An Evaluation of Pre-Kyoto Differentiation Proposals for National Greenhouse Gas Abatement Targets

Abstract

Although the Kyoto Protocol has set a precedent for future climate negotiations, particularly with respect to differentiation of targets between countries, the current approach is likely to be insufficient as a foundation for future targets. A more systematic approach is deemed necessary to meet the challenges of negotiating new targets after 2012 as well as involving the USA and perhaps developing countries. We argue that better negotiation tools can be helpful in this regard. We thus present an overview of more systematic differentiation methods for national greenhouse gas reduction targets. We draw from the proposals that were submitted in the climate negotiations from 1995 to 1997 leading up to the Kyoto Protocol, the EU's Triptique approach for internal differentiation of targets, and three proposals discussed in the literature on fairness principles.

The most promising and helpful proposals for future negotiations are given particular attention: the second proposal by Japan, the French proposal, the Norwegian proposal, the Brazilian proposal, and Triptique. A numerical illustration of the former three together with the Sovereignty, Egalitarian, and Ability to Pay fairness principles is provided. Using resemblance to the Kyoto Protocol to measure political feasibility, we find that the proposals rank in the order; (1) the second Japanese; (2) the French; (3) the Norwegian; (4) the Sovereignty; (5) the Ability to Pay; and (6) the Egalitarian, the last being particularly infeasible.