* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download In Fairness to Current Generations
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
ELSEVIER Energy Policy 27 (1999) 509-514 ENERGY POLICY www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol View point In fairness to current generations: lost voices in the climate debate Ambuj D. Sagar a'*, Tariq Banuri b aProgram in Science, Technology and Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA bStockholm Environment Institute, Boston. USA Received 13 July 1999 Abstract Notions of justice and equity, although enshrined in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, have not shaped the outcome of the subsequent negotiations to any substantial extent. These principles are relevant to various aspects of the climate debate, especially those of particular importance to developing countries. While focusing on issues with justice and equity dimensions will most likely be necessary for successful implementation of the Climate Convention, voices that speak out on such topics are often ignored or sometimes completely absent. Here we present and discuss three aspects of the climate debate the allocation of "rights to the atmosphere," liability for climate-related impacts, and the needs of those who do not contribute significantly to climate change - - that are of substantial importance for countries of the South. We believe that an increased attention to such issues, and their incorporation into the climate deliberations, is important for a robust climate regime. To do so will require, both, attention on the part of scientists, other analysts, and policy-makers as well as strengthening the capacity for marginalized groups to speak up. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Climate change; Equity; Justice 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The United Nations F r a m e w o r k Convention on Climate Change ( U N F C C C ) (UN, 1992) was signed in 1992 and has, by now, received 176 instruments of ratification. But progress towards the objectives of the Convention has been slow and meandering, with some key aspects of the discussions (such as short-term targets and timetables or mechanisms for improving the cost-effectiveness of any abatement strategies) capturing most of the attention in the negotiations and the surrounding analysis. Notions of fairness and equity, though enshrined in the Principles of the Convention (UN, 1992: Article 3), have generally not influenced, to any substantial extent, the outcome of the subsequent debate. This is not surprising. Even though the concepts of justice and equity have been present in the theoretical environmental discourse, it is only of late, and that too only to a limited extent for some * Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1-617-496-6218; fax: + 1-617-4960606. E-mail address: [email protected](A.D. Sagar) issues in the North, that they have found their way into policy-making. The environmental justice movement in the United States that focuses on the distribution of environmental burdens a m o n g communities, for example, has had some success in entering the mainstream of the debate. But justice and equity have rarely played a pivotal role in international relations, and notwithstanding the rhetoric of "global environmental stewardship," negotiations for global environmental problems operate in the same domain as other international issues. While no party is prepared to explicitly argue against justice and equity - - hence paying lipservice to these principles has become almost obligatory - - they rarely shape the final outcome. On the contrary, the negotiating behavior of most parties has been dominated by concerns about economic competitiveness, minimal burden-sharing, and other strategic national interests. Yet, there is an increasing recognition that the climate problem cannot be tackled by the N o r t h alone. Although industrialized countries have been responsible for an overwhelming portion of the historical greenhouse-gas ( G H G ) emissions, rising emissions in the South are a source of disproportionate concern in the North. But 0301-4215/99/$- see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-42 15(99)00036- 1 510 A.D. Sagar, 7". Banuri / Energy Policy 27 (1999) 509-514 Southern countries have been wary of making any commitments ("voluntary" or otherwise) or entering willynilly into international cooperative arrangements to abate their G H G emissions. Underlying this reluctance is a recognition of the strategic behavior of the industrialized countries as well as the absence of any concerted focus on issues that are important to the South: equity, justice and sustainable development. It is our belief that in order to truly engage the South in a global climate action plan, these issues must be brought center stage of the discussions, especially in the negotiations. This may require a renewed commitment to values and goals that have been present in the climate discussions (sometimes at the forefront, but mostly in the background), as well as consideration of some perspectives that have traditionally not been given much attention in the negotiations or the surrounding discussions. Here we choose to highlight and discuss three issues which we feel are central to such a commitment. 2. The ignored voices: allocation of the "rights to the atmosphere" The allocation of global carbon emissions has figured in the climate discussions intermittently. In fact, there was substantial discussion (at least within research and advocacy circles) on this theme preceding and subsequent to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) meeting in Rio de Janeiro (see, for example, Grubb, 1989; Agarwal and Narain, 1991; Solomon and Ahuja, 1991; Barrett, 1992; Burtraw and Toman, 1992; Cline, 1992; Ghosh, 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Welsch, 1993). Unfortunately, despite the burst of intellectual activity on this topic, it receded into the background soon after Rio as the focus of the climate discussions moved to short-term targets and timetables. This shift may have resulted in part from the promise made by the Annex-I countries at U N C E D to reduce their G H G emission to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and reinforced by the 1995 Berlin Mandate from the first Conference of the Parties (COP-l) requiring the Annex-1 countries to present a protocol by COP-3 (UNFCCC, 1995). Subsequently, in COP-2, the Annex-1 countries agreed to the inclusion of legally binding commitments in such a protocol (UNFCCC, 1996). This resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol which sets targets to be achieved by these countries by the period 2008-2012 (UNFCCC, 1997). While the Kyoto Protocol can be rightly regarded as a momentous step, the attention on short-term Annex-I country commitments effectively subverted longer-term thinking on the climate issue. The discourse was reduced to an almost exclusive examination of the feasibility and costs of various short-term targets and timetables, and of the potential applicability of policy options and instru- ments (market-based ones in particular) aimed at reducing the costs of meeting a range of possible targets. It would be fair to say that the economics of climate change - - or rather, the economics of G H G abatement strategies - - captured most of the debate leading up to the K y o t o meeting. The post-Kyoto debates have been dominated by discussion of principles, modalities, guidelines and rules that would be appropriate for the "flexibility" mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. This is not surprising since Annex-I countries regard these mechanisms as key to reducing the economic costs associated with meeting their K y o t o commitments. Given the overwhelming contribution of Annex-I countries to both the annual and the cumulative historical G H G emissions globally, any "fair" allocation regime will have substantial consequences for them. Possibly this consideration has been another reason for their unwillingness to engage in any discussion of this topic in the climate negotiations. Thereby the issue has been effectively ignored despite a recognition of its importance by both Northern and Southern analysts. Still, the allocation debate has not disappeared completely. It has been kept alive by the G-77/China and some advocacy groups (such as the Global Commons Institute and the Center for Science and Environment). The common position of the G-77/China is that an allocation framework is a necessary precursor to any consideration of acceding to an abatement regime. For example, the governments of China and India (UNFCCC, 1998a1 and the G-77/China (UNFCCC, 1998b) indicated the primacy they accord to equitable allocations of emissions entitlements by linking it, in the discussions during and following Kyoto, with the acceptance of emissions trading. This reaffirmation has possibly provided the impetus for the recent resurgence in research interest in the subject of equitable allocation of emission rights (see, for example, Rose, 1998; Byrne et al., 1998; Najam and Sagar, 1998; Claussen and McNeilly, 1998). But an issue as central as this one cannot continue to be relegated to the margins of the climate debate. It also cannot merely be debated and discussed in the pages of policy journals (though that may be a useful first step). 1 Ignoring this issue in the negotiations will not make it disappear. The need for full Southern participation in the FCCC will eventually require greater attention to Southern perspectives. In the meanwhile, the Northern neglect 1Policy studies by prominent organizations such as the World Bank and UN agencieshave the capability to influencethe debate, but these organizations have also abdicated their responsibilities in favor of institutional interests. Thus, the Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) are jostling to stake a claim to be key players in the emerging emissions-trading arena and their research programs seem to have been reoriented accordingly. A.D. Sagar. T. Banuri / Energy Policy 27 (1999) 509-514 only polarizes the debate further. A resolution of the allocation issue in line with the Principles of the Convention will help not only in reducing the contentiousness of the negotiations, but also streamline the process by setting out a framework for implementing the Convention in a logical, consistent, and fair manner (Najam and Sagar, 1998). 3. The silenced voices: liability for climate-change-related impacts The possible large h u m a n health, environmental, economic, and societal costs associated with a changing climate are of particular concern to the countries of the South. Climate change could possibly cause large economic losses for some developing economies, i.e., a substantial fraction of their G N P , or take a large toll on h u m a n life and health. F o r example, agriculture, a major component of most Southern economies, m a y be strongly affected by a rise in mean temperature rise, changes in the hydrological cycle, and variations in pest infestations. Changes in climatic patterns (that may already be occurring - - see, for example, Karl and Knight, 1998; Hansen et al., 1998) can also lead to floods, droughts, and heat waves which can cause significant damage to property and h u m a n health. Climate change may also increase the probability of catastrophic events for example, theory and modeling exercises predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes as a result of temperature increases (Knutson et al., 1998). Recent decades have also seen an increase in climaterelated catastrophes. In 1998, for example, windstorms and floods caused about $75 billion in economic damages and the loss of tens of thousands of lives - - most of these events were in developing countries, and hence only a small fraction of the losses were insured (Munich Re, 1998). While there may be a number of reasons for this increase in losses due to extreme atmospheric events, m a n y believe that anthropogenic climate change is implicated. Enhanced G H G concentrations could also result in surprises (such as a disruption of the N o r t h Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Broecker, 1997)) due to non-linear responses of the climate system. Most Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) countries are concerned about the potential consequences of sea-level rise that is predicted to result from G H G - i n d u c e d climate change. While the magnitude of the impacts will eventually depend upon the rate and level of global temperature increase, m a n y island states (as well as other countries) are certain to suffer substantial losses even though they have some of the lowest G H G emissions. Countries of the South may well suffer substantial impacts from a changing climate, yet most of them have not contributed to the greenhouse problem in any significant manner. This is especially true for m a n y island states 511 and many African nations that are particularly vulnerable to climate change but have had historically low G H G emissions which are not even expected to increase substantially in the near future. Additionally, most developing nations usually lack the capacity to engage in adaptation against projected climate impacts or even respond in an appropriate manner to such events as typhoons or coastal storms. These countries also have only limited, if any, insurance cover to mitigate the risk of impacts that may result from climate change. To address concerns such as these, AOSIS countries had proposed an insurance scheme for sea-level rise as an Annex to the F r a m e w o r k Convention, but in the end, this proposal sank without a trace. These concerns were effectively silenced. Somewhat disturbingly, the analyst community (which is situated almost exclusively in the North) seems to have chosen to more or less avoid a discussion of the transnational liability of climate impacts. 2 This could be attributable to a number of factors: first, our understanding of the climate system is still limited, and the linkages between G H G build-up and the frequency, magnitude, and regional distribution of impacts of climate-change are fraught with significant uncertainty. This makes it hard to attribute a specific climate-related event to enhanced G H G concentrations (or even attempt to ascertain the probability of a linkage within any reasonable range) at the present time. Second, the models used for estimating the impacts of increased G H G concentrations mostly focus on significant changes in atmospheric G H G concentrations, often corresponding to assumed equilibrium levels in the long term (such as by the year 2050 or 2100). While over this time frame, the changes in climate induced by the build-up of G H G s could lead to large impacts on h u m a n health, the environment, society, and the economy, there is little motivation to think about the issue of liability in such a distant future. Third, to some extent, there is the problem of the bounding the discussion - - if one was to consider insuring against or compensating for potential climate-related impacts, the question remains what categories of impacts or events would be covered or compared? Last, the liability issue is a politically charged subject, and tendency of analysts often is to avoid focusing on topics deemed as nonstarters. 3 While all of these factors indicate that the 2There is also an equity issue within Annex-1 countries because the impacts of a changed climate will be (and may already be) borne disproportionately by only a small fraction of the population, whereas the benefits of greenhouse-gas emissions are being enjoyed by the general populace. But in this paper, we do not discuss issues of equity at a sub-national level in the North. 3Carbon taxes offer a good illustration of this - - while there is general agreement that this would be the economicallyoptimal way to achieve a desired target, the political infeasibility of this approach within the US has for most purposes excluded it from consideration in domestic policy analyses. 512 A.D. Sagar, T. Banuri / Energy Policy 27 (1999) 509-514 liability issue is a thorny one, to avoid the issue altogether suggests that current and near-term climate-related impacts are insignificant or that any causal links between G H G emissions and such impacts are absent - - this belies the current scientific consensus (Watson et al., 1996). Interestingly, the only insertion of such issues in the climate discussions has occurred because of the financial ramifications to insurance firms of the rapid increases in the economic losses due to catastrophic climatic events. This has led to a focus on the relationship between climate change and the insurance industry (Berz, 1993; Swiss Re, 1996; Tucker, 19971) and the role of climate science in informing the insurance industry about climate risk (Changnon et al., 1997; Michaels et al., 1997). While not completely absent (see Chichilinsky and Heal, 1993; Tol, 1998), there has been much less interest on the applicability of these insights to attend to the concerns of developing countries or in examining the prospect of their losses being covered through insurance schemes. Unfortunately, the sparseness of this discussion and the lack of any major institutional sponsors to carry it forward has effectively suppressed this issue. But the question and relevance of the liability of climate impacts cannot be buried - - liability is the other side of responsibility, and the latter is one of the principles of the Convention. As our understanding of the climate system improves over time, it m a y be possible to better detect changes in climatic patterns (from the expected baseline) and establish linkages to atmospheric G H G concentration buildup with some estimable probability. This also raises the question whether one should consider retroactive liability for impacts from climatic events if in the future it can be shown that climatic patterns did deviate from the expected trends and that some causality is attributable to anthropogenic G H G emissions. 4 Or whether it may be worthwhile to consider steps now to set up a compensation fund for the future in case anthropogenic interference with climatic patterns causes severe impacts in the next few decades. 5 N o t only would this serve to compensate developing countries for damages incurred, but it would also provide a signal to current emitters about the possible economic risks to them resulting from their activities (instead of this risk being borne by the communities that m a y suffer the impacts). 4The recent lawsuits filedin the US by various states against tobacco companies to recover Medicaid expenditures incurred for the increased medical costs of providing care for indigent smokers, and the subsequent settlements, suggest that consideration of retroactive liability does have merit and applicability. 5Spain, for example,has decided that companiesproducing or planting genetically modified crops must contribute to an insurance fund that is meant to cover any resulting environmental accident (Bosch, 1999). 4. The missing voices: focus on non-polluters So far, most of the attention on the climate issue has focused on the G H G emitters. This is appropriate because the modification of their activities is necessary to curtail the build-up of G H G s in the atmosphere. Yet there is a curious neglect of those countries (or populations within countries) that have not contributed to the climate problem in any substantial manner. For example, a large fraction of humanity consumes minimal amounts of fossil fuels. An estimated 2 billion people use very low amounts of energy per capita, and furthermore, m a n y of their traditional energy sources - - animal dung, crop residues and wood - - are often carbon-neutral 6 (Reddy et al., 1997). These groups do not indulge in activities that are substantially deleterious to the global climate system, but as a result, they are virtually excluded from the climate discussions. It is important to include them and incorporate their needs into the deliberations. Their reliance on traditional forms of energy, while climate-friendly, is problematic for a number of other reasons (Reddy et al., 1997): poor people pay a higher price per unit of energy services than do the rich (since subsidies often increase as one goes up the energy ladder); in addition, these people also spend a higher proportion of their income on energy which reduces their ability to invest in improved energy devices. They also spend more time obtaining these energy services, especially because of the increasingly large amounts of time needed to gather firewood. Finally, the health impacts of the air pollution caused by burning such fuels (especially indoors for cooking) are enormous because of the combination of high emissions and high exposures women and children are at particular risk (Smith, 1993). It, therefore, appears logical to assist these groups in getting access to improved energy services as part of the activities catalyzed (and funded) by the climate-related discussions and negotiations. The use of more efficient energy-conversion devices and movement up the energy ladder - - such as shifting from wood or charcoal stoves to kerosene - - would thus bring immense gains to the poor. ~ Even efforts to facilitate the availability of traditional sources such as firewood would be of substantial help. Yet programs to do so have not yet been considered a part of U N F C C C activities. Thus, we have this 6Inefficientcombustion of biomass-basedfuels, though, can lead to emission of gaseous products of incomplete combustion that contribute to the greenhouse effect. 7Introduction of more efficientcooking devices(based on biomass or fossil fuels) would also result in the reduction of gaseous products of incomplete combustion. Movement up the energy ladder will however lead to some increases in carbon emissions through the shift away from carbon-neutral fuels. A.D. Sagar, T. Banuri / Energy Policy 27 (1999) 509-514 situation where part of the world's population that does not contribute substantially to the G H G build up in the atmosphere (and will not do so in the near-to-mid future) is placed at the periphery of the climate discussions. This issue can be addressed only in part by a national allocation of the "rights to the atmosphere" (i.e., countries that do not contribute significant G H G emissions may be able to sell their emissions rights to others gaining suitable compensation). Two other aspects that must be considered. First, even within countries, there is a wide distribution of G H G emissions. Developing countries could choose to utilize some of their UNFCCC-related financial transfers towards the needs of their non-polluting populations, but given the lack of the political standing of these groups, the chances of this occurring are remote. It is more than likely that the North-South transfers of finances will be utilized to improve the energy and other industrial infrastructure supporting the lifestyles of Southerners who are the major G H G emitters in their countries (though generally still not anywhere close to their Northern counterparts). Therefore, it may be necessary to ensure that such a perverse outcome is avoided. This could be done, for example, by allocating and targeting a fraction of the international transfers of resources (financial and technological) specifically at those responsible for "survival emissions." At the same time, there may need to be an explicit discussion of the distribution of emission rights within countries. 8 Second, at present there is little R&D in the South or the North for improving the energy services to the poor. This does not constitute a lucrative market nor does it count as "sexy" science. For example, funding for improved cookstove programs is not very large, and often there is only limited dissemination and exchange of information gained from various programs. (Barnes et al., 1993) Even the health issues surrounding the use of traditional fuels are not completely understood - - the magnitude and extent of the health impacts from the indoor cooking with traditional fuels has begun to be appreciated only in recent years. Incorporation of this issue into the UNFCCC agenda would provide a muchneeded impetus to an important but mostly neglected area of the energy-poverty nexus, and rightfully so. 5. Conclusion We have tried to illustrate here that incorporation of justice and equity concerns into the climate debate requires a closer attention to issues that are of relevance to s This is likely to be a sensitive issue within developing countries, yet one that must be broached at some point. At the same time, international allocation of emissions rights should not be linked to this domestic discussion. 513 the South. Some of these concerns have been raised earlier, but mostly shunted aside; others have been completely absent from the debate - - mainly because the people that they concern have no standing in the climate arena. The successful integration of such issues into the mainstream debates and the emerging climate regime is contingent on the ability of vulnerable nations and marginalized people to gain a voice. If the generation and use of knowledge is shaped by societal and cultural variables, including the distribution of power, then it seems important that a multiplicity of voices from different countries and cultures demand attention to these issues thus shaping the questions as well as the knowledge base relevant to the climate debate. A better understanding and definition of the different facets of the climate problem, of course, is only the first step towards its resolution. Other steps include the determination and presentation of policy alternatives, selection of an acceptable set of solutions by decision makers, and implementation (which may also require agreement on appropriate methods for verification and monitoring of national compliance). Negotiations on these issues require the ability to understand and articulate national needs and concerns, to make a concerted effort to bring these onto the international agenda, and then being able to support and propagate national positions through targeted analysis. As things now stand, most developing countries do not have the capacity to engage in such activities. Capacity building efforts under the UNFCCC (such as the Country Studies programs) have been focusing more on allowing countries to fulfill their obligations under the Convention such as putting together national greenhouse gas inventories. Other programs to fund climaterelated activities in developing countries are often driven by donor interests. Thus the North-South gap in capacity to engage in fundamental aspects of the climate issue is widening and so may be the prospects of exploring just solutions to the climate problem. This is unfortunate. Protection of the global climate system requires buy-in from all countries, and options that are deemed to be inequitable are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. A robust climate regime will be facilitated by an increased attention to voices that dwell on equity issues, and their incorporation into the climate deliberations. To do so requires not only keener hearing on the part of scientists, other analysts, and policy-makers, but also strengthening the capacity for others to speak up. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Michele Ferenz and James Risbey for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. 514 A.D. Sagar. T. Banuri / Energ)" Policy 27 H999) 509-514 References Agarwal, A., Narain, S., 1991. In: Global Warming in an Unequal World: A Case of Environmental Colonialism. Center for Science and Environment, New Delhi. Barnes, D.F., Openshaw, K., Smith, K.R., van der Plas, R., 1993. The design and diffusion of improved cooking stoves. World Bank Research Observer 8 1,2), 119-141. Barrett, S., 1992. "Acceptable" allocations of tradeable carbon emission entitlements in a global warming treaty. In: Combating Global Warming: Study on Global System of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva. Berz, G.A., 1993. Global warming and the insurance industry. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 18 (2), 120-125. Bosch, X., 1999. Spain makes transgenic crop producers pay into insurance fund. Nature 397 (6721), 636. Broecker, W.S., 1997. Thermohaline circulation, the Achilles heel of our climate system: will man-made CO z upset the current balance?. Science 278 (5343), 1582-1588. Burtraw, D., Toman, M.A., 1992. Equity and international agreements for CO2 constraint. Journal of Energy Engineering 118 (2), 122-135. Byrne, J., Wang, Y.-D., Lee, H., Kim, J.-D., 1998. An equity- and sustainability-based response to global climate change. Energy Policy 26 (4), 335-343. Changnon, S.A., Changnon, D., Fosse, E.R., Hoganson, D.C., Roth, R.J., Totsch, J.M., 1997. Effects of recent weather extremes on the insurance industry: major implications for the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (3), 425-435. Chichilinsky, G., Heal, G., 1993. Global environmental risks. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (4), 65-86. Claussen, E., McNeilly, L., 1998. In: The Complex Elements of Global Fairness. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC. Cline, W.R., 1992. In: The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC. Ghosh, P., 1993. Structuring the equity issue in climate change. In: Achanta, A.N. (Ed3, The Climate Change Agenda: An Indian Perspective. Tara Energy Research Institute, New Delhi. Grubb, M.J., 1989. In: The Greenhouse Effect: Negotiating Targets. Royal Institute of International Affairs, London. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Glascoe, J., Ruedy, R. 1998. A common-sense climate index: is climate changing noticeably? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95, 4113-4120. Karl, T.R., Knight, R.W., 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (2), 231-241. Knutson, T.R., Tuleya, R.E., Kurihara, Y., 1998. Simulated increase of hurricane intensities in a COz-warmed climate. Science 279 (5353), 1018-1020. Michaels, A., Malmquist, D., Knap, A., Cloe, A., 1997. Climate science and insurance risk. Nature 389 (6648), 225-227. Munich Re, 1998. Press Release, December 29. Najam, A., Sagar, A., 1998. Avoiding a COP-out: Moving towards systematic decision-making under the climate convention. Climatic Change 39 (4), iii-ix. Reddy, A.K.N., Williams, R.H., Johansson. T.B., 1997. Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Rose, A. 1998. Global warming policy: Who decides what is fair? Energy Policy 26 (1), 1-3 Smith, K.R., 1993. Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure and health: The situation in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 18, 529-566. Smith, K.R., Swisher, J., Ahuja. D.R 1993. Who pays to solve the problem and how much? In: Hayes, P., Smith, K.R. (Eds.), The Global Greenhouse Regime: Who Pays? United Nations University Press, Tokyo and Earthscan, London. Solomon, B.D., Ahuja, D.R., 1991. International reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions: An equitable and efficient approach. Global Environmental Change 1 (57, 343-350. Swiss, Re, 1996. Climate Change and the Insurance Industry: Still a Critical Issue. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich. Tol, R.S.J., 1998. Climate change and insurance: a critical appraisal. Energy Policy 26 (3), 257-262. Tucker, M., 1997. Climate change and the insurance industry: the cost of increased risk and the impetus for action. Ecological Economics 22 (2~, 85-96. United Nations, 1992. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A/AC.237/18, United Nations General Assembly, New York. UNFCCC, 1995. Report of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Addenduml, FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add. 1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn. UNFCCC, 1996. Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP'1996/15. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn. UNFCCC, 1997. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Addendum), FCCC/CP/1997/L7/Add.1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn. UNFCCC, 1998a. Preparatory Work Needed for the Fourth Session of the Conference of the Parties on the Items Listed in Decision 1/CP.3. Paragraph 5: Submissions by Parties, FCCC/SB/1998/Misc. 1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn. UNFCCC, 1998b. Matters Related to Decision 1/CP.3, Paragraph 5: Compilation of Submission by Parties (Addendum), FCCC/Cp/1998/Misc.7/Add.3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn. Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H. 1996. Climate Change 1995 - - Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical AnalysesContribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Welsch, H., 1993. A CO~_ agreement proposal with flexible quotas. Energy Policy 21 17), 748-756.