Fair National Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Under Multiple Equity Perspectives - A Synthesis Framework

Equity is one of the key principles underpinning the global climate regime and is all the more essential given the heterogenous, self-differentiated nature of the Paris Agreement. The scientific community has proposed several effort-sharing schemes to operationalise equity – reflecting not only the multi-faceted nature of the problem but also a long history of disagreement that continues to date. We outline a synthesis framework that draws on existing estimates in the literature to develop a “fair share range” for each country within which we identify a common position, which, when applied to the ranges of all countries, results in the collective achievement of the desired temperature goal. A series of methodological choices regarding the treatment of the underlying literature and translation into a temperature equivalence are tested. We demonstrate the consistency of this framework (across different methodological choices) with the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” – members of the OECD have the most stringent allocations, while only a few African and Asian countries (including India) have emission allocations that are above their 2010 emission levels. A few OECD members, including the European Union and Great Britain, have emission allocations in 2030 that are either close to, or less than zero. Consistency with their fair share of mitigation will require them to provide appropriate levels of international finance and support to facilitate emission reductions in developing countries. These conclusions are robust to various methodological choices.

[1]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix , 2021, Nature.

[2]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Wave of net zero greenhouse gas emission targets opens window on meeting the Paris Agreement , 2021 .

[3]  H. Winkler Putting equity into practice in the global stocktake under the Paris Agreement , 2020, Climate Policy.

[4]  D. McCollum,et al.  Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways , 2019, Climatic Change.

[5]  K. Calvin,et al.  Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[6]  B. Hare,et al.  Extending Near‐Term Emissions Scenarios to Assess Warming Implications of Paris Agreement NDCs , 2018, Earth's Future.

[7]  M. Rocha,et al.  Measuring Success: Improving Assessments of Aggregate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals , 2018, Earth's Future.

[8]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A methodology and implementation of automated emissions harmonization for use in Integrated Assessment Models , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..

[9]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects , 2018 .

[10]  J. Roberts,et al.  Cascading biases against poorer countries , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[11]  H. Winkler,et al.  Countries start to explain how their climate contributions are fair: more rigour needed , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[12]  Christian Holz,et al.  Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair shares of a 1.5 °C-compliant global mitigation effort , 2018, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics.

[13]  Takeshi Kuramochi,et al.  The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions , 2017, Climate Policy after the 2015 Paris Climate Conference.

[14]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals , 2017 .

[15]  M. Rocha,et al.  The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series , 2016 .

[16]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal , 2016 .

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

[18]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  National post-2020 greenhouse gas targets and diversity-aware leadership , 2015 .

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

[20]  L. Clarke,et al.  Assessing Transformation Pathways , 2014 .

[21]  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 .

[22]  Thomas F. Stocker,et al.  Climate change 2013 , 2013 .

[23]  T. Wigley,et al.  Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 - Part 1: Model description and calibration , 2011 .

[24]  S. Paltsev,et al.  Sharing the Burden of GHG Reductions , 2008 .

[25]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  Multi-gas Emissions Pathways to Meet Climate Targets , 2006 .