-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Nocarbontrade-l] Global Framework for Carbon Emissions
Reductions
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:14:21 -0600
From: ehrbar <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Paul Baer and Tom Athanasiou (EcoEquity) and Sivan Kartha (Stockholm
Environment Institute) have operationalized the ``common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities''
expressed in the UNFCCC in a way that seems to be a superior
alternative to ``contraction and convergence.'' Executive Summary of
the second edition is here:
http://www.ecoequity.org/GDRs/GDRs_ExecSummary.html
First edition (2007) is here:
http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework_highres.pdf
The capability of a country to contribute to carbon emission
reductions is computed from the population's income in the following
way: nobody below the ``development threshold'' of USD 20 per day is
obligated to contribute, but the sum of all incomes above this
threshold determines a country's capability. (I.e., the rich have to
contribute even if they live in a poor country.)
Responsibility (contribution to the climate problem) of a country is
defined as cumulative emissions since 1990, excluding emissions that
correspond to consumption below the development threshold.
Responsibility and capacity are then combined in the RCI
(Responsibility-Capacity Index). This index amounts to 32% for the US,
25% for EU, 7% Japan, 7% China, 4% Russia, 2% Brazil, 1% India, 1%
South Africa, 21% others.
The difference between the business as usual path and the 2 degrees
emergency pathway for carbon emissions is split into country-specific
wedges, the area of each wedge being proportional to that country's
RCI.
If one does it this way, the responsibility of the richer countries is
typically larger than their emissions. This means, they not only have
to cut emissions in their own countries, but also help the emission
reductions in the developing countries.
Since each country is given a quantitative ration each year, this
approach seems to call for a cap and trade system, and that is the
implementation proposed by the authors, although the authors say they
are aware of the drawbacks of trading emission rights. What do other
members of the no carbontrade list say about this approach? Is it
possible to do something similar using carbon taxes rather than
quantity constraints?
Hans.
Hans G. Ehrbar http://www.econ.utah.edu/~ehrbar [log in to unmask]
Economics Department, University of Utah (801) 581 7797 (my office)
1645 Campus Center Dr., Rm 308 (801) 581 7481 (econ office)
Salt Lake City UT 84112-9300 (801) 585 5649 (FAX)
_______________________________________________
Nocarbontrade-l mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nocarbontrade-l
|