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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    As justice considerations within the field of adaptation to climate are covered in other contributions to this Special Issue, the following exclusively focuses on aspects of mitigation.

  2. 2.

    See Fleurbaey et al. (2014) for an overview.

  3. 3.

    For the time being, the current round of the Kyoto Protocol represents a rather small coalition, including almost all European countries, Australia and Kasachstan (UNFCCC 2011).

  4. 4.

    Note that even a warming of 2 °C cannot be regarded as “safe” (e.g., WBGU 2009), as even with temperature increases below that threshold, there exists a positive probability of catastrophic events. The 2 °C guard rail is hence rather a scientifically bolstered red line (e.g., Richardson et al. 2009; Allison et al. 2009; IPCC 2013), which was politically accepted by the international community, within the so-called Copenhagen Accord, as the main objective of global mitigation efforts (UNFCCC 2010). The German Advisory Council on Global Change, the proposal of which is controversially discussed in Schuppert and Seidel (2015), proposed already in the 1990s to limit global temperature increase to 2 °C (WBGU 1995) to reduce the risk of dangerous effects on the climate system, which would put significant stress on contemporary societies.

  5. 5.

    A similar text is proposed for paragraphs 13.2 b) and 16.1.

  6. 6.

    The remaining years are counted from 2015 onwards, with the emissions between 2011 and 2015 already being subtracted.

  7. 7.

    The maximin principle, derived in this strand of literature, prescribes chosing an action, for which those actors that are (expectedly) the worst off still fare better than they would with any other course of action.

  8. 8.

    A similar arithmetic example can be made with respect to the 2 °C target and its associated confidence intervals. According to Friedlingstein et al. (2014), where slightly higher carbon budgets are assumed than by the IPCC, the requirement for meeting the 2 °C target at a confidence level of 66 %, corresponds to a global budget of 1000 Gt in 2020. Hence, if the currently negotiated agreement is finally in place, emissions would have to be cut to zero after 20 years if we assume emissions to continue at the current pace.

  9. 9.

    As a thought experiment, we leave it to the reader to calculate his/her associated yearly tax burden in dependence to his/her current carbon footprint.

  10. 10.

    In this case proposition (V) in Schuppert and Seidel would have to be adjusted by a concave transformation of the value function, relaxing the constraint accordingly.

  11. 11.

    This holds at least under a large enough level of competition.

  12. 12.

    It is sometimes argued that the possibility for industrialized countries to buy certificates elsewhere would lead to a lack of innovation in cleaner technologies in those countries. This does, however, not occur if the overall target is strict enough, which is certainly the case for the 2 °C target. In this case the anticipated market price is high enough to guarantee strong incentives for the development of low carbon technologies.

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 

  2. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2009) A 350 ppm emergency pathway, revised version November 23, 2009. EcoEquity, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

  3. BASIC Experts (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. BASIC Expert Group, Beijing

    Google 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 IPCC

  5. Frame DJ, Macey AH, Allen MR (2014) Cumulative emissions and climate policy. Nat Geosci 7:692–693

    Article  Google 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 7:709–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement oxford. Oxford University Press

  8. Grasso M (2012) Sharing the emission budget. Polit Stud 60:668–686

    Article  Google 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, USA

  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, USA

  11. Held H, Kriegler E, Lessmann K, Edenhofer O (2009) Efficient climate policies under technology and climate uncertainty. Energy Economics, 31(1):50–61

  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):51–65

    Article  Google 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 458:1158–1162

  15. Michaelowa K, and Michaelowa (submitted for this issue) Rapid development and new responsibilities for climate change mitigation?, Climatic Change

  16. Raupach MR et al (2014) Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:873–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google 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 

  19. Richels RG, Manne AS, Wigley TML (2004) Moving beyond concentrations: the challenge of limiting temperature change, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 04–11

  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, Bonn

    Google 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, Germany

  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, Bonn

    Google 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, Switzerland

  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, Bremerhaven

    Google Scholar 

  27. WBGU – German Advisory Council on Global Change (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. Special report 2009. WBGU, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  28. WRI-CAIT (2009) World resources institute – climate analysis indicators tools, version 6.0. http://cait.wri.org/. Accessed 3. June 2009

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Ohndorf.

Additional information

This article is part of a Special Issue on “Climate Justice in Interdisciplinary Research” edited by Christian Huggel, Markus Ohndorf, Dominic Roser, and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer.

This paper is linked to the following contribution of this special issue: Schuppert and Seidel, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1409-z

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohndorf, M., Blasch, J. & Schubert, R. Emission budget approaches for burden sharing: some thoughts from an environmental economics point of view. Climatic Change 133, 385–395 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1442-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Abatement Cost
  • Marginal Abatement Cost
  • Emission Allowance
  • Cumulative Emission
  • Burden Sharing