Download Jeffrey Frankel Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement Copenhagen, December 2009

Proposal for a Global Climate Agreement
Jeffrey Frankel
Harpel Professor, Harvard Kennedy School
Copenhagen, December 2009
The target formulas are designed pragmatically,
based on what emissions paths are possible politically:
• unlike other approaches based purely on:
– Science
(concentration goals),
– Ethics
(equal emission rights per capita),
– or Economics
(cost-benefit optimization).
• Why the political approach?
– Countries will not accept burdens that they view as unfair.
– Above certain thresholds for economic costs, they will drop out.
2
•
Stage 1:
Proposal
• Annex I countries commit to the post-2012
targets that their leaders have already announced.
• Others commit immediately not to exceed BAU.
•
Stage 2:
When the time comes for developing country cuts,
targets are determined by a formula incorporating
3 elements, designed so each is asked only to take
actions analogous to those already taken by others:
– a Progressive Reduction Factor,
– a Latecomer Catch-up Factor, and
– a Gradual Equalization Factor.
3
◙ In one version, concentrations level off at 500 ppm
in the latter part of the century.
◙ Constraints are satisfied:
-- No country in any one period suffers
Co-author: V.Bosetti
a loss as large as 5% of GDP by participating.
-- Present Discounted Value of loss < 1% GDP.
W orld Industrial Carbon Emissions
bau
25
15
Sim ulated
Em is s ions
10
5
20
95
20
80
20
65
20
50
20
35
20
20
0
20
05
G
tC
20
Global peak date ≈ 2035,
.
2020 in aggressive version
4
What form should border measures take?
1. Best choice: multilateral sanctions
under a new Copenhagen Protocol
2. Next-best choice: national import penalties
adopted under multilateral guidelines
1. Measures can only be applied by participants in good standing
2. Judgments to be made by technical experts, not politicians
3. Interventions in only a ½ dozen of the most relevant sectors.
3. Third-best choice: no border measures.
4. Each country chooses trade barriers as it sees fit.
5. Worst choice: national measures are subsidies
(bribes) to adversely affected firms.
5
HPICA directed by Rob Stavins.
Paper: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/SpecificTargetsHPICA2009.doc
Available at: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/currentpubsspeeches.htm#On%20Climate%20Change
Appendices:
The targeted reductions from BAU agreed to at Kyoto
in 1997 were progressive with respect to income.
Cuts ↑
Percent reduction from 2010 business-as-usual
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
500
2.699
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
3.699
1996 GDP per capita (1987 US dollars, ratio scale)
50,000
4.699
Incomes →
7
Emissions path for rich countries
Fig. 2b
OECD Emissions
7
6
BAU
Simulated Emissions
4
CAP
3
2
1
21
00
20
85
20
70
20
55
20
40
20
25
0
20
10
GtC
5
Predicted actual
emissions exceed
caps, by permit
purchases.
8
Emissions path for poor countries
Fig. 4b
NON OECD Emissions
20
BAU
13
GtC
Simulated Emissions
CAP
7
21
00
20
85
20
70
20
55
20
40
20
25
20
10
0
Predicted actual
emissions fall
below caps, by
permit sales.
9
Price of Carbon Dioxide
Fig. 6b
rises slowly over 50
years, then rapidly.
10
Concentrations stay below 500 ppm goal
Fig. 7b
Carbon Conce ntrations (CO2 only)
bau
800
750
700
FRANK
EL
Archite
cture
600
550
500
450
400
350
21
05
20
95
20
85
20
75
20
65
20
55
20
45
20
35
20
25
20
15
300
20
05
ppmv
650
11