Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change : exploring the case of China

Following the conclusion of the official work of the Ad hoc group for the modelling and assessment of contributions of climate change (MATCH), this paper takes a look on the politically more sensitive aspect of the Brazilian Proposal, namely the issue of differentiating (historic) responsibility for, and not merely (causal) contribution to climate change. Its aim is (i) to highlight the fact that, while related, the two issues (‘contribution to’ and ‘responsibility for’) are fundamentally different and should not be confused, (ii) to propose a methodology of calculating shares of responsibilities as opposed to the shares in causal contribution arrived at in the MATCH results, and (iii) apply these conceptions in depth in the case of China. Two conceptions of responsibility (‘strict’ or ‘limited’) are applied to operationalise the notion of ‘respective capabilities’ given in Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC. The key message resulting from the calculations is that causal contribution – while an important indicator of (environmental) relevance to the problem – must not be confused with moral responsibility for it. The rather large difference between the responsibilities at the two extremes of the scale under both conceptions does give pause for thought as to what sorts of burdens can justly be demanded in any application of the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, whether in the context of the Brazilian proposal or beyond. We apply these conceptions of responsibility to the case of China and discuss how they can inform the discussions over future commitments under a Copenhagen agreement

Guiding climate compatible development: User-orientated analysis of planning tools and methodologies

The focus on climate compatible development (CCD) as an aim for development in a changing climate reflects a growing recognition that mitigation, adaptation and development need to be tackled together, not as separate issues. However, given that CCD is an emergent area of work and study, the availability of guidance resources to assist in bringing the three issues together is limited. This report identifies and analyses the currently available tools and methodologies for adaptation, mitigation and development, in an attempt to guide decision makers towards climate compatible development pathways. Three main research questions are addressed in this report: 1. What tools and methodologies that address climate compatible development or its related aspects currently exist? 2. To what extent do these tools currently satisfy user needs in delivering climate compatible development? 3. Where are there gaps, and what is needed in order to plan climate compatible development? Several findings have emerged from the analysis of the tools: - Many tools have been implemented by users on a ‘do it yourself’ basis, even though the tool developers have built a guided process. - In several categories, the tools are very diverse. For example, in their integration across adaptation, mitigation and development, level of stakeholder involvement, costs, and extent of guidance material. - In a number of categories, the tools are similar in having a high frequency of use and low training requirements. - Most tools apply to the early steps of the policy cycle stages, namely problems identification, assessment of options and selection of policies. Fewer tools assist in the policy implementation and evaluation stages.This study was commissioned by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)

A dynamic systems approach to harness the potential of social tipping

Social tipping points are promising levers to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emission targets. They describe how social, political, economic or technological systems can move rapidly into a new state if cascading positive feedback mechanisms are triggered. Analysing the potential of social tipping for rapid decarbonization requires considering the inherent complexity of social systems. Here, we identify that existing scientific literature is inclined to a narrative-based account of social tipping, lacks a broad empirical framework and a multi-systems view. We subsequently outline a dynamic systems approach that entails (i) a systems outlook involving interconnected feedback mechanisms alongside cross-system and cross-scale interactions, and including a socioeconomic and environmental injustice perspective (ii) directed data collection efforts to provide empirical evidence for and monitor social tipping dynamics, (iii) global, integrated, descriptive modelling to project future dynamics and provide ex-ante evidence for interventions. Research on social tipping must be accordingly solidified for climate policy relevance

G8 Climate Scorecards

The report concludes with a global cumulative GHG emission cap for the period from 2010 till 2050. It outlines mid-term and long-term cumulative emission allowances for key countries under the three equity approaches and trajectories for these countries to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The objective of the report is to initiate a constructive debate among and foster long-term commitments of the parties while moving towards a fair, ambitious and binding Copenhagen agreement

National climate change mitigation legislation, strategy and targets : a global update

Global climate change governance has changed substantially in the last decade, with a shift in focus from negotiating globally agreed greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets to nationally determined contributions, as enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This paper analyses trends in adoption of national climate legislation and strategies, GHG targets, and renewable and energy efficiency targets in almost all UNFCCC Parties, focusing on the period from 2007 to 2017. The uniqueness and added value of this paper reside in its broad sweep of countries, the more than decade-long coverage and the use of objective metrics rather than normative judgements. Key results show that national climate legislation and strategies witnessed a strong increase in the first half of the assessed decade, likely due to the political lead up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, but have somewhat stagnated in recent years, currently covering 69% of global GHG emissions (almost 50% of countries). In comparison, the coverage of GHG targets increased considerably in the run up to adoption of the Paris Agreement and 93% of global GHG emissions are currently covered by such targets. Renewable energy targets saw a steady spread, with 79% of the global GHG emissions covered in 2017 compared to 45% in 2007, with a steep increase in developing countries. Key policy insightsThe number of countries that have national legislation and strategies in place increased strongly up to 2012, but the increase has levelled off in recent years, now covering 69% of global emissions by 2017 (49% of countries and 76% of global population).Economy-wide GHG reduction targets witnessed a strong increase in the build up to 2015 and are adopted by countries covering 93% of global GHG emissions (81% not counting USA) and 91% of global population (86% not counting USA) in 2017.Renewable energy targets saw a steady increase throughout the last decade with coverage of countries in 2017 comparable to that of GHG targets.Key shifts in national measures coincide with landmark international events – an increase in legislation and strategy in the build-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference and an increase in targets around the Paris Agreement – emphasizing the importance of the international process to maintaining national momentum.</p

Beyond national climate action : the impact of region, city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions

This article quantifies the net aggregate impact in 2030 of commitments by individual non-state and subnational actors (e.g. regions, cities and businesses, collectively referred to as ‘NSAs’) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis was conducted for NSAs operating within ten major emitting economies that together accounted for roughly two-thirds of global GHG emissions in 2016. Our assessment includes 79 regions (e.g. subnational states and provinces), approximately 6,000 cities, and nearly 1,600 companies with a net emissions coverage of 8.1 GtCO2e/year, or a quarter of the ten economies’ total GHG emissions in 2016. The analysis reflects a proposed methodology to aggregate commitments from different subnational (i.e. regional and city government) and non-state (i.e. business) actors, accounting for overlaps. If individual commitments by NSAs in the ten high-emitting economies studied are fully implemented and do not change the pace of action elsewhere, projected GHG emissions in 2030 for the ten economies would be 1.2–2.0 GtCO2e/year or 3.8%–5.5% lower compared to scenario projections for current national policies (31.6–36.8 GtCO2e/year). On a country level, we find that the full implementation of these individual commitments alone could result in the European Union and Japan overachieving their nationally determined contributions (NDCs), while India could further overachieve its unconditional NDC target. In the United States, where the national government has rolled back climate policies, NSAs could become a potential driving force for climate action. Key policy insights Full implementation of reported and quantifiable individual commitments by regions, cities and businesses (NSAs) in ten major economies could reduce emissions by 3.8%–5.5% in 2030 below current national policies scenario projections. National governments’ mitigation targets could be more ambitious if they would take NSA commitments into account. With full implementation of such action, the European Union and Japan would overachieve their NDC targets. For the United States such action could help meeting its original 2025 NDC target in spite of rollbacks in national climate policies. The full universe of NSA climate action expands far beyond the subset of commitments analysed in this study; NSAs could become a strong driving force for enhanced action towards the Paris climate goals.</p