Who picks up the remainder? Mitigation in developed and developing countries

Winkler, Harald; Vorster, Shaun; Marquard, Andrew

doi:10.3763/cpol.2009.0664

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Winkler et al (2009b) 1 showed high reduction efforts for the developed countries by assuming a global emissions increase of 10% above 1900 levels by 2020, being included in the 'lower range'. Winkler et al (2009b) considered scenarios in which developing countries reduce 10% using their own resources, and another 10% using multilateral public funding, if developed countries reduce emissions by 69% and 52% from 1990 levels by 2020.…”

Section: Reduction Levels and Domestic Action By Developed And Develomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study did not analyse a specific allocation scheme for both developed and developing countries and was therefore not included in Figures 2 and 3. Winkler et al (2009b) used the same simple calculations as den Elzen and Höhne (2008), and these calculations were also used in this study (see Section 4). 2.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Winkler et al (2009b) considered scenarios in which developing countries reduce 10% using their own resources, and another 10% using multilateral public funding, if developed countries reduce emissions by 69% and 52% from 1990 levels by 2020. These reductions are beyond the range of 25-40%, and only the studies based on income distribution (Baer et al, 2008;Höhne and Moltmann, 2008) and on immediate per-capita convergence (Jacoby et al, 2008) showed similar reductions for developed countries.…”

Section: Reduction Levels and Domestic Action By Developed And Develomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to stabilize long-term greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm CO 2 -eq or lower, developed countries as a group should reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, while developing countries' emissions need to be reduced by around 15-30%, relative to their baseline levels, according to the IPCC and our earlier work. This study examines 19 other studies on the emission reductions attributed to the developed and developing countries for meeting a 450 ppm target. These studies considered different allocation approaches, according to equity principles. The effect of the assumed global emissions cap in these studies is analysed. For developed countries, the original reduction range of 25-40% by 2020 is still within the average range of all studies, but does not cover it completely. Comparing the studies shows that assuming a global emissions cap of 5-15% above 1990 levels by 2020 generally leads to more stringent reduction targets than when a global emissions cap of 20-30% above 1990 levels is assumed. For developing countries, the reduction range of 15-30% below their baseline levels by 2020 corresponds to an increase on the 1990 level from 70% (about the 2006 level) to 120%. Reducing deforestation emissions by 50% below baseline levels by 2020 may relax the emission reductions for either group of countries; for developing countries by about 7% or for developed countries by about 15% (but not for both). Une stabilisation à long terme des concentrations de gaz à effet de serre à 450ppm d'équivalent-CO 2 ou moins, nécessiterait, d'après le GIEC et nos travaux antérieurs, la réduction des émissions des pays développés réunis de 25 à 40% au-dessous du niveau de 1990 d'ici 2020, et d'environ 15 à 30% pour les pays en développement par rapport à leur niveau de référence. Cette étude examine 19 autres études portant sur les réductions d'émissions requises par les pays développés et les pays en développement pour atteindre l'objectif de 450ppm. Ces études ont examiné différentes méthodes d'allocation conformément aux principes d'équité. L'importance du plafond global d'émission présumé dans ces études est analysée. Pour les pays développés, l'écart initial de réduction de 25 à 40% d'ici 2020 est toujours compris dans l'écart moyen des études en question, mais ne le couvre pas entièrement. La comparaison des études montre que l'adoption d'un plafond global d'émissions de 5 à 15% au-dessus du niveau de 1990 d'ici 2020 nécessiterait en général des cibles de réduction plus rigoureuses que pour un plafond global d'émissions de 20 à 30% au-dessus du niveau de 1990. Pour les pays en développement, la fourchette de réduction de 15 à 30% au-dessous du niveau de référence d´ici 2020, correspond à une augmentation du niveau de 1990 allant de 70% (à peu près le niveau de 2006) à 120%. Une réduction de 50% des émissions dues à la déforestation, d'ici 2020, par rapport au niveau de référence, aurait un effet de relâche sur la contrainte de réduction dans chacun des deux groupements de pays, à savoir de l'ordre de 7% po...

show abstract

Section: Reduction Levels and Domestic Action By Developed And Develomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reduction Levels and Domestic Action By Developed And Develomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the negotiations starting at COP 13 in Bali, 2007, and leading up to COP 15 in Copenhagen, 2009, equitable burden-sharing between North and South was widely seen as the main obstacle to reaching agreement (Winkler et al 2009). Countries had so far been separated by the UNFCCC "firewall" that placed different obligations on Annex I and Non-Annex I countries.…”

Section: The Bali Box: a Scientific "Fixed Point"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This placed Box 13.7 at the center of attention for the coming negotiations, and following the conference it became known as the "Bali Box". What united the diverse actors promoting the numbers of Box 13.7 was the understanding that "the science-based range [of Box 13.7] provides a fixed point", from which to derive commitments for individual Annex I countries (Winkler et al 2009: 636, emphasis added). Thus, drawing on the scientific credibility of the IPCC, the numbers came to represent "what science says" that countries should do (cf.…”

Section: The Bali Box: a Scientific "Fixed Point"mentioning

confidence: 99%

In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris

Lahn

2017

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Paris Agreement is built on a tension between the common goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C, and the differentiation that follows from the principle of equity. Scientific expertise is commonly seen as providing important means to overcome this tension, for example in the Agreement's "global stocktake", which is said to be undertaken "in the light of equity and the best available science". This raises the question of how scholarly communities best can contribute to deliberations on equitable differentiation in the effort required to meet common temperature goals. To discuss this question, the paper looks to the literature within Science and Technology Studies (STS) on the role of science in policymaking, where disagreement exists over the merits of "heating up" controversies through politicization, versus "cooling down" issues by seeking consensus. It assesses two cases in which scientific expertise has engaged with questions of equitable effort-sharing in international climate politics: The "Bali Box" of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and the "Civil Society Equity Review" undertaken prior to COP21 in Paris. Based on a comparison of the two cases, it is argued that scientific contributions should not shy away from highlighting conflicts in values and interests, and that "heating up" discussions about climate justice may be a valuable contribution to overcoming the tensions of the Paris Agreement.

show abstract

A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new scenario framework facilitates the coupling of multiple socioeconomic reference pathways with climate model products using the representative concentration pathways. This will allow for improved assessment of climate impacts, adaptation and mitigation. Assumptions about climate policy play a major role in linking socioeconomic futures with forcing and climate outcomes. The paper presents the concept of shared climate policy assumptions as an important element of the new scenario framework. Shared climate policy assumptions capture key policy attributes such as the goals, instruments and obstacles of mitigation and adaptation measures, and introduce an important additional dimension to

show abstract

Who picks up the remainder? Mitigation in developed and developing countries

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

In the light of equity and science: scientific expertise and climate justice after Paris

A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About