What are the costs?

31

Source Annual Cost (billions)

Notes

Adaptation

World Bank (2006) $9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid

Oxfam International (2007) > $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 (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) 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

National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP)

Per capitaIncome

($/capita)

NationalCapacity(Billion $)

NationalObligation(Billion $)

NationalObligation(% 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.

The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse

Development Rights Framework AuthorsTom Athansiou (EcoEquity)Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute)Paul Baer (EcoEquity)Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)

Key CollaboratorsJörg Haas (European Climate Foundation)

Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation)Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid)

Andrew Pendleton (IPPR)Antonio Hill (Oxfam)

SupportersChristian 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)

Example 1

The European Union

35

36

Implications for European Union

37

Domestic reductions (~40% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of total EU

obligation. The rest would be met internationally.

Implications for European Union

38

Implications for European Union

-20%

-30%

39

Implications for European Union

EU15 and EU New Member States

Obligation varies significantly among EU members

Example 2

The United States

41

Implications for United States

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

42

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

Example 2

China and India

44

45

Implications for China中国的测算结果

46

A 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

47

Implications for India

The majority of the reductions in the South are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.

US and China

Obligations for Annex 1 countries according to their “RCI” in a Copenhagen phase (to 2020), and

globally thereafter.

49

Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to their “RCI”

50

Copenhagen phase - to 2017

Global CO2 emissionsIndustrialized world vs developing world

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

CO

2 em

issi

on

s (G

tCO

2/yr

) Developing World

Industrialized world

Global CO2 emissionsIndustrialized world vs developing world

(proportional shares)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

CO

2 em

issi

on

s (G

tCO

2/yr

) Developing World

Industrialized world

Global CO2 emissionsshowing industrialized world "borrowed emissions"

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

CO

2 em

issi

on

s (G

tCO

2/yr

)

Developing world

Industrialized world "borrowed emissions"

Industrialzed world proportional share

Global CO2 emissionsshowing industrialized world "borrowed emissions"

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

CO

2 em

issi

on

s (G

tCO

2/yr

) Developing World

Industrialized world "borrowed emissions"

Industrialzed world proportional share

Financial Implications

56

What are the costs?

57

Source Annual Cost (billions)

Notes

Adaptation

World Bank (2006) $9 - 41 Costs to mainstream adaptation in development aid

Oxfam International (2007) > $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 (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) 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

National Obligations in 2020 (for climate costs = 1% of GWP)

Per capitaIncome

($/capita)

NationalCapacity(Billion $)

NationalObligation(Billion $)

NationalObligation(% 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.

The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World The Greenhouse

Development Rights Framework AuthorsTom Athansiou (EcoEquity)Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute)Paul Baer (EcoEquity)Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)

Key CollaboratorsJörg Haas (European Climate Foundation)

Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation)Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid)

Andrew Pendleton (IPPR)Antonio Hill (Oxfam)

SupportersChristian 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)