The Case for Contraction and Convergence

Meyer, A. Lee

doi:10.2307/j.ctt18fs5k6.5

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During the 1990s, the Global Commons Institute presented a framework, termed 'Contraction and Convergence' (IPCC, 2000;Meyer, 2000). Contraction refers to governments agreeing to be bound by diminishing targets for global GHG emissions.…”

Section: Equity and Distributional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recycling revenue from an international carbon tax to fund an integrated investment programme in sustainable energy and poverty reduction

Hyder¹

2008

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Equity and Distributional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recycling revenue from an international carbon tax to fund an integrated investment programme in sustainable energy and poverty reduction

Hyder¹

2008

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If additionally aspects of social justice such as different historic responsibilities for emissions are considered, concrete emission targets for individual countries could be calculated, e.g. based on the concept of Contraction & Convergence (Meyer 2000).…”

Section: Design Elements and Criteria For Sustainable Market-based CLmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional market-based climate policy in North America: efficient, effective, fair?

Rudolph

Kawakatsu²,

Lerch³

2014

Environmental Taxation and Green Fiscal Reform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Despite President Obama's current interest in climate policy, market-based climate policy on the US federal level still appears to be deadlocked. The same is true for Canada, which has aligned its climate policy to the US. However, regional activities are more promising as British Columbia and California have started using market-based approaches recently. Against this background, the paper asks: Can state level market-based climate policy be a sustainable alternative or supplement to federal action? Terms of use: Documents inWhich of the two programs does better in terms of fulfilling ambitious sustainability criteria? How can the programs be improved? In order to answer these questions, in a comparative fashion, the paper analyzes the design and the results of the British Columbia Carbon Tax and the California Cap-andTrade Program and evaluates them based on sustainability criteria. By doing so, the paper provides a comparative evaluation of two North American sub-national level market-based climate policy programs, shows the significance and the challenges of such regional initiatives, identifies best-practice design elements, and provides recommendations for regional market-based climate policy design.JEL-Classification: D62, D63, Q48, Q54, Q58

show abstract

“…In Figure 2, emissions allocations for this case and our four specific targets appear as four black diamonds that fall on the line with a slope of 5, the population ratio. Note that by constraining cumulative emissions, this case gives more priority to equity than "Contraction and Convergence" schemes (Meyer 2000), which require the same per capita emissions for various parts of the world at some particular future date (typically 2050 or 2100).…”

Section: Global Future Cumulative Emission Budget = a I + N-a Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe vs. Fair: A Formidable Trade-Off in Tackling Climate Change

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryGlobal warming requires a response characterized by forward-looking management of atmospheric carbon and respect for ethical principles. Both safety and fairness must be pursued, and there are severe trade-offs as these are intertwined by the limited headroom for additional atmospheric CO2 emissions. This paper provides a simple numerical mapping at the aggregated level of developed vs. developing countries in which safety and fairness are formulated in terms of cumulative emissions and cumulative per capita emissions respectively. It becomes evident that safety and fairness cannot be achieved simultaneously for strict definitions of both. The paper further posits potential global trading in future cumulative emissions budgets in a world where financial transactions compensate for physical emissions: the safe vs. fair trade-off is less severe but remains formidable. Finally, we explore very large deployments of engineered carbon sinks and show that roughly 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative negative emissions over the century are required to have a significant effect, a remarkable scale of deployment. We also identify the unexplored issue of how such sinks might be treated in sub-global carbon accounting. Keywords

show abstract

The Case for Contraction and Convergence

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Recycling revenue from an international carbon tax to fund an integrated investment programme in sustainable energy and poverty reduction

Recycling revenue from an international carbon tax to fund an integrated investment programme in sustainable energy and poverty reduction

Regional market-based climate policy in North America: efficient, effective, fair?

Safe vs. Fair: A Formidable Trade-Off in Tackling Climate Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About