Exploring Climate Regimes for Differentiation of Future Commitments to Stabilise Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

This paper aims at exploring the implications of various international climate regimes for differentiating future commitments compatible with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention, i.e., stabilising the greenhouse gas concentration at a ‘non-dangerous’ level. Three climate regimes explored are: (1) the Multi-stage approach, with a gradual increase in the number of Parties involved and their level of commitment according to participation and differentiation rules; (2) the Convergence approach, with universal participation and a convergence of per capita emissions and (3) the Triptych sector and technology-oriented approach, with universal participation in which the emission allowances are determined by applying differentiation rules according to sector, e.g., convergence of per capita emissions in the domestic sector, and efficiency and de-carbonisation targets in the energy-intensive industrial and power-producing sectors. The FAIR (Framework to Assess International Regimes for the differentiation of...

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

[2]  Henry Kelly,et al.  Renewable Fuels and Electricity for a Growing World Economy: Defining and Achieving the Potential , 1993 .

[3]  Equity and social considerations related to climate change , 1994 .

[4]  Kornelis Blok,et al.  A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble , 1998 .

[5]  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 .

[6]  Arild Underdal,et al.  Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy , 2002 .

[7]  A. Meyer.  Contraction & Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change , 2000 .

[8]  2 . 2 DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS IN ERP ADOPTION , 2022 .

[9]  Mnv,et al.  The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios; A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century , 2001 .

[10]  Joyeeta Gupta.  Encouraging developing country participation in the climate change regime , 1998 .

[11]  J. Houghton.  Climate change 1994 : radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios , 1995 .

[12]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios , 2000 .

[13]  Michiel Schaeffer,et al.  The Brazilian Proposal and other Options for International Burden Sharing: an evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the FAIR model , 1999 .

[14]  D. P. van Vuuren,et al.  Mitigation scenarios in a world oriented at sustainable development: the role of technology, efficiency and timing , 2001 .

[15]  L. Ringius.  Differentiation, Leaders, and Fairness: Negotiating Climate Commitments in the European Community , 1999 .

[16]  Michiel Schaeffer,et al.  Responsibility for Past and Future Global Warming: Uncertainties in Attributing Anthropogenic Climate Change , 2002 .

[17]  H. Groenenberg,et al.  Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach—a preliminary assessment , 2001 .

[18]  O. Godal,et al.  A survey of differentiation methods for national greenhouse gas reduction targets , 1999 .

[19]  Lasse Ringius,et al.  Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules , 1998 .

[20]  L. Greene.  EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.