THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES' EFFORT IN THE DURBAN PLATFORM SCENARIOS

The feasibility of achieving climate stabilization consistent with the objective of 2°C is heavily influenced by how the effort in terms of mitigation and economic resources will be distributed among the major economies. This paper provides a multi-model quantification of the mitigation commitment in 10 major regions of the world for a diversity of allocation schemes. Our results indicate that a policy with uniform carbon pricing and no transfer payments would yield an uneven distribution of policy costs, which would be lower than the global average for OECD countries, higher for developing economies and the highest, for energy exporters. We show that a resource sharing scheme based on long-term convergence of per capita emissions would not resolve the issue of cost distribution. An effort sharing scheme which equalizes regional policy costs would yield an allocation of allowances comparable with the ones proposed by the Major Economies. Under such a scheme, emissions would peak between 2030 and 2045 for China and remain rather flat for India. In all cases, a very large international carbon market would be required.

[1]  Sanna Syri,et al.  Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios , 2010 .

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

[3]  T. Rutherford,et al.  Burden sharing, joint implementation, and carbon coalitions , 1999 .

[4]  N. Höhne,et al.  Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilisation targets , 2008 .

[5]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

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

[7]  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 .

[8]  R. Socolow,et al.  Safe vs. Fair: A Formidable Trade-off in Tackling Climate Change , 2012 .

[9]  Yasuko Kameyama,et al.  The Future Climate Regime: A Regional Comparison of Proposals , 2004 .

[10]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[11]  Robert N. Stavins,et al.  Three Key Elements of a Post-2012 International Climate Policy Architecture , 2011 .

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

[13]  B. Zwaan,et al.  EMISSION CERTIFICATE TRADE AND COSTS UNDER REGIONAL BURDEN-SHARING REGIMES FOR A 2°C CLIMATE CHANGE CONTROL TARGET , 2014 .

[14]  M. Wara,et al.  Is the global carbon market working? , 2007, Nature.

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

[16]  Liu Qiang,et al.  Technology roadmap for low carbon society in China , 2010 .

[17]  Tom Kober,et al.  A CROSS-MODEL COMPARISON OF GLOBAL LONG-TERM TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION UNDER A 2°C CLIMATE CHANGE CONTROL TARGET , 2013 .

[18]  R. Coase,et al.  The Problem of Social Cost , 1960, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[19]  Joydeep Ghosh,et al.  Multi-model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime , 2012 .

[20]  D. P. Vuuren,et al.  Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches , 2012 .

[21]  Lavinia Baumstark,et al.  LIMITS Special Issue on Durban Platform scenarios On the regional distribution of climate mitigation costs: the impact of delayed cooperative action , 2014 .

[22]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds , 2014, Climatic Change.

[23]  Axel Michaelowa,et al.  Policies, Instruments and Cooperative Arrangements , 2007 .

[24]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  WHAT DOES THE 2 C TARGET IMPLY FOR A GLOBAL CLIMATE AGREEMENT IN 2020? THE LIMITS STUDY ON DURBAN PLATFORM SCENARIOS , 2013 .

[25]  N. Höhne,et al.  Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2°C , 2010 .

[26]  D. P. Vuuren,et al.  Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies? , 2009 .

[27]  R. Hahn,et al.  The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance , 2010, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[28]  Paul L. Lucas,et al.  The FAIR model: A tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of regimes of future commitments , 2005 .