Integrated Assessment

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 111–126 | Cite as

International equity in climate change policy

  • Bert Metz
Article

Abstract

Equity discussions in climate change policy focus on mitigation. Climate change impacts, adaptation and decision making are also important. General equity principles can be related to specific proposals for equitable sharing of mitigation but no objective preference for any principle exists. Most promising are mixed approaches, that combine various equity principles in a process oriented setting.

equity climate change policy burden sharing international agreements 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, http://www.unfccc.de/resource/convkp/conveng.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Bodansky, The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: a commentary, Yale Journal of International Law 18 (1993) 451–558.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol 1998, http://www.unfcc.de//resource/ convkp/kpeng.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Grubb, C. Vrolijk and D. Bragg, The Kyoto protocol: a guide and assessment (Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1999).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. Banuri, K. Goeran-Maeler, M. Grubb, H.K. Jacobson and F. Yamin, Equity and social considerations, in: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of IPCC, eds. J. Bruce, H. Lee and E. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Helm, Axiomatic fairness criteria and the allocation of climate protection burdens, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Rose, Burden-sharing and climate change policy beyond Kyoto: implications for developing countries, Environment and Development Economics 3 (1998) 392–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Rose and B. Stevens, A dynamic analysis of fairness in global warming policy: Kyoto, Buenos Aires and beyond, Journal of Applied Economics 1 (1998) 329–362.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Rose, B. Stevens, J. Edmonds and M. Wise, International equity and differentiation in global warming policy, Environmental and Resource Economics 12 (1998) 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    P.R. Shukla, Justice, equity and efficiency in climate change: a developing country perspective, in: Fairness Concerns in Climate Change, ed. F. Tóth (Earthscan Publications, London, 1999).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Torvanger and O. Godal, A survey of differentiation methods for national greenhouse gas reduction targets, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Report 1999–5, Oslo (1999).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Shue, Equity in an international agreement on climate change, in: Equity and Social Considerations Related to Climate Change, Proceedings of an IPCC Workshop, eds. R. Odingo, A. Alusa, F. Mugo, J.K. Njihia, A. Heidenreich and A. Katama, Nairobi, July 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    IPCC, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change, eds. R. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R. Moss (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Pearce, W.R. Cline, A.N. Achanta, S. Fankhauser, R.K. Pachauri, R.J.S. Tol and P. Vellinga, The social costs of climate change: greenhouse gas damage and the benefits of control, in: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of IPCC, eds. J. Bruce, H. Lee and E. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Roson and F. Bosello, Distributional consequences of alternative emissions trading schemes, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    E. von Weizsacker, A.B. Lovins and L.H. Lovins, Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (Earthscan Publications, London, 1998).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Coase, The problem of social costs, Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960) 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Rose, Equity considerations of tradable carbon entitlements, in: Combating Global Warming (UNCTAD, Geneva, 1992).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Casler and A. Rose, Carbon dioxide emissions in the US economy, Environmental and Resource Economics 11 (1998) 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    H.W. Gottinger, Economic damage control for greenhouse gas emissions, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Berk, M. den Elzen and B. Metz, Global climate protection and equitable burden-sharing: an exploration of some options, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Da Silva and H.B. Kotagama, Value of carbon sequestration and sink service of forests in Sri Lanka: justification for international resource transfer for forest conservation, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R. Serroa de Motta, Integrating Brazilian national priorities and policies in global environmental issues, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Lopez, Incorporating developing countries into global efforts for greenhouse gas reduction, Resources for the Future Climate Issues Brief #6, Washington, DC (January 1999).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J.C. Bollen, A. Gielen and H. Timmer, Clubs, Ceilings and CDM: the macro-economics of compliance with the Kyoto protocol, The Energy Journal, special issue on the Costs of the Kyoto Protocol – a multi-model evaluation, ed. J.P. Weyant (1999).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Rose, E. Bulte and H. Folmer, Long-run implications for developing countries of joint implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation, Environmental and Resource Economics 14 (1999) 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    N. Collamer and A. Rose, The changing role of transaction costs in the evolution of joint implementation, International Environmental Affairs (1998) 274–288.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    L. Ringius, Differentiation, leaders and fairness: negotiating climate commitments in the European Community, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Report 1997–8, Oslo (1997).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    G.J.M. Phylipsen, J.W. Bode, K. Blok, H. Merkus and B. Metz, A triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation: GHG emissions in the European bubble, Energy Policy 26 (1998) 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    H.D. Jacoby, R. Schmalensee and I.S. Wing, Towards a useful architecture for climate change negotiations, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 49, MIT, Boston (1998).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    IPCC, Implications of proposed CO2 emission limitations, Technical Paper 4, Geneva (1997).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    L. Ringius, A. Torvanger and B. Holtsmark, Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens? OECD results from three burden sharing rules, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, working paper 1998:6, Oslo (1998).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    B. Mueller, Justice in global warming negotiations, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Report EV 26, Oxford (1998).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J. Onigkeit and J. Alcamo, A different perspective for global climate policy; combining burden-sharing and climate protection, Paper submitted for EFIEA Workshop Integrating Climate Policies in the European Environment: Costs and Opportunities, Milan, 4–6 March 1999.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    UNFCCC, proposal from Brazil, document FCCC/AGBM/1997/ MISC 1/ADD 1, Bonn (1997).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    D.M. Reiner and H.D. Jacoby, Annex-1 Differentiation Proposals: Implications for Welfare, Equity and Policy, MIT Global Change Joint Program Report 27, MIT Boston (1997).Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Edmonds, M. Wise and D. Barns, Carbon coalitions: the cost and effectiveness of energy agreements to alter trajectories of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, Energy Policy 23 (1995) 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    IEA, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 1971–1996 (OECD/IEA, Paris, 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert Metz
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Public Health and the EnvironmentBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations