CLIMATE JUSTICE: CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE? Operationalising - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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,

Completion seminar – 28 July 2017

CLIMATE JUSTICE: CAN WE AGREE TO DISAGREE? Operationalising competing equity principles to mitigate global warming

• 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 Countries Historical responsibility 42

ADP Submissions

USA 15 Europe (28 countries) Historical responsibility, Capability 10

(AWG-LCA 15)+(Commission of the European Communities 2008)

Russia 5 Least Developed Countries Right to development 4

ADP + (AWG-LCA 15)

Japan 3 Brazil Historical responsibility, Capability 3

(BASIC experts 2011) + (AWG- LCA 15) + NDC

Canada 2 Australia 1 South Africa Right to development, Historical responsibility, Capability 1

(BASIC experts 2011) + (AWG- LCA 15) + NDC

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 ➢Diversity aware leader Meinshausen et al. 2015 ➢Range positioning Climate Action Tracker

• 3. Modelling framework

3.1 Rationale of the framework

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 Development Rights Responsibility-capability-need Higher mitigation for countries with high GDP per capita and high historical per capita emissions. Equal cumulative per capita Equal cumulative per capita Populations with higher historical emissions have lower allocations. Constant emissions ratio Staged approaches Maintains current emissions ratios. Modelling of allocation approaches representative of the IPCC’s equity categories

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 Paris Agreement, 2015 New global goals: ➢Well below 2 °C ➢Pursue 1.5 °C ➢Net-zero emissions in the second half of the century

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

Declares fair and ambitious Fairness principle 2 °C Equity range

No fairness justification Additional metrics National circumstances Small emitter Conditionality

Argentina X GDR, CER

Need for development, food security X Both (conditions on support)

Australia X GDR, CER

Progression, comparison National circumstances, resource provider, high abatement costs, Unconditional only

Brazil ‘Very ambitious’ Equal per capita, historical responsibility, capability EPC, GDR, CPC, CER

Progression, comparison Need for development, Unconditional only

Canada X GDR, CER

BaU, Progression Large landmass, resource provider, extreme temperatures X Not specified

China

X Utmost effort Need for development Not specified

India X Equal per capita, historical responsibility, capability EPC, CPC

Utmost ambition Need for development Conditional only (on support)

Indonesia EPC, CPC

X Need for development Both (conditions on support)

Japan X CER

Transparency, GDP intensity High mitigation costs, Not specified

Mexico ‘Highly ambitious’ Equal per capita EPC, GDR, CPC, CER

Progression Need for development X Both (conditions on support and agreement on carbon pricing)

Russia

X Declining emissions, GDP intensity Not specified

Saudi Arabia

X BaU Fossil fuel dependent economy, vulnerable to emissions mitigation Conditional only (on economic growth)

South Africa X Calls for equity framework, historical responsibility, capability GDR

BaU Need for development Both (conditions on the delivery

• f existing support

commitments)

South Korea ‘To the extent

• f possible’

CER

Fukushima halt to nuclear, X Not specified

Turkey Historical responsibility

X ‘Experiences constraints’ X Both (conditions on support)

USA X GDR, CER

Not specified

EU (28) Calls for discussion on fairness EPC, GDR, CER

X Progression, declining emissions, GDP intensity Not specified

• 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.

• 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. Relevance 1) Actors of negotiations can assess national ambition against different visions of equity 2) And can suggest a normative approach that does not assume to agree on equity

• 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. Relevance 1) Actors of negotiations can assess national ambition against different visions of equity 2) And can suggest a normative approach that does not impose to agree on equity 3) Legal Climate Case

Thank you.