Reduction targets and abatement costs of developing countries resulting from global and developed countries’ reduction targets by 2050
- 529 Downloads
The European Union (EU) has advocated an emission reduction target for developed countries of 80% to 95% below the 1990 level by 2050, and a global reduction target of 50%. Developing countries have resisted the inclusion of these targets in both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements. This paper analyses what these targets would imply for emission targets, abatement costs and energy consumption of developing countries, taking into account the conditional emission reduction pledges for 2020. An 80% reduction target for developed countries would imply more stringent per capita emission targets for developing countries than developed countries by 2050. Moreover, abatement costs of developing countries would be higher than those of developed countries. An 85% to 90% reduction target for developed countries would result in similar per capita emission targets and abatement costs for developed and developing countries by 2050. Total reduction targets for developing countries would range from 30% to 40% below 2005 levels by 2050 and from 30% to 35% above 2005 levels by 2030. The 2030 target for China would be 40% to 45% above 2005 levels, compared to a target for the EU of 45% to 50% below 1990 and for the United States of America (USA) 30% to 35% below 1990. Emission target trajectories for Brazil, South Africa and China would peak before 2025 and for India by around 2025. From the analysis, we may conclude that from the viewpoint of developing countries either developed countries increase their target above 85%, and/or make substantial side-payments.
KeywordsCancún agreements Climate change Copenhagen accord Developing countries Greenhouse gas emissions Long term targets Mitigation
The project was financed by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. The contribution of AH has been supported by the RESPONSES project, co-funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme.
- Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, www.pbl.nl\image
- Council of the European Union (2009) Presidency conclusions, 15265/1/09. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Ding Z, Duan X, Ge Q, Zhang Z (2009) Control of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2050: a calculation of emission rights of different countries. Adv Clim Change Res 5:17–42Google Scholar
- Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E, Chateau B, Criqui P, Isaac M, Kitous A, Kypreos S, Leimbach M, Lessmann K, Magné B, Scrieciu Š, Turton H, Van Vuuren DP (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energ J 31:11–48Google Scholar
- European Commission (2010) Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm
- G8 (2009) Responsible leadership for a sustainable future. G8 Summit 2009, L’AquilaGoogle Scholar
- Garnaut R (2008) The Garnaut climate change review. Melbourne, Australia, www.garnautreview.org.au.
- Gupta S, Tirpak DA, Burger N, Gupta J, Höhne N, Boncheva AI, Kanoan GM, Kolstad C, Kruger JA, Michaelowa A, Murase S, Pershing J, Saijo T, Sari A (2007) Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- He J, Chen W, Teng F, Liu B (2009) Long-term climate change mitigation target and carbon permit allocation. Adv Clim Change Res 5:78–85Google Scholar
- IMF (2009) World economic outlook. Update. July 8, 2009. Contractionary forces receding but weak recovery ahead. International Monetary Fund, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Ji Z (2010) China human development report 2009/10. China and a Sustainable Future: Towards a Low Carbon Economy and Society. China Translation and Publishing Corporation, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
- Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LM (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
- UN (2008) World Population Prospects: the 2008 revision. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2011) UNEP bridging the gap report. In: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/bridgingemissionsgap/
- UNFCCC (2009) Copenhagen accord. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf
- UNFCCC (2010) Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session, UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2
- van Ruijven B, van Vuuren DP, van Vliet J, Beltran AM, Deetman S, den Elzen MGJ (2012) Implications of greenhouse gas emission mitigation scenarios for the main Asian regions. Energ Econ (in press)Google Scholar
- van Vliet J, van den Berg M, Schaeffer M, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Hof AF, Beltran AM, Meinshausen M (2012) Copenhagen accord pledges imply higher costs for staying below 2°C warming. Clim Change, submittedGoogle Scholar
- van Vuuren DP, Isaac M, den Elzen MGJ, Stehfest E, van Vliet J (2010a) Low stabilization scenarios and implications for major world regions from an integrated assessment perspective. Energ J. 31 (Special Issue), 165–192.Google Scholar