1 / 11

Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement

This proposal outlines a pragmatic approach to a global climate agreement, taking into account political, scientific, ethical, and economic factors. It suggests target formulas and stages for countries to commit to emissions reductions. The paper also discusses the implementation of border measures and the potential consequences of various approaches.

windley
Download Presentation

Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement

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. Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement Jeffrey Frankel Harpel Professor, Harvard Kennedy School Copenhagen, December 2009

  2. The target formulas are designed pragmatically,based on what emissions paths are possible politically: • unlike other approaches based purely on: • Science (concentration goals), • Ethics (equal emission rights per capita), • or Economics (cost-benefit optimization). • Why the political approach? • Countries will not accept burdens that they view as unfair. • Above certain thresholds for economic costs, they will drop out.

  3. Proposal Stage 2:When the time comes for developing country cuts, targets are determined by a formula incorporating 3 elements, designed so each is asked only to take actions analogous to those already taken by others: • Stage 1: • Annex I countries commit to the post-2012 targets that their leaders have already announced. • Others commit immediately not to exceed BAU. • a Progressive Reduction Factor, • a Latecomer Catch-up Factor, and • a Gradual Equalization Factor.

  4. ◙ In one version, concentrations level off at 500 ppm in the latter part of the century. ◙ Constraints are satisfied: -- No country in any one period suffers a loss as large as 5% of GDP by participating. -- Present Discounted Value of loss < 1% GDP. Co-author: V.Bosetti Global peak date ≈ 2035,2020 in aggressive version.

  5. What form should border measures take? • Best choice: multilateral sanctions under a new Copenhagen Protocol • Next-best choice: national import penalties adopted under multilateral guidelines • Measures can only be applied by participants in good standing • Judgments to be made by technical experts, not politicians • Interventions in only a ½ dozen of the most relevant sectors. • Third-best choice: no border measures. • Each country chooses trade barriers as it sees fit. • Worst choice: national measures are subsidies (bribes) to adversely affected firms.

  6. Paper:http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/SpecificTargetsHPICA2009.docAvailable at: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/currentpubsspeeches.htm#On%20Climate%20Change HPICA directed by RobStavins.

  7. Appendices:The targeted reductions from BAU agreed to at Kyoto in 1997 were progressive with respect to income. Cuts ↑ Incomes →

  8. Emissions path for rich countriesFig. 2b Predicted actual emissions exceed caps, by permit purchases.

  9. Emissions path for poor countriesFig. 4b Predicted actual emissions fall below caps, by permit sales.

  10. Price of Carbon Dioxide Fig. 6b rises slowly over 50 years, then rapidly.

  11. Concentrations stay below 500 ppm goalFig. 7b

More Related