Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 385–395 | Cite as

Emission budget approaches for burden sharing: some thoughts from an environmental economics point of view

  • Markus Ohndorf
  • Julia Blasch
  • Renate Schubert
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we examine budget approaches as a device for burden sharing in mitigating climate change. The purpose of this comment is twofold: First, we provide an overview over the general concept of budget approaches and investigate into the role of such approaches within the current climate negotiations. Second, as these approaches have an obvious normative dimension, we discuss some of the issues raised by Schuppert and Seidel (2015) in this Special Issue from the stance of an environmental economist. We highlight that budget approaches may serve as a tool to communicate the urgency of action against climate change and to remind representatives from industrialized countries of their responsibility in the historical sense as well as in terms of ability-to-pay. This even holds when the allocation of national emission shares is based on relatively easy-to-calculate sharing rules that can potentially serve as normative heuristics.

Keywords

Abatement Cost Marginal Abatement Cost Emission Allowance Cumulative Emission Burden Sharing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allison I, Bindoff NL, Bindschadler PM, et al (2009) The Copenhagen diagnosis. Updating the world on the latest climate science. Climate Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney Google Scholar
  2. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2009) A 350 ppm emergency pathway, revised version November 23, 2009. EcoEquity, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)Google Scholar
  3. BASIC Experts (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. BASIC Expert Group, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleurbaey M, Kartha S, Bolwig S, Chee YL, Chen Y, Corbera E, Lecocq F, Lutz W, Muylaert MS, Norgaard RB, Okereke C, Sagar AD (2014) Sustainable development and equity, in IPCCGoogle Scholar
  5. Frame DJ, Macey AH, Allen MR (2014) Cumulative emissions and climate policy. Nat Geosci 7:692–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedlingstein P, Andrew RM, Rogelj J, Peters GP, Canadell JG, Knutti R, Luderer G, Raupach MR, Schaeffer M, van Vuuren FP, Le Quéré C (2014) Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat Geosci 7:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement oxford. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Grasso M (2012) Sharing the emission budget. Polit Stud 60:668–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC (2013) Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2014) Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Held H, Kriegler E, Lessmann K, Edenhofer O (2009) Efficient climate policies under technology and climate uncertainty. Energy Economics, 31(1):50–61Google Scholar
  12. Koch N, Grosjean G, Fuss S, Edenhofer O (2015) Politics matters: regulatory events as catalysts for price formation under cap-and-trade. Working Paper, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2603115
  13. MacKenzie IA, Ohndorf M (2012) Cap-and-trade, taxes, and distributional conflict. J Environ Econ Manag 63(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458:1158–1162Google Scholar
  15. Michaelowa K, and Michaelowa (submitted for this issue) Rapid development and new responsibilities for climate change mitigation?, Climatic ChangeGoogle Scholar
  16. Raupach MR et al (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:873–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Richardson K, Kammen DM, Steffen W, et al (2009) Climate congress synthesis report: climate change – global risks, challenges & decisions. Copenhagen, 10–12 March. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Google Scholar
  19. Richels RG, Manne AS, Wigley TML (2004) Moving beyond concentrations: the challenge of limiting temperature change, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 04–11Google Scholar
  20. Schuppert, F and Seidel, C (2015), Equality, justice and feasibility: an ethical analysis of the WBGU's budget approach, Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1409-z
  21. UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1998) The Kyoto protocol, FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1, Dec. 10, 1997; 37 ILM 22. UNFCCC, BonnGoogle Scholar
  22. UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010) Copenhagen Accord. Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009, Addendum, Part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its fifteenth session, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add1, 30 March 2010. UNFCCC, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2011) Decision 1/CMP.7, Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto protocol at its sixteenth session, FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/10/Add.1. UNFCCC, BonnGoogle Scholar
  24. UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Work of the contact group on item 3, Negotiating text, Ad Hoc Working Group on The Durban platform for enhanced action, Second session, part eight, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. US Census Bureau (2009) Unites States census 2010, United States department of commerce. http://www.census.gov. Accessed 24 June 2009
  26. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (1995) Scenario for the derivation of Global CO2 reduction targets and implementation strategies. Statement on the occasion of the first conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change in Berlin. Special report 1995. WBGU, BremerhavenGoogle Scholar
  27. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. Special report 2009. WBGU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. WRI-CAIT (2009) World resources institute – climate analysis indicators tools, version 6.0. http://cait.wri.org/. Accessed 3. June 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of EconomicsETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Chair of Energy and Public EconomicsETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations