Likely d

0 50 45000

EAsia CPAsia 40000

SAsia ME AFR LAM REEU

100 150 200 50 300 50

MtCO2eq.

00 3 00

00 00 00 2 00

RAI JPN RUS+EEU EU25

00

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

USA

Figure 24. Emission allowances under the Multistage approach for the A1B scenario ntration

Table 3 ate of entry into the different stages aiming at 400 ppmv in the long term N

scenar

aiming at approximately 400 ppmv CO2 conce

140 Annex

until 2

have t 20 around 5 to 50% below 1990 levels, in 2050 around 60% to

aroun 2 in 2020.

on-Annex I countries are expected to increase their emissions by 2020 and 2050 manifold compared to their 1990 levels. For stricter stabilization goals, they would participate in the emission reduction effort earlier than under less ambitious stabilization goals. The region South Asia (including India) does not participate in 2020 under any stabilization goal, as their per capita emissions are very low. They would increase their emissions by 200% above 1990 levels in 2020. Africa does basically not participate in the 550 case in 2020 but starts to participate for lower stabilization goals. In 2050 all developing country regions have to participate, but still would be allowed to increase emissions substantially above 1990 levels.

emissions. Shown are the results for the groups, results for individual countries may differ.

I countries are assumed to increase emissions under the reference by a few to 30%

020, but are around the 1990 levels in 2050. Under the multistage approach, they would o reduce emissions in 20

90% below 1990 levels. For higher stabilization goals, less reductions are necessary, e.g.

d -10% for 550 ppmv CO2 in 2020 vs. around -40% for 400 ppmv CO N

Multistage 2020

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

USA EU25 FRA GER UK R+EEU JPN RAI

400 450550 Reference

Multistage 2020

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

REEU LAM AFR ME SAsia CPAsia EAsia

400450 550Reference

Multistage 2050

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

USA EU25 FRA GER UK R+EEU JPN RAI

400450 550Reference

Multistage 2050

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

REEU LAM AFR ME SAsia CPAsia EAsia

400450 550Reference

Figure 25. Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 and 2050 under the compromise proposal. Error bars show the range for different reference scenarios.

Countries in stage 4 are assumed to share the emission reductions proportional to their per capita emissions. Those that have high per capita emissions reduce more compared to those with low per capita emissions. Alternatively, all countries could reduce emissions with the same percentage (see Figure 26). Then countries with high per capita emissions would reduce less (e.g. USA) and countries with low per capita emissions would reduce more (e.g.

France). Yet another alternative would be that countries in stage 4 reduce emissions according to the Triptych methodology (same group reduction). In such a case, not only the per capita emissions are relevant but also the current energy efficiency and the expected development of electricity and industrial production. Countries with higher efficiency and with higher expected growth would have to reduce emission less. In the given example (Figure 26), the higher efficiency in European countries is balanced by the stronger growth in electricity and industrial production assumed for the USA. Both have to reduce at the same percentage.

Multistage 450 ppmv 2020

141

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

A 25 A R UK EU N RAI

40%

50%

US EU FR GE R+E JP

Per capita reduction Equal percentage Triptych

Reference

Figure 26. Sensitivity to different reductions in stage 4 (reference scenario A1B, results are close to the lower bound given in Figure 25)

9.3 DISCUSSION OF THE

start with no commitments or sustainable development commitments and thus would be integrated in the system according to their current capabilities to act towards mitigating climate change. Those countries would perceive the system much fairer than if they were confronted with emission cuts right away. Stage 3 provides an additional intermediary step with moderate reductions. Countries in stage 4, in particular most developed countries, will commit to absolute emission reductions. Those countries will also be given the opportunity to make a commitment to technology development and its implementation and diffusion. If so, the respective country can expect a reduction of its absolute emission reduction commitments. By providing this level of flexibility further emission cuts on the long term are likely to occur due to technology development and thus would indirectly contribute to the global system. Developed countries such as the US could consider such flexibility as an interesting feature, which could stimulate negotiators from the US coming back to the international negotiating table.

It must be noted that many countries might in fact prefer taking a commitment for technology development rather than taking a commitment for absolute emission reductions. Such development could jeopardise meeting the environmental criteria. To avoid such development, system design should provide a clear indication to what extent a country could change a commitment taken in absolute emission cuts for taking a commitment in technology development.

The proposal covers the need for an agreement to be made on adaptation and provides for certain countries to pursue sustainable development targets. The proposal thus would also be

countries with sufficient flexibility to reach their commitments e.g. through emissions chnology generate pos e

By diffe differen

CRITERIA

In this section we assess, how the compromise proposal could satisfy the evaluation criteria for post 2012 approaches on future action as listed in chapter 3.1.

Environmental criteria: The proposal has the potential to safeguard the fulfilment of the ultimate objective of the Convention provided that the interactions between absolute emission reduction commitments and technology development commitments are properly negotiated.

Since the criterion of participation is crucial for meeting the environmental effectiveness, the proposal incorporates incentives for Parties to participate. Developing countries would either

in line with this particular environmental criterion.

Economic criteria: The proposal is aimed to minimize the aggregated global costs and provides

trading, thus minimising the negative economic effects. By allowing for taking te development commitments, technology change is stimulated which in itself would

itiv economic side effects, growth and sustainable development of developing countries.

rentiating various stages with certain actions involved in each stage, structural ces of countries are addressed.

142

Techni s

and fine

existing g and reporting arrangements. Certainly,

monitori with e

develop ion measures etc. If negotiated for a more than

one outcome participa industry Politica criteria.

opportu national The pro

discuss , advanced developed countries and least

emes developed under the Kyoto Protocol.

9.4 CONCLUSIONS ON COMPROMISE PROPOSAL

T

i

international agreement.

T

ntries to participate in a certain stage, not just thresholds. The flexibility provided fo

Critical in this setting would be the participation of the USA. Their current point of view can be incorporated through the commitment for technology development. Here the USA would have cal criteria: There i no doubt that this proposal requires considerable negotiations -tuning if pursued. However, it can build upon fundamental agreed elements of the Kyoto system in particular the monitorin

ng mitigation measures would need to be extended by monitoring progress achieved m eting technology development targets or commitments of countries, sustainable

ment targets, progress with adaptat

commitment period, say for instance for the next 15 years with 5 year interval targets, the would communicate stability of the system and would ensure a continued tion of countries. In addition, such longer timeframes would provide a clear signal to that is the driving force to materialise technology development.

l criteria. The proposal meets the ‘capability’, ‘responsibility’, and ‘comparable efforts’

In terms of the criteria ‘needs’, developing countries in stage 1 and 2 are given the nity to satisfy basic development needs. The proposal furthermore takes current

emission levels as the basis for a future climate policy into account.

posal is addressing fundamental and controversial positions of the major players ed in this report such as the EU, USA

developed countries. For instance, by the inclusion of LDCs and ADCs in stage 1 and 2 with the longer-term perspective to enter stages with more commitment, a fundamental requirement voiced by the US for developing country participation is met. On the other hand, LDCs would see big emitters taking a leading role in emission reductions and would see the inclusion of fostering sustainable development and adaptation measures. Further, the proposal satisfies the EU ‘s position of meeting environmental effectiveness and utilizing the established monitoring and reporting sch

The compromise proposal has several strengths:

• he proposal is designed as a compromise to accommodate many different viewpoints on specific issues and to satisfy multiple demands. Many countries or country groups can find elements of their concern in this proposal.

• The proposal allows for a gradual phase-in of countries in the mandatory emission reduction effort, which is in line with the UNFCCC spirit, and takes into account national circumstances (esp. if Triptych is chosen as the burden sharing concept for stage 4).

• The proposal allows flex bility to implement immediate emission reduction measures or to develop technologies that are able to reduce emissions in the future.

• The proposal allows for gradual decision making, which seems the most likely way of reaching an

• he proposal builds trust, as industrialised countries take the lead in emission reduction efforts.

The proposal however has some weaknesses:

• The overall proposal describes a relative complex system that requires many decisions.

• The risk that countries enter too late in the emission reduction effort is high, so that some long-term stabilization options may be lost. Hence, incentives are needed for cou

r countries in stage 3 and/or 4 to take a commitment in technology development while receiving a reduction of their commitment of absolute emissions in return adds additional uncertainty on the global emission levels.

143 ui, A. Kitous, M. Berk, M. den Elzen, B. Eickhout, P. Lucas, D. van Vuuren, N. Kouvaritakis and

Global Warming". Washington D.C., Center for Transatlantic Relations

http://transatlantic.sais-nd Deepening - An ambitious to demonstrate serious actions for the development of new technologies. In return, the USA could receive a relatively moderate emission reduction target.

9.5 REFERENCES P. Criq

D. Vanregemorter, 2003, “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Pathways In The Unfccc Process Up To 2025 − Technical Report”, Study Contract: B4-3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for the European

Commission, DG Environment http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/pm_techreport2025.pdf

Den Elzen, M.G.J., Berk, M.M., Lucas, P., Eickhout, B. and Van Vuuren, D.P., 2003. Exploring climate regimes for differentiation of commitments to achieve the EU climate target. RIVM Report no.

728001023, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands http://arch.rivm.nl/ieweb/ieweb/Reports/728%20001%20023_final_V1.pdf

J. Gupta, 1998 “Encouraging developing country participation in the climate change regime,” Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

J. Gupta, 2003, “Engaging developing countries in climate change: (KISS and Make-up!)” in David Michel (ed.),(2003): "Climate Policy for the 21st Century, Meeting the Long-Term Challenge of jhu.edu

Höhne, N., J. Harnisch, G.J.M Phylipsen, K. Blok, C. Galleguillos (2003): Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries.

Research Report 201 41 255. UBA-FB 000412 http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/fpdf-l/2246.pdf Axel Michaelowa, Sonja Butzengeiger, Martina Jung, 2003. “Graduation a

post-2012 climate policy scenario”. HWWA Discussion paper.

Ott, H E; Winkler, H; Brouns, B; Kartha, S; Mace, M; Huq, S; Kameyama, Y; Sari, A P; Pan, J; Sokona, Y; Bhandari, P M; Kassenberg, A; La Rovere, E L & Rahman, A, 2004: South-North dialogue on equity in the greenhouse. A proposal for an adequate and equitable global climate agreement.

GTZ, Eschborn, Germany

Sijm, Jos, Jaap Jansen, and Asbjørn Torvanger (2001), Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach, Climate Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4, 481-497

144 ents Model (EVOC) developed by Ecofys, which includes emissions of CO₂, CH₄,

nd take a closer look at individual European countries (10.2.4). Final conclusions

eenhouse gas concentrations. Figure 27 provides an illustrative example pathway of global emissions that lead to stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC 2001d). The chart illustrates four steps of the cause-effect chain that

to millennia.

Im Dokument Climate Change (Seite 141-146)