Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
+ + + + Beyond Kyoto Climate Commitments: Assessing the Options Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change by + Daniel Bodansky + + + Why commitments? + Climate change mitigation is a collective action problem + – Climate change mitigation provides a public good: benefits shared by everyone – But the country undertaking mitigation gets only small fraction of benefits > No incentive to act unilaterally – Action makes sense only if reciprocated by other states + + + + + The role of commitments + • Commitments provide some assurance that others will act • Even in absence of any “enforcement,” countries feel pressures to comply with commitments + + + + + – Internalization of commitments: domestic legal and political pressure to comply – External pressure: •Reputation internationally •Public opinion The Three W’s: What, When and Who? • What should be the commitments? • Who should be subject to commitments? • When should commitments apply? + What? – Legal form + • Binding vs. non-binding – Non-binding “commitments” + •Example: UNFCCC art. 4.2 – One-way (“no lose”) “commitments” + •Analogy: CDM baselines – Legally-binding commitments + •Example: Kyoto targets and timetables – Enforceable commitments + + + What?: Substantive content Types of Policy Instruments + + + + + + • Emission targets (“obligations of result”) – – – – Absolute targets Dynamic targets Conditional targets Sectoral targets • Policies and measures (“obligations of conduct”) – Technology and performance standards – Taxes – Subsidy removal – Emissions trading – Technology R & D and incentives What?: Examples + Targets + + + + Policy Instrument + Absolute Dynamic Conditional Sectoral PAMs UNFCCC target Kyoto targets Kyoto, Art. 2 Tech standards Taxes Subsidies ET R&D Non-binding commitments One-way Legallybinding Enforceable Non-binding vs. binding + + When? + • When will commitment period begin? + + + + + – If too far in future, lacks credibility – If too near-term, then inefficient: premature capital retirement • How long will commitment period last? – Indefinite duration: continues until modified or terminated – Fixed duration •Example: Kyoto: 5 years + Who? + • Ways to differentiate commitments + + + + + – Different stringency – Different time frames – Binding vs. nonbinding – Fixed vs. conditional • Bases for differentiation – – – – Current emissions Historical emissions Wealth/capacity Like-minded states + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness • Leakage • Effect on – Cost effectiveness technology – Equity change – Dynamic flexibility / scalability • Education, public – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability awareness • Enforceability + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness – Cost effectiveness – Equity – Dynamic flexibility / scalability – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability •Market based approaches •Flexibility: •Where •When •What + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness •Equity both •End in itself – Cost effectiveness •Important – Equity factor in what – Dynamic flexibility / scalability is politically acceptable – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness – Cost effectiveness – Equity – Dynamic flexibility / scalability – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability •Ease of revision in light of new scientific and economic information + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness •Possibility of – Cost effectiveness fragmented – Equity regime – Dynamic flexibility / scalability •Potential linkages between – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability systems + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness – Cost effectiveness • Continuity with Kyoto – Equity • Economic – Dynamic flexibility / scalability predictability • Compatibility with – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability development priorities + Assessment criteria + • Policy + + + + + – Environmental effectiveness – Cost effectiveness – Equity – Dynamic flexibility / scalability – Complementarity • Politics – Negotiability – Enforceability • Ease of monitoring • Adequacy of domestic legal system + + + + + + + Specific options • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D + + + + + + + Specific options: Kyoto targets • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Pros Environmental effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Equity Scalability Continuity Cons Economic uncertainties Rigidity Negotiability Incompatibility with development + + + + + + + Specific options: Dynamic targets • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Compared to Kyoto: Pros Greater flexibility Easier to negotiate Cons Less environmental certainty + + + + + + + Specific options: Sectoral targets • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Compared to Kyoto Pros Incremental > easier to negotiate Easier to monitor Cons Less efficient Competitiveness, equity concerns + + + + + + + Specific options: Safety valve • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets: safety valve • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Compared to Kyoto Pros Greater economic certainty Could generate development funds Cons Less environmental certainty Looks like a tax > politically unacceptable? + + + + + + + Specific options: Non-binding targets • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Attractive first step for developing countries?? + + + + + + + Specific options: Tech standards • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Pros Don’t need universal acceptance Self-enforcing Easy to monitor Cons Limit flexibility Less efficient Potential lock-in of inefficient technologies + + + + + + + Specific options: R & D • Kyoto-like targets • Dynamic national targets • Sectoral targets • Hybrid targets • Non-binding targets for developing countries + graduation criteria • Efficiency, technology standards •R&D Government track record on R & D mixed But useful add-on to other commitments + Conclusions + • One size may not fit all • If commitments variegated, they should be as complementary as possible + + + + + – Ensure adequate level of effort overall – Mix of commitments should be, broadly speaking, equitable – Promote linkages between systems