2010年-世界发展银行全球_Equity_in_Climate_Change___An_Analytical_Review_51页_920kb

Summary of "Equity in Climate Change: An Analytical Review"

Core Content

This paper, Equity in Climate Change: An Analytical Review, by Aaditya Mattoo and Arvind Subramanian, examines the concept of equity in the context of global climate change mitigation. It presents an analytical framework to evaluate different equity-based approaches to the allocation of future emissions and discusses the implications of these principles on the distribution of climate change responsibilities and the economic consequences for various countries.

The paper emphasizes that the current global distribution of CO₂ emissions is highly inequitable, with industrial countries having significantly higher per capita emissions than developing countries. It highlights the challenges in defining equitable emission reductions, given the strong conflicts of interest among countries, and argues that traditional equity principles may not be sufficient to address these issues.

Main Views

The paper outlines five key principles for determining equitable emission allocations:

1. Equal per capita emissions

   • This principle asserts that all individuals should have equal access to the atmosphere's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases (GHGs).
   • It is supported by several authors, including Agarwal and Narain (1991), Dubash (2009), and the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, 2009).
   • However, critics argue that this principle may not be efficient due to the lack of correlation between population size and income levels.
   • It also does not account for the historical context or the development needs of countries.

2. Historic responsibility

   • This principle suggests that countries with higher historical emissions should bear a greater share of the burden of reducing future emissions.
   • It is grounded in the idea of "no harm" and the ethical obligation to compensate for past damage.
   • Authors such as Brazil (1997), Winkler et al. (2006), and Bhagwati (2009) support this approach.
   • However, it faces criticism, as some argue that it is difficult to assign responsibility to individuals or countries for past emissions, especially when those responsible are no longer alive or present.

3. Ability to pay

   • This principle implies that countries with higher economic capacity should bear a larger share of the costs of mitigation.
   • It is based on distributive justice and is supported by authors like Spence (2009) and Chakravarti et al. (2009).
   • A utilitarian perspective suggests that the poorest countries should be prioritized to minimize the loss of welfare due to emission reductions.
   • This principle is also reflected in the Kyoto Protocol's "common but differentiated responsibilities" framework.

4. Preserving future development opportunities

   • This principle argues that developing countries should not be burdened with emission reductions that would hinder their economic growth.
   • It is supported by authors such as Jacoby et al. (2007) and Birdsall and Subramanian (2009).
   • It suggests that emission allocations should allow developing countries to maintain their growth trajectories.
   • This approach is appealing because it avoids using climate change as a tool for income redistribution unrelated to the issue itself.
   • However, it shifts the burden of meeting climate goals to industrial countries, which would need to make drastic cuts.

5. Adjustment costs

   • This principle considers the economic costs of transitioning to lower emissions.
   • It is argued that minimizing these costs could be a practical consideration in shaping equitable emission reductions.
   • The proposals in Stern (2007) and UNDP (2008), which use 1990 as a base year, implicitly "grandfather" current emission levels, reducing the impact on countries that need to make large cuts.
   • However, this approach may not be equitable, as it favors the status quo and may not address the underlying issue of climate change effectively.

Key Information

• Equity Considerations: The paper explores how equity should inform the allocation of emissions reductions, highlighting the tension between fairness and practicality.
• Equity Principles: Four main principles—equal per capita emissions, historic responsibility, ability to pay, and preserving future development opportunities—are discussed in detail.
• Adjustment Costs: These are considered as a practical concern rather than a core equity principle, with some proposals attempting to account for them to reduce the political and economic burden on certain countries.
• Conflict of Interest: The paper argues that equity in emission allocations is inherently problematic due to the conflicting interests of industrial and developing countries.
• Need for Technology Revolution: Given the inequities and conflicts, the paper suggests that international cooperation should focus on generating a low-carbon technology revolution rather than solely on the allocation of a fixed carbon budget. Equity considerations would then play a role in determining how countries contribute to this technological shift, rather than how they share a shrinking emissions pie.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that while equity is an important concern in climate change negotiations, the traditional approaches to allocating emissions may not be viable due to the strong conflicts of interest they generate. Instead, the focus should shift toward promoting a global transition to low-carbon technologies, with equity playing a supportive role in determining how countries contribute to this effort. This would allow climate change to be addressed as a non-zero sum game, reconciling development needs with environmental goals.