The Mitigation Alliance target and its distribution

Misalignment between the Paris Agreement (PA) objectives and its implementation tools represents the biggest challenge for its implementation. The compromise between top-down urgencies, such as the 2/1.5 °C target, and bottom-up stances, such as the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) pledge-and-review system removed years of efforts for identifying effective and equitable systems to combat climate change, threatening the same signification of the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle. The Mitigation Alliance (MA) proposed in this book offers a feasible alternative to the current system. It applies to entities that voluntarily collaborate under the framework of the PA’s Article 6 (A6PA) and entails the establishment of an aggregate Net Zero Carbon (NZC) target for the MA and a technical, flexible distribution of the corresponding mitigation burden. While the NZC is based on scientific evidence, the hereby-proposed distribution system represents a key innovation. By introducing a dynamic formula for distributing the mitigation burden (or quota) among its members, the MA aligns ambition with the PA’s objectives while taking full account of the CBDR-RC principle.

[1]  C. Swain.  The Voting Rights Act: Some Unintended Consequences , 1992 .

[2]  L. Bretschger.  Equity and the convergence of nationally determined climate policies , 2016, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies.

[3]  Philippe Ciais,et al.  Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions , 2014 .

[4]  L. Rajamani.  AMBITION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN THE 2015 PARIS AGREEMENT: INTERPRETATIVE POSSIBILITIES AND UNDERLYING POLITICS , 2016, International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

[5]  Roderic B. Mast,et al.  Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C , 2016, Nature.

[7]  D. Rybski,et al.  A Human Development Framework for CO2 Reductions , 2010, PloS one.

[8]  G. Wittmann,et al.  The Regensburg Model: reference values for the (I)NDCs based on converging per capita emissions† , 2017 .

[9]  J. A. Garibaldi,et al.  The economics of boldness: equity, action, and hope , 2014 .

[10]  S. Solomon,et al.  Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions , 2015 .

[11]  Susanne Droege,et al.  Using border measures to address carbon flows , 2011 .

[12]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals? , 2001 .

[13]  Michael Coulon,et al.  A Dynamic Mechanism for Transparent and Equitable Distribution of Global Emissions Reductions , 2015 .

[14]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Decision support for international climate policy - The PRIMAP emission module , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[15]  Eric Kemp-Benedict,et al.  Greenhouse Development Rights: A Proposal for a Fair Global Climate Treaty , 2009 .

[16]  Yi-Ming Wei,et al.  Responsibility accounting in carbon allocation : A global perspective , 2014 .

[17]  A. Markandya.  Equity and Distributional Implications of Climate Change , 2011 .

[18]  Yacob Mulugetta,et al.  Equity, burden sharing and development pathways: reframing international climate negotiations , 2015, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[19]  H. Welsch,et al.  Burden sharing in a greenhouse: egalitarianism and sovereignty reconciled , 2006 .

[20]  A. Oberheitmann.  A new post-Kyoto climate regime based on per-capita cumulative CO2-emission rights—rationale, architecture and quantitative assessment of the implication for the CO2-emissions from China, India and the Annex-I countries by 2050 , 2010 .

[21]  H. Asselt.  International Climate Change Law in a Bottom-Up World , 2016 .

[22]  R. Clémençon,et al.  The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement , 2016 .

[23]  K. Calvin,et al.  Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models , 2015 .

[24]  Michael Grubb,et al.  Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change , 1995 .

[25]  A. Michaelowa,et al.  Graduation and Deepening: An Ambitious Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenario , 2005 .

[26]  J. Bergh.  Rebound policy in the Paris Agreement: instrument comparison and climate-club revenue offsets , 2017 .

[27]  N. Höhne,et al.  Common but differentiated convergence (CDC): a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy , 2006 .

[28]  Marshall A. Wise,et al.  International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy , 1998 .

[29]  Marian Leimbach,et al.  Equity and carbon emissions trading: a model analysis , 2003 .

[30]  Gunnar Luderer,et al.  On the regional distribution of mitigation costs in a global cap-and-trade regime , 2012, Climatic Change.

[31]  H. Winkler,et al.  CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all , 2014 .

[32]  R. Schubert,et al.  Emission budget approaches for burden sharing: some thoughts from an environmental economics point of view , 2015, Climatic Change.

[33]  Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach , 2001 .

[34]  H. Winkler,et al.  Differentiation of countries’ future commitments in a post-2012 climate regime: An assessment of the “South–North Dialogue” Proposal , 2007 .

[35]  P. Friedlingstein,et al.  The cumulative carbon budget and its implications , 2016 .

[36]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption , 2008 .

[37]  M. Meinshausen,et al.  National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement , 2016 .

[38]  Thomas Deleuil.  The Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Principle: Changes in Continuity after the Durban Conference of the Parties , 2012 .

[39]  Richard S. Eckaus,et al.  Rethinking the Kyoto Emissions Targets , 2002 .

[40]  Niklas Höhne,et al.  Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing: a comparison of studies , 2014 .

[41]  N. Forsell,et al.  Contribution of the G20 economies to the global impact of the Paris agreement climate proposals , 2016, Climatic Change.