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)
Tom Athansiou (EcoEquity)
Sivan Kartha (Stockholm Environment Institute)
Paul Baer (EcoEquity)
Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)
Jörg Haas (European Climate Foundation)
Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Boll Foundation)
Nelson Muffuh (Christian Aid)
Andrew Pendleton (IPPR)
Antonio Hill (Oxfam)
Christian Aid (UK)
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 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.
IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100”
Post-AR4: “0.8 to 2.4 m by 2100“ (Hansen: “several meters“)
1 meter sea level increase
Lenton et al, 2008
Even 2ºC risks catastrophic, irreversible impacts
The climate crisis demands an emergency mobilization
Global 2ºc pathway
Emissions pathway in the South
Emissions pathway in the North
What kind of climate regime can enable this to happen…?
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
of the Climate Solution
“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”
right to development
Towards Principle-based Global Differentiation
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)
Towards a Fair and Adequate
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)
“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;”
US mitigation obligation amounts to a reduction target exceeding
100% after ~2025 (“negative emission allocation”).
Here, physical domestic reductions (~25% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of the total US obligation. The rest would be met internationally.
A large fraction of China's reduction, (and most of the reductions in the South) are driven by industrialized country reduction commitments.
Note: European Union effort-sharing proposal estimates global mitigation costs at €175 billion, or about .25% of projected 2020 Gross World Product
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.