Equity

and the

International Climate Regime

Sivan KarthaStockholm Environment Institute

TELI-G 2015January 16, 2015

IPCC, AR5: “We can do it.”

2

IPCC AR5 WGIII, SPM, Figure SPM 4

> 100 techno-economic scenarios illustrating low emissions development paths (blue range) that keep warming likely to remain below 2°c.

~3°C

~4-5°C

Low Emissions Pathway

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al e

mis

sion

s (G

tCO

2e/yr)

Low Emissions Pathway

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al e

mis

sion

s (G

tCO

2e/yr)

Low Emissions Pathway

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al e

mis

sion

s (G

tCO

2e/yr)

Low Emissions Pathway

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

An

nu

al e

mis

sion

s (G

tCO

2e/yr)

7

Climate challenge … in the midst of a development crisis?

• Nearly 2 million per year die from lung diseases due to cooking smoke

• 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

• 3 billion people without access to clean cooking fuel, electricity, or both

When do emissions have to peak and start falling?

No. America/W. Eur Asia Latin America Middle East/Africa Economies

Japan/Aus/New Z in Transition

Emissions peak, globally and in all regions, in next ~10 years in the “likely 2°C” category of paths.

→ Broad low-GHG transformation underway in all regions.8

IPCC AR5 WGIII, Ch. 6 Figure 6.7

Income in year that emissions peak

Sources: World Development Indicators Databank (World Bank, May2013); Incomes in PPP US$

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000

NorwayUnited States

CanadaAustralia

JapanEU27

RussiaUkraine

Korea, Rep.China

MexicoBrazil

South AfricaIran

IndonesiaIndiaLDCs

Income in 2010

Projected income range 2015 - 2025

Income in year that emissions peak

Sources: World Development Indicators Databank (World Bank, May2013); Incomes in PPP US$

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000

NorwayUnited States

CanadaAustralia

JapanEU27

RussiaUkraine

Korea, Rep.China

MexicoBrazil

South AfricaIran

IndonesiaIndiaLDCs

Projected income range 2015 - 2025

Income in 2010

How is mitigation effort globally distributed?

Expressed as costs (% of GDP)•OECD: mitigation expenditures are lowest

•Latin America: 2x higher

•Asia: 3x higher

•Mid. East/Africa, EITs: 4-5x higher

IPCC AR5 WGIII, Fig. 6.27

This is how costs would be distributed if each country had to bear its own mitigation costs.

No single country can protect “its own” climate by reducing its own emissions

No country can solve its own climate problem for itself.

Countries must persuade other countries to help it solve its climate problem

A country thus reduces its own emissions – and cooperates in other ways – for the sake of inducing reciprocal effort, i.e., getting other countries to do likewise.

A country is more likely to be successful if it is perceived as doing its fair share of the effort.

So, international cooperation with equitable effort-sharing is more likely to be agreed and successfully implemented.

“Outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.” [IPCC, Summary for Policy Makers, 2014]

Why a global climate response must be fair to be effective:

13

“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.”

Principles, Article 3.1, UNFCCC, 1992

14

Principle 7, Rio Declaration, 1992

“In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.”

15

“Countries will be asked to meet different

requirements based upon their historical share

or contribution to the problem and their relative

ability to carry the burden of change. This

precedent is well established in international law,

and there is no other way to do it.”

Al Gore

16

Income and Capacity

17

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)

18

Emissions and Responsibility fossil CO2 (cumulative since 1990 showing portion defined as “responsibility”)

19

Settings:

Since 1850 (High), since 1950 (Medium), or since 1990 (Low)

Historical emissions and responsibility1850 1950 1990

 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 %20

National fair share of the effortbased on national “capacity” and “responsibility”

22

Fairly sharing the global emission reduction effortamong countries according to Responsibility and Capability

23

Fairly sharing the global emission reduction effortamong countries according to Responsibility and Capability

“Fair” reductions for the United States

“Fair” reductions for the United States

“Fair” reductions for the United States

“Fair” reductions for the United States

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

European Union

European Union

European Union

European Union

37

China

38

China

39

Final Comments• The science is unambiguous. The climate is changing, and it presents severe

risks.

• It is technically and economically possible to reduce emissions rapidly enough to keep warming below 2°C. It would mean carbon-based development is no longer an option in the North, nor in the South.

• A global transition to low emission future is likely to be achieved only if it is done cooperatively and in a way that is widely perceived to be fair.

• In the developed countries, deep emissions reductions are important and necessary. But only part of the story…

• Earnest efforts to enable the climate transition to occur globally, through cooperation with the developing countries through technology & financial support are equally crucial. (And won’t ruin our economies.)

• This isn’t just about equity and justice… it’s about being realistic about what is needed to preserve our own futures.

40

Thank youwww.sei-international.org www.ClimateEquityReference.org• National fair shares: The mitigation gap – domestic action and international support

• National Fair Shares (SEI Discussion Brief)

• The North-South divide, equity and development

• The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

41

42

46

High Equity Settings Low Equity Settings

Fair share

(%)

Mitigation

(GtCO2e)Fair share

(%)

Mitigation

(GtCO2e)

EU’s INDC 22% 2.0 16% 2.0

Rest of World 78% 7.1 84% 10.5

Total Mitigation 100% 9.1 100% 12.5

G8 pathway 25.3

Weak 2°C pathway 37.7

Strong 2°C pathway 46.7

The EU pledge, and what would be achieved if other countries pledged “comparable efforts”

47

Do Unto Others – three paths

48

Example: EU, plus comparable efforts by others