Differentiating Future Commitments on the Basis of Countries’ Relative Historical Responsibility for Climate Change: Uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian Proposal’ in the Context of a Policy Implementation
During the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, Brazil proposed allocating the greenhouse gas emission reductions of Annex I Parties according to the relative effect of a country’s historical emissions on global temperature increase. This paper analyses the impact of scientific uncertainties and of different options in policy implementation (policy choices) on the contribution of countries’ historical emissions to indicators of historical responsibility for climate change. The influence of policy choices was found to be at least as large as the impact of the scientific uncertainties analysed here. Building on this, the paper then proceeds to explore the implications of applying the Brazilian Proposal as a climate regime for differentiation of future commitments on the global scale combined with an income threshold for participation of the non-Annex I regions. Under stringent climate targets, such a regime leads to high emission reductions for Annex I regions by 2050, in particular for Europe and Japan. The income threshold assumptions strongly affect the Annex I reductions, even more than the impact of another burden-sharing key. A variant of the Brazilian Proposal, allocating emission reductions on the basis of cumulative emissions since 1990, would lead to a more balanced distribution of emission reductions.
KeywordsEmission Reduction Kyoto Protocol Policy Implementation Policy Choice Climate Regime
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andranova, N. and Schlesinger, M. E.: 2004, ‘Importance of sulfate aerosol in evaluating the relative contributions of regional emissions to the historical global temperature change’, Mitigation Adaptation Strat. Global Change (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Blanchard, O.: 2002, ‘Scenarios for Differentiating Commitments’, in Perkaus, J. F. (ed.), Options for Protecting the Climate. WRI, Washington.Google Scholar
- Cubasch, U., Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Stouffer, R. J., Dix, M., Noda, A., Senior, C. A., Raper, S., and Yap, K. S.: 2001. ‘Projections of future climate change’, in Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., p. 892.Google Scholar
- den Elzen, M. G. J., Berk, M. M., Schaeffer, M., Olivier, O. J., Hendriks, C., and Metz, B.: 1999, ‘The Brazilian proposal and other options for international burden sharing: An evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the FAIR model’, RIVM-report 728001011, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. (http://www.rivm.nl/ieweb).
- den Elzen, M. G. J. and Lucas, P.: 2003, ‘FAIR 2.0: A decision-support model to assess the environmental and economic consequences of future climate regimes’, RIVM-report 550015001, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. http://www.rivm.nl/fair.
- den Elzen, M. G. J., Schaeffer, M., and Eickhout, B.: 2002, ‘Responsibility for past and future global warming: Time horizon and non-linearities in the climate system’, RIVM-report 728001022, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
- Eickhout, B., den Elzen, M. G. J., and van Vuuren, D. P.: 2003, ‘Multi-gas emission profiles for stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations’, RIVM-report 728001026, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Enting, I. G.: 1998, ‘Attribution of greenhouse gas emission, concentrations and radiative forcing’, CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 38, Aspendale Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
- Enting, I. G. and Law, R. M.: 2002, ‘Characterising historical responsbility for the greenhouse effect’, CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 41, CSIRO, Aspendale Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
- Filho, M. L. G. and Miguez, M.: 1998, ‘Time dependent relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and climate change’, Ministry of Science and Technology, Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
- Höhne, N. and Blok, K.: 2004, ‘Calculating historical contributions to climate change discussing the Brazilian proposal’, Clim. Change (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Höhne, N. and Harnisch, J.: 2002, ‘Evaluating indicators for the relative responsibility for climate change – alternatives to the Brazilian proposal and global warning potentials’, in Ham, V., Baede, F., Guicherit, R., and Williams-Jacobse (eds.), Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on (NCGG-3) Maastricht, Milpress, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- IMAGE-team: 2001, ‘The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: A comprehensive analysis of emissions’, Climate Change and Impacts in the 21st Century, CD-ROM publication 481508018, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Joos, F., Bruno, M., Fink, R., Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Quéré, C. L., and Sarmiento, J. L.: 1996, ‘An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake’, Tellus 48B, 397–417.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y.-G. and Baumert, K. A.: 2002, ‘Reducing uncertainty through dual-intensity targets’, in Baumert, K. A., Blanchard, O., Llose, S., and Perkaus, J. F. (eds.), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. World Resource Institue, Washington DC.Google Scholar
- Nakicenovic, N. et al.: 2000, ‘Special Report on Emissions Scenarios’, IPCC Special Reports, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
- Prentice, I. C., Farquhar, G., Fasham, M. J. R., Goulden, M. L., Heimann, M., Jaramillo, V. J., Kheshgi, H. S., Le Quere, C., Scholes, R. J., and Wallace, D. W. R.: 2001, ‘The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide’, in Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 892.Google Scholar
- Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglusataine, D., Haywood, J., Myhre, G., Nakajima, T., Shi, G. Y., and Solomon, S.: 2001, ‘Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases’, in Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), IPCC Third Assessment – Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
- Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., and Underdal, A.: 2002, ‘Burden sharing in international climate policy: Principles of fairness in theory and practice’, Int. Environ. Agreements Politics, Law Econ. 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
- Rosa, L. P., Muylaert, M. S., and Campos, C. P. D.: 2003, ‘The Brazilian Proposal and its scientific and methodological aspects International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)’, (http://www.iisd.org).
- Rovere, E. L., Ribeiro, S. K., and Baumert, K. A.: 2002, ’The Brazilian Proposal on relative responsibility for global warming’ in: Baumert, K. A., Blanchard, O., Llose, S., and Perkaus, J. F. (eds.), Options for protecting the climate. World Resource Institute (WRI), Washington.Google Scholar
- Trudinger, C. M. and Enting, I. G.: 2004, ‘Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: Non-linearities in the Brazilian Proposal’, Clim. Change (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- UNFCCC: 1997, ‘Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, FCCC/CP/L7/Add.1, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
- UNFCCC: 1999, ‘Report on the expert meeting on the Brazilian proposal: Scientific aspects and data availability” (http://unfccc.int/sessions/workshop/010528/mrep1999.pdf).Google Scholar
- UNFCCC: 2001, ‘Scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil, Progress report on the review of the scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil’, FCCC/SBSTA/2001/INF.2 (http://www.unfccc.int).
- UNFCCC: 2002a, ‘Assessment of contributions to climate change, terms of reference’ (http://unfccc.int/program/mis/brazil/index.html).
- UNFCCC: 2002b, ‘Methodological issues, scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal by Brazil’, Draft conclusions proposed by the chair, FCCC/SBSTA/2002/L.24 (http://www.unfccc.int).
- UNFCCC: 2002c, ‘Methodologial issues, scientific and methodological assessment of contributions to climate change’, Report of the expert meeting, Note by the secretariat, FCCC/SBSTA/2002/INF.14 (http://www.unfccc.int).
- WBGU: 2003, ‘Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century – Kyoto and Beyond’, German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin.Google Scholar