Completion seminar – 28 July 2017 CLIMATE JUSTICE: CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE? Operationalising competing equity principles to mitigate global warming Ph.D. Student Yann Robiou du Pont, Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions (www.climate-energy-college.org), The University of Melbourne. Supervision: A./Prof Malte Meinshausen, Louise Jeffery, Peter Christoff,
1. Political context & research question
1.1 Scientific and political timelines
1.1 Scientific and political timelines
1.2 National positions on equity What are national positions on equity?
1.2 National positions on equity Countries Equity Principle Share of global emissions (%) References Like Minded Developing Historical responsibility 42 ADP Submissions Countries USA 15 (AWG-LCA 15)+(Commission of Europe (28 countries) Historical responsibility, Capability 10 the European Communities 2008) Russia 5 Least Developed Countries Right to development 4 ADP + (AWG-LCA 15) Japan 3 (BASIC experts 2011) + (AWG- Brazil Historical responsibility, Capability 3 LCA 15) + NDC Canada 2 Australia 1 Right to development, Historical (BASIC experts 2011) + (AWG- South Africa 1 LCA 15) + NDC responsibility, Capability AILAC Historical responsibility, Capability 1 ADP Submissions
1.3 Research question How can we operationalize competing equity principles to mitigate global warming?
2. Literature review
2.2 Existing equity allocations Five effort-sharing categories: - Capability - Equality - Responsibility – Capability – Need - Equal cumulative per capita - Staged approaches Fig 6.28, CH6 , IPCC-AR5 WGIII, 2014
2.2 Existing equity allocations Fig 6.28, CH6 , IPCCCAR5 WGIII, 2014
2.3 Combining equity approaches ➢ Range positioning Climate Action Tracker
2.3 Combining equity approaches ➢ Weighting coefficients Raupach et al. 2014 ➢ Implication of the EU - 40% target Hof et al. 2012 ➢ Range positioning Climate Action Tracker ➢ Diversity aware leader Meinshausen et al. 2015
3. Modelling framework
3.1 Rationale of the framework Modelling of allocation approaches representative of the IPCC’s equity categories Allocation name IPCC category Allocation characteristics Capability Capability Higher mitigation for countries with high GDP per capita. Equal per capita Equality Convergence towards equal annual emissions per person. Greenhouse Responsibility-capability-need Higher mitigation for countries with high GDP per capita and high Development Rights historical per capita emissions. Equal cumulative per Equal cumulative per capita Populations with higher historical emissions have lower allocations. capita Constant emissions ratio Staged approaches Maintains current emissions ratios.
3.2 Quantifying equity
3.3 Current inequities
3.3 Current inequities
4. National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Christoff, P. & Meinshausen, M. National contributions for decarbonizing the world economy in line with the G7 agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 54005 (2016).
4.1 Global cost-optimal G7-trajectories
4.2 Regional 2030 allocations
4.3 National G7-trajectories
4.3 National G7-trajectories G7 countries are not taking the lead!
5. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Rogelj, J., Christoff, P., & Meinshausen, M. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nature Climate Change , 7, (2017).
5.1 Ambitious global Paris Agreement goals New global goals: ➢ Well below 2 °C ➢ Pursue 1.5 °C ➢ Net-zero emissions in the second half of the century Paris Agreement, 2015
5.2 Paris cost-optimal emissions scenarios 2°C scenarios (likely chance stay below 2°C over the century) from the IPCC-AR5
5.2 Paris cost-optimal emissions scenarios 2°C scenarios (likely chance stay below 2°C over the century) from the IPCC-AR5 1.5°C scenarios (more likely than not chance to limit warming to 1.5 °C in 2100) from: Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 519 – 527 (2015).
5.2 Paris cost-optimal emissions scenarios Aggregate INDCs from: UN Synthesis Report 7/2015 – www.climate-energy-college.net/indc-factsheets
5.3 Regional 2030 targets towards 2 °C Fair commitments from the least developed countries across most equity approaches
3. Regional 2030 targets towards 2 °C and 1.5 °C Fair commitments from the least developed countries across most equity approaches
5.4 Influence of the global goal: 2 °C vs 1.5 °C
5.4 Emissions allocations in 2030: 2 °C vs 1.5 °C ➢ Greater additional 2030 effort for developing countries
5.5 Net-zero and peaking emissions: 2°C vs 1.5°C ➢ Peaking emissions about 10 years earlier for developing countries
5.5 Net-zero and peaking emissions: 2°C vs 1.5°C ➢ Peaking emissions about 10 years earlier for developing countries ➢ Peaking emissions 20% to 40% lower
5.5 Net-zero and peaking emissions: 2°C vs 1.5°C ➢ Peaking emissions about 10 years earlier for developing countries ➢ Peaking emissions 20% to 40% lower ➢ Net-zero emissions brought forward more for developed countries
5.6 Closing the mitigation gap
5.6 Closing the mitigation gap
5.6 Closing the mitigation gap
5.6 Closing the mitigation gap
Equitable mitigation to reach the Paris Agreement
6. Ambition of G20 countries’ commitments in light of their declarations on equity Robiou du Pont, Y. (2017). The Paris Agreement global goals: What does a fair share for G20 countries look like? Research Report for MSSI and the AGCEC. To be submitted to Climate Policy
6.1 Emissions allocation in 2030 for G20 countries
3. Results No fairness Additional metrics National circumstances Small Conditionality Declares fair Fairness principle 2 °C Equity range justification emitter and ambitious Need for development, food Both (conditions on support) Argentina GDR, CER X X security Progression, comparison National circumstances, resource Unconditional only Australia GDR, CER X provider, high abatement costs, Progression, comparison Need for development, Unconditional only Brazil ‘Very Equal per capita, historical EPC, GDR, CPC, ambitious’ responsibility, capability CER BaU, Progression Large landmass, resource provider, Not specified Canada GDR, CER X X extreme temperatures Utmost effort Need for development Not specified China X Utmost ambition Need for development Conditional only (on support) India Equal per capita, historical EPC, CPC X responsibility, capability Need for development Both (conditions on support) Indonesia EPC, CPC X Transparency, GDP intensity High mitigation costs, Not specified Japan X CER Progression Need for development Both (conditions on support and Mexico ‘Highly Equal per capita EPC, GDR, CPC, X agreement on carbon pricing) ambitious’ CER Declining emissions, GDP Not specified Russia X intensity BaU Fossil fuel dependent economy, Conditional only (on economic Saudi Arabia X vulnerable to emissions mitigation growth) BaU Need for development Both (conditions on the delivery South Africa Calls for equity framework, GDR X of existing support historical responsibility, capability commitments) Fukushima halt to nuclear, Not specified South Korea CER ‘To the extent X of possible’ ‘Experiences constraints’ Both (conditions on support) Turkey Historical responsibility X X Not specified USA X GDR, CER Progression, declining Not specified EU (28) Calls for discussion on fairness EPC, GDR, CER X emissions, GDP intensity
7. Temperature assessment of the bottom-up Paris emissions pledges To be submitted to Nature Climate Change
7.1 Modelling the current ‘bottom - up’ situation
7.1 Modelling the current ‘bottom - up’ situation
7.1 Modelling the current ‘bottom - up’ situation
7.2 Enhancing the ‘bottom - up’ situation: the Hybrid approach
7.3 Comparison with current pledges
7.3 Comparison with current pledges Is the world fair but self differentiated, as countries claim?
7.3 Linking national and global ambition
7.3 Linking national and global ambition
7.4 Temperature assessment of countries’ ambition
8. Discussions and conclusions
8. Discussions and conclusions What are the limitations? - Numerical - Equity of the temperature goal - No direct ‘ relationist ’ considerations - Adaptation, Loss and Damage
8. Discussions and conclusions What does this work bring? 1) National emissions trajectories that are consistent with: - Five equity approaches representative of the IPCC categories - The Paris Agreement goals of 2°C vs 1.5°C - Global cost-optimal trajectories 2) A novel method that numerically reconciles divergent countries’ positions on equity with global goals.
Recommend
More recommend
