Future mitigation commitments: differentiating among non-Annex I countries

被引:0
|
作者
Winkler, H [1 ]
Brouns, B
Kartha, S
机构
[1] Univ Cape Town, Energy Res Ctr, ZA-7701 Rondebosch, South Africa
[2] Wuppertal Inst Climate Environm & Energy, D-42103 Wuppertal, Germany
[3] Stockholm Environm Inst, Boston, MA USA
关键词
equity; differentiation; mitigation commitments; developing countries; non-Annex I countries; Kyoto Protocol;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In the long term, any definition of adequacy consistent with UNFCCC Article 2 will require increased mitigation efforts from almost all countries. Therefore, an expansion of emission limitation commitments will form a central element of any future architecture of the climate regime. This expansion has two elements: deepening of quantitative commitments for Annex B countries and the adoption of commitments for those countries outside of the current limitation regime. This article seeks to provide a more analytical basis for further differentiation among non-Annex I countries. To be both fair and reflective of national circumstances, it is based on the criteria of responsibility, capability and potential to mitigate. Altogether, non-Annex I countries were differentiated in four groups, each including countries with similar national circumstances: newly industrialized countries (NICs), rapidly industrializing countries (RIDCs), 'other developing countries', and least developed countries (LDCs). Based on the same criteria that were used for differentiating among non-Annex I countries, a set of decision rules was developed to assign mitigation and financial transfer commitments to each group of countries (including Annex I countries). Applying these decision rules results in (strict) reduction commitments for Annex I countries, but also implies quantifiable mitigation obligations for NICs and RIDCs, assisted by financial transfers from the North. Other developing countries are obliged to take qualitative commitments, but quantifiable mitigation commitments for these countries and the LDC group would be not justifiable. As national circumstances in countries evolve over time, the composition of the groups will change according to agreed triggers.
引用
收藏
页码:469 / 486
页数:18
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [21] Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries' relative historical responsibility for climate change: Uncertainties in the 'Brazilian proposal' in the context of a policy implementation
    Den Elzen, MGJ
    Schaeffer, M
    Lucas, PL
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2005, 71 (03) : 277 - 301
  • [22] Differentiating Future Commitments on the Basis of Countries’ Relative Historical Responsibility for Climate Change: Uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian Proposal’ in the Context of a Policy Implementation
    Michel G. J. Den Elzen
    Michiel Schaeffer
    Paul L. Lucas
    Climatic Change, 2005, 71 : 277 - 301
  • [23] Sectoral marginal abatement cost curves: implications for mitigation pledges and air pollution co-benefits for Annex I countries
    Wagner, Fabian
    Amann, Markus
    Borken-Kleefeld, Jens
    Cofala, Janusz
    Hoeglund-Isaksson, Lena
    Purohit, Pallav
    Rafaj, Peter
    Schoepp, Wolfgang
    Winiwarter, Wilfried
    SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2012, 7 (02) : 169 - 184
  • [24] Sectoral marginal abatement cost curves: implications for mitigation pledges and air pollution co-benefits for Annex I countries
    Fabian Wagner
    Markus Amann
    Jens Borken-Kleefeld
    Janusz Cofala
    Lena Höglund-Isaksson
    Pallav Purohit
    Peter Rafaj
    Wolfgang Schöpp
    Wilfried Winiwarter
    Sustainability Science, 2012, 7 : 169 - 184
  • [25] Patient-reported benefits for future non-alcoholic steatohepatitis therapy: a global real-world study among 1,035 patients across 12 countries
    Higgins, Victoria
    Williams, Nathan
    Jackson, Jessica
    Williams, Rhys
    Piercy, James
    JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2020, 73 : S458 - S459