1 / 19

What’s fair?

What’s fair?. Equity and Global Climate Change Conference April 17, 2001 Nancy Kete World Resources Institute. Here’s one view.

galena
Download Presentation

What’s fair?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What’s fair? Equity and Global Climate Change Conference April 17, 2001 Nancy Kete World Resources Institute

  2. Here’s one view “The United States Senate would not ratify any protocol, any treaty that did not …include all nations of the world under the same kind of mandatory, legally binding conditions as Europe or the United States.” • U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, “Big Shot” interview on Tech Central Station 11/13/00

  3. Here’s another “The right to emit carbon dioxide is a human right that should be allocated on an equal basis to all of humankind.” Aubrey Meyer, Contraction and Convergence: The global solution to climate change

  4. And a third “It is obvious that in the future the world will have to accept some common maximum per capita emission for each country in order to deal with global warming.” Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, in The atmospheric rights of all people on earth, CSE website www.oneworld.org

  5. “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” H.L. Mencken

  6. Beware of moral certitude These claims all have a ring of moral certitude that doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

  7. Beware of moral certitude • The Byrd-Hagel resolution seems mainly aimed at ensuring no progress -- it’s a smokescreen. • The per capita rights talk seems mainly aimed at redistributing global wealth and is fraught with ethical and practical difficulties. • Both are inconsistent with FCCC provisions on equity.

  8. What is fair? • Solutions that are consistent with FCCC provisions -- complex, multi-faceted, qualitative. • Beyond this, it is not at all obvious what constitutes a fair response to climate change

  9. The climate convention on equity • 3.1. equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, North takes the lead. • 3.2. & 3.4 consider specific needs, circumstances, conditions of all Parties, especially developing countries • 3.3. policies and measures should “ensure global benefits at the lowest possible costs” • 4.7. developing country commitments are conditional upon successful developed country implementation of commitments related to financial resources and technology transfer

  10. Formulas won’t work Emissions Population Wealth Etc. “Equity as a legal concept is a direct emanation of the idea of justice.” (International Court of Justice, 1982, case concerning the continental shelf ) Equitable cannot be reduced to egalitarian. = Equity?

  11. The moral ambiguities of fairness • Many theories of what is just, fair, or equitable • Utilitarianism: nations equally “share burdens” • Maximin: give entitlements to the poor countries • Entitlement theories: build on the status quo • Egalitarianism: equal share to nations or persons • Which theory of justice one adopts or applies depends on: • what information one has • and one’s own circumstances • Most theories of fairness apply to individuals, not countries

  12. Scrap the rights talk • Talk of rights and entitlements focuses unduly on: • Allocating atmospheric rights (dividing the pie) • Trading of atmospheric rights • Emission rights will be balanced by demanding obligations: • binding targets and non-compliance consequences • sound measurement and reporting • third party verification systems • transparent registries and accounting systems • For many countries, these are excessively hard

  13. The atmosphere is not divisible • No one can, or does, own the atmosphere • Atmospheric use rights are or ought to be: • collectively managed by the COP for the purposes of meeting UNFCCC’s safe climate objective • time-bound and subject to review and revision • conditional (upon undertaking specific obligations) • Lessons from the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments: an allowance is defined as limited authorization to emit SO2 in accordance with provisions of the law. Allowances are not property rights.

  14. Avoid one-size-fits-all ideas • The treaty will need: • different levels of participation for different countries • mechanisms and policy tools that can enable more equitable outcomes (e.g., carbon intensity)

  15. Carbon Intensity • Not a global planning principle; not a convergence criterion; doesn’t deliver equity • It is a way to think about how countries can reduce emissions

  16. Carbon Intensity • For developing countries, it could provide a way to make new, formal commitments, while avoiding environmental and economic risks associated with emissions caps. • Carbon intensity can also be an indicator of progress for countries not ready to commit.

  17. Energy Intensity of Economy Fuel Mix “Activity” levels (GDP p/c and Population) Carbon intensity focuses on energy and fuels Well known identity: CO2 Emissions = GDPX Population X EnergyX CO2 per person GDP Energy

  18. Energy Intensity of Economy Fuel Mix Carbon intensity focuses on energy and fuels EnergyX CO2 GDP Energy Carbon intensity: measures mainly energy intensity and the fuel mix, not economic activity CO2 = GDP

  19. Carbon Intensity • Can broaden participation without insisting all countries take binding emissions caps • It avoids the categorical error that the atmosphere can be divided among all living persons

More Related