后巴黎时代气候变化公约资金机制的构建

气候变化公约资金机制是串联全球开展应对气候变化行动的纽带,也是通过国际合作实现"2℃"乃至"1.5℃"温控目标的关键支撑。多年来,由于发达国家和发展中国家在是否依据历史责任划分履约义务上存在根本分歧,公约资金机制面临多渠道并行、运行规则多样化、资金使用分散、运行效率偏低、绩效评估欠缺等问题。本文对气候变化公约缔结20余年来各资金机制的产生和运行进行了系统梳理;对其存在的不足以及在全球气候融资体系中面临的挑战进行了剖析;并基于《巴黎协定》资金案文描述和履约要求,围绕气候资金从筹集到最终绩效产出全过程,就如何构建未来气候变化公约资金机制进行了统筹规划和设计。在机制建设层面,通过出资分摊机制以及公约下集中式管理平台的构建,确保气候资金的充足性、可预见性以及对公约的责任性;在运行操作层面,通过各渠道重点业务领域及国别资金分配体系的优化,推动气候资金的公平性和有效性;在资金使用层面,通过受援国气候资金统一管理实体和监督评估体系的建立,提高气候资金的国家主导性和环境效益。未来,公约资金机制仍将是全球开展应对气候变化国际合作的主要渠道,在《巴黎协定》达成、绿色气候基金正式运行、国际气候制度重新构建的背景下,利用资金机制推动发达国家履行公约义务,切实向发展中国家提供资金、技术和能力建设支持,对确保公约各要素的全面性和平衡性,推动全球应对气候变化行动开展,强化发展中国家集团统一立场都有着重要的现实意义。     

国际气候资金机制的最新进展及中国对策

"气候资金"是一个全新的概念,产生于《联合国气候变化框架公约》(简称《公约》)之下,指为支持发展中国家应对气候变化,来自发达国家新增的、稳定的援助资金。但随着世界经济贸易格局变迁和气候谈判进程的发展,气候资金概念与内涵,国际气候资金基础制度,资金实际运行中的效率标准都在悄然发生演化,本文在对最新的气候资金机制的法律文件、信息通报、文献资料、智库报告进行了梳理,分析了气候资金概念的核心要点和演化趋势,并对全球环境基金、气候变化特别基金、适应基金、绿色气候基金等《公约》内基金以及《公约》外基金发展的最新趋势进行了分析比较,对气候资金实际运行中效率准则的内涵和发展趋势进行了评述。分析指出,目前,公约框架内外资金体系在不断演化,目前多个渠道竞争发达国家有限的公共资金资源,公约内资金机制的规模受到越来愈多的资金机制和渠道的挤压;用款国在资金性质及资金运用上依然缺乏决定权;且多资金渠道使得运营规则多样化,气候资金基础制度被"边缘化"。据此,文章在最后提出我国应当反对"气候资金"与ODA相混同,坚持融资渠道特定性,并应进一步开辟其他多边和双边渠道,以获得更多资金和技术合作渠道;在确定受资计划和项目时,力争以我国自身应对行动规划和方案为主。国内的气候资金机制建设则一是坚持不断完善国内碳价格信号,形成稳定的碳价格的发现机制,二是要建立专门的气候基金,用于对外吸收、提供气候资金的统一渠道。     

低碳技术国际转移的双重博弈研究

为探求《联合国气候变化框架公约》(以下简称《公约》)下促进低碳技术国际转移的机制,本文运用博弈论方法,构建了一个双重博弈模型框架,分别从企业层面和国家层面的角度建立相应的博弈模型,并将二者结合起来,分析相应的均衡及其政策含义。研究表明,国家在低碳技术国际转移中起着关键作用,存在广阔的政策空间;在巴厘路线图谈判中,国际社会应该积极推进气候变化领域《技术合作议定书》的建立,提出《公约》下对发达国家的可测量、可报告、可核实的技术转移义务,规定发达国家必须通过技术转移在发展中国家实现量化的减排;《公约》下应该建立单独的技术转移资金机制,设立专门的技术转移基金,发达国家通过任务分担(辅之以赠款)提供资金,鼓励和资助技术转移;对于转移难度太大或者涉及核心竞争力的低碳技术,发展中国家(企业)必须加强自主研发。     

国际气候变化适应政策发展动态及其对中国的启示

回顾《联合国气候变化框架公约》下国际气候变化适应政策以及欧盟及其主要成员国、亚太地区主要发达国家、新兴经济体国家和最不发达国家气候变化适应政策的发展历程,并与我国应对气候变化相关政策的发展动态进行对比分析,总结可供我国借鉴的经验和做法。发现进入21世纪以来适应在国际应对气候变化行动中已经获得了与减缓同等的重要性。《联合国气候变化框架公约》下与气候变化适应相关的谈判议题已经从初期单纯关注资金及技术开发和转让机制发展到实施具体的适应计划和行动,主要发达国家和发展中国家2006年以来密集出台了一系列专门的或与气候变化适应相关的政策,包括法律、框架、战略、规划、行动方案等,最不发达国家也在《联合国气候变化框架公约》资金机制的支持下相继开展了《国家适应行动方案》和《国家适应规划》的编制工作,因此制定国家或区域层面的宏观政策以规划和指导气候变化适应行动已成为必然趋势。从2007年开始,我国陆续在国家、地区和部门层次上制定了与气候变化适应相关的政策,但是这些政策在表现形式、制定依据、战略定位、内容构成以及实施机制等方面还存在不足,包括缺乏专门的战略或规划、相关研究基础相对薄弱、政策的国际视野不足、政策落实的责任不明确、缺乏相应的监控和评估机制等。建议我国进一步加强气候变化预测、影响评估、脆弱性和风险评价技术研发,开展气候变化适应政策制定、影响评估和实施机制的方法学和技术研究,抓紧制定专门的气候变化适应战略或规划,并重视其国际视野和战略定位。     

中国在气候变化谈判资金机制演变进程中的挑战及应对

气候变化是当今人类社会面临的最严峻的全球性环境挑战之一,气候变化谈判关乎各国在气候秩序中的权力与义务,涉及到各国经济发展的根本利益,已经成为国际政治博弈的新舞台.根据联合国气候变化框架公约和巴厘路线图精神,发达国家应承担起历史责任,向发展中国家提供新的、额外的、可持续的、可预测的资金支持,帮助其应对气候变化的不利影响.但是,由于发达国家缺乏履行公约义务的政治诚意,长期以来在资金问题上同发展中国家展开了艰苦的斗争.哥本哈根会议后,全球应对气候变化资金呈现出资金来源多样化,资金规模逐渐缩水,资金治理机制对发达国家出资约束力近一步降低的趋势.各利益集团围绕资金机制谈判展开激烈博弈,欧盟与美国正在逐步突破“共同但有区别的责任”原则,争夺气候变化谈判领导权并力图将我国拉入出资国之列,发展中国家阵营逐步分化为“基础四国”、“小岛屿国家”、“最不发达国家”等,保持共同立场难度日渐增大.尽管绿色气候基金在德班会议后正式启动,若无资金注入,也只能为未来资金机制谈判带来不确定性.面对上述形势,我国应坚持公约基本原则,坚持发展中国家定位,加强综合研究及前瞻性判断,以积极的姿态和务实的态度参与应对气候变化的国际谈判,以争取自身的发展权益,维护国家核心利益.同时,探索在当前发展阶段下发展低碳经济和建立低碳社会的路线图,不断提高减缓和适应气候变化的能力,实现自觉减排,为全球应对气候变化做出积极贡献.     

《巴黎协定》时代的气候融资:全球进展、治理挑战与中国对策

本文首先辨析了"气候资金"与"气候融资"两个基本概念,且通过对包括《巴黎协定》在内,最新的气候资金相关法律文件、信息通报、文献资料、智库报告的研究和系统梳理,指出全球气候融资发展趋势表现在全球气候融资缺口正在持续扩大;资金来源更加市场化;发展金融机构募集、管理和分配了大部分的公共资金;新型经济体用款权受到挤压,也呈现出更大的出资潜力;稳定的碳价格被认为是全球实现"零排放"长期减排目标的核心机制。与此同时,气候资金治理体系也处在关键的转型期,目前气候资金治理正在向"自下而上"的模式过渡,《公约》外平台承担了"气候风险主流化"的多重功能,但需要警惕"自下而上"的治理模式有绕过"共同但有区别责任"的风险,且绿色气候基金运作规则的导向性作用值得关注。据此,本文在最后提出了一系列治理建议。建议我国应积极影响国际气候资金机制运营规则和技术规则的制定,避免发达国家以及代表其利益的国际组织制定的标准片面地发展为国际规则;支持在全球设定渐进的、可预测的、可信的碳价格,并且肯定将气候与环境风险因素内生化的核心思想理念;与绿色气候基金开展多方位合作,推动气候公共资金治理规则转型;加强与世界银行在气候融资领域的合作;借G20平台逐步发展为气候融资政策突破和工具创新的引领者。     

应对气候变化:国际谈判历程及主要经济体的态度与政策

为解决气候变化问题,联合国设立了政府间气候变化专门委员会,召开了十五次国际气候变化大会,取得了《联合国气候变化框架公约》、《京都议定书》与"巴厘岛路线图"等重要成果,确定了各国尤其是发达国家的温室气体排放减少义务,为应对气候变化问题确立了基本框架。国际社会已准备就《京都议定书》以后的国际气候制度框架进行谈判,各国官方机构、学术机构与学者围绕减排义务的类型、区别对待与责任分担,提出了多种方案。发达经济体是温室气体减排义务的主要承担者,同时也是全球气候合作的主要参与者。美国的气候政策出现了重大转变,奥巴马总统将气候变化政策作为重点政策领域之一;欧盟与日本则一直积极推动全球温室气体减排;发展中经济体也积极参与国际气候合作,如印度已制订了《气候变化国家行动方案》。作为发展中国家,中国不需承担气体排放减少量化任务,但仍积极参与这一历史进程,做出了自己的贡献。     

气候变化损失与危害的内涵与应对机制

当前全球减缓与适应的努力无法有效应对气候变化的不利影响,巨大的气候变化损失与危害需要直接的解决方案。2012年《联合国气候变化框架公约》(简称《公约》)多哈会议期间,应对气候变化不利影响的损失与危害问题突然升温,成为影响大会能否成功的关键议题之一。本文通过对气候变化损失与危害的定义和内涵的探讨,将损失与危害归纳为人类通过减缓或适应未能避免的气候变化的不利影响,并与影响、脆弱性和风险等相关概念进行辨析,提出较完整的损失与危害的概念模型,认识到应对气候变化损失与危害是对减缓与适应的有效补充。系统阐述国际上基于政治、法律和市场的损失与危害的应对机制,初步展示了损失与危害机制的可能形式,包括:小岛国联盟在《公约》下提出的"应对损失与危害的多窗口机制",主要包括保险、恢复与赔偿、风险管理,由发达国家根据国民生产总值(GNP)和温室气的排放量提供资金支持;慕尼黑保险公司提出的"慕尼黑气候保险计划",主要包括预防和保险,实施慕尼黑气候保险计划预计需要每年投入约100亿美元购买保险服务;遭受气候变化损失与危害的国家通过国际诉讼向气候变化的责任方提出赔偿要求也是一种潜在的应对机制,其原理基础是国际惯例法的重要通行原则——"无害原则",但具体实施受国际法院强制管辖权的有限性和国际诉讼高风险的制约。最后,提出损失与危害可能的学术研究方向,为构建气候变化损失与危害国际与国内应对机制及开展相关研究提供参考。     

气候工程国际法的框架——以平流层太阳辐射管理为例北大核心CSCDCSSCI

气候工程(也称“地球工程”)有潜力通过大规模、集中高效的方式减轻温升过高对气候系统和环境的负面影响。平流层太阳辐射管理在所有气候工程技术中最具备大规模实施的可行性,但其对环境和气候系统可能造成的负面影响、可能引起的“道德风险”以及对气候公平造成的威胁也引起最多争议。就实然法而言,国际法可以从三个方面回应上述争议:第一,预防或控制该技术可能造成的重大环境损害;第二,在对该技术可能造成的环境和气候影响没有确定科学依据的情况下谨慎发展该技术,并防范可能产生的重大或不可逆风险;第三,应对该技术因负面环境影响不均衡而产生的国家间和代际气候公平问题。就应然法而言,未来短期治理应以规范科学研究及科学家行为为主,以灵活的规制形式促进对人类和自然环境有益的气候工程相关科学研究;中长期的治理结构应以《联合国气候变化框架公约》和《巴黎协定》为主要平台,辅以其他具有适用性的公约,着重发展该技术的环境影响评价和风险预防机制,并推动发展中国家,尤其是气候脆弱国家全面参与气候地球工程的商议程序和决策过程。中国作为国际应对气候变化行动的参与者、贡献者、引领者,应当积极参与太阳辐射管理技术的科学研究和多边主义治理,明确该技术在中国未来气候政策中的非主导地位,并强调制定该技术的国际治理规则时应充分考量气候公平问题。中国还应当就本国太阳辐射管理的最新研究成果与《气候公约》附属机构SBSTA积极进行信息交流。     

科学与政治之间:大规模政府间气候评估及其缺陷

在应对全球气候变化问题上,政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)引领的大规模评估由于代表了国际科学界的集体工作,并与《联合国气候变化框架公约》下的国际谈判制度持续互动而备受关注。两者的密切关系已体现在气候治理的各个历史阶段。具体而言,通过嵌入国际制度,气候评估具有警告公众、影响国家政策取向、推动国际协议、促使跨国公司改变行为、引领科学研究和学术交流等重要作用。同时,IPCC还通过传播评估报告结论等方式参与国际气候外交。由于其开放性,科学评估也经常成为国家行为体和非国家行为体施加影响的政策工具。从科学与政治互动的积极方面来看,其一,科学评估机构一贯充当推动国际气候进程的角色,并凭借权威性,不断强化科学信息的政策扩散。其二,第五次报告发布之后,评估日益突出"解决方案"取向,2018年升温1.5℃特别报告和后续的第六次评估报告将影响《巴黎协定》的履约情况,其未来演进与机制改革也将深刻塑造2020年后的全球气候治理。虽然,气候评估已经证明了其作为科学合作机制的价值,但与国际谈判的关系也存在一些紧张之处:一是,评估机制弊端频现,影响对谈判的支撑。二是,机制安排的路径依赖性严重,缺乏重大而有效的改革。三是,评估结论的传播日益困难。四是,其评估内容与国际谈判时常脱节。本质上,这是由于科学形成共识规律与科学机构形成共识的政治机制存在矛盾。一方面,学科间的差异化和文献数量庞大导致评价日益难以形成共识;另一方面,科学机构作为"认知权威"具有以共识推动政治进程并提升其国际地位的偏好。两者围绕所谓的"共识"问题所形成的困境已经日益彰显。因此,重新理解政府间气候评估在全球政策制定中的角色已经成为当前治理中的紧迫问题。     

Establishing a measurement,reporting, and verification system for climate finance in post-Paris agreement period

The measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of climate finance was originated from discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It has been one of the key issues of global climate negotiations since 2009 and will continue to be of significant importance in addressing climate change and strengthening international trust. This paper analyses the concept, the objective, and the progress of the MRV of climate finance based on reviews of the latest literature and think-tank reports regarding climate finance regime and MRV. Following the analysis, challenges faced with the MRV of climate finance are illustrated. This paper presents that the comparability of climate finance data needs to be improved due to the variety of methodologies used for disaggregating climate finance. In addition, the integrality of the MRV system of climate finance has been impaired by the lack of feedback mechanism from the recipients to the contributors in reporting system. Furthermore, although accounting system of climate finance has been developing and improving, it remains incapacity in providing accurate data on disbursed climate finance. Responding to the above challenges, this paper proposes the key tasks in establishing a comprehensive MRV system for climate finance at international level. The tasks involve developing a measurement system with consistent data basis and accounting basis, a reporting system with more detailed guidance and standardized formats, as well as a verification mechanism balancing top-down and bottom-up review processes. In the last section, this paper concludes that the establishment of an improved MRV of climate finance requires concerted cooperation and negotiations between developed and developing country Parties under the UNFCCC. As one of the few developing country donors to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), China is suggested to clarify its propositions as a developing country in aspects such as concept, coverage, and architecture of climate finance and MRV system, and gain bargaining power in improving operating and technical rules of international climate finance regime.     

Technology transfer insights for new climate regime

The purpose of technology transfer under the UNFCCC Article 4.5 is to “…promote, facilitate, and finance as appropriate the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know how to other Parties particularly Developing Country parties to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.” The key challenge in this respect is that low-carbon sustainable technologies need to be adopted both by developed as well as developing countries. However, this paper focuses on the process of technology transfer to developing countries to allow them to move quickly to environmentally sound and sustainable practices, institutions and technologies. In the above framework, this paper reviews key aspects of technology transfer from a range of perspectives in the literature and discusses insights from this literature for the transfer and innovation process needed to reduce global vulnerability to climate change in the context of current international activities based on the research undertaken by the EU sponsored ENTTRANS project.     

气候正义视域下的气候变化损失与损害救济路径分析

气候变化对生态环境和人类健康造成的影响一直受科学家和国际组织的广泛关注。在现有的科学技术无法确切论证气候变化对环境的总体影响及对小岛和低地国家带来损害情况下,该议题自提出至今的进展都举步维艰。本文对议题谈判进展及各方立场进行梳理,提出未来谈判和规则的制定应以全球气候正义为价值衡量标准,树立整体观上的气候正义理念。并对气候正义内涵进行具体解读:一是以人权保护为维度,指出保护小岛和低地国家的基本人权是实现气候正义的逻辑前提;二是指出应当基于分配正义与矫正正义的传统分析视角,将共同但有区别责任原则作为设定权利与义务分配机制时的基础标准;三是气候正义要求一国在行使权利时应遵循领土无害使用原则,负有不污染和破坏他国环境和生态的义务,如违反便可能引发国家责任或惩戒。本文进而以气候正义为价值指引提出三种救济路径:一是国家责任路径,以国际人权法、国际环境法的规则或原则为法律依据,根据一定的规则,来判断当事国的损害行为或结果是否构成国际法上的国家责任;二是国际环境规制路径,即在《联合国气候变化框架公约》(以下简称《公约》)所确立的遵约与履约机制下解决问题,利用市场机制和激励手段如基金和保险支持制度来救济或补偿损失与损害;三是国际环境争端解决路径,主要以磋商、协商、和解、谈判等非强制性方式及国际仲裁、国际司法的法律手段解决气候争端。在救济路径上,应以全球规制路径为主,以国家责任路径为补充,以环境争端解决方式为程序性保障。中国基于全球气候治理的积极推动者,应表明立场,以共同但有区别责任原则为谈判基础,加强南南合作,履行国际气候承诺,发展低碳经济,积极推进该议题的国际谈判。     

Global progress in climate change adaptation policies and its implication for China

This paper reviews the progress in climate change adaptation (CCA) policies both under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in major regions and countries, including the EU and its major member countries, the influential developed countries in the Asia-Pacific region, the emerging economies and the least developed countries (LDCs). The progress made in China in CCA policies is also reviewed and compared with that in other countries. Finally, good international practices are proposed for China’s policy development. It is found that adaptation has been given the same priority as mitigation since the twenty-first century with regard to climate change-related actions. The topics related to adaptation in the international climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC have evolved from mechanisms for finance and technology development and transfer exclusively in the early stages to implementation of practical adaptation programs and actions. Since 2006, major developed and developing countries have frequently set forward specific CCA policies or general climate change policies involving adaptation in the form of laws, frameworks, strategies, and plans. The LDCs have also been working on National Adaptation Programmes of Action and subsequent National Adaptation Plans with the support from the financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC. Therefore, globally, it has become a common practice to develop national or regional policies to plan and guide CCA actions. China has established climate change policies involving adaptation at the national, regional, and sectorial levels since 2007. However, these policies have strong limitations in their knowledge base, strategic positioning, contents, and implementation mechanisms, e.g. lack of a sound knowledge base, an international perspective, clear responsibilities for policy implementation, and appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. It is recommended that China should further strengthen its technical capabilities in climate change projections as well as impact, vulnerability, and risk assessment, and develop methodologies and techniques for the preparation, impact assessment and implementation of CCA policies. Furthermore, future CCA strategies or plans should be developed with an emphasis on China’s vision and strategic position on the world stage.     

布什政府温室气体减排政策评析

美国作为世界政治经济大国和世界第一大温室气体排放国家，其温室气体减排政策备受关注。布什政府上台后不久宣布拒绝接受《京都议定书》，并于2002年2月提出“全球气候变化计划”。布什政府实际上在以各种借口推托美国应该承担的温室气体减排国际责任，这将对以UNFCCC为基础的全球气候合作产生消极影响，并对全球气候政策提出挑战。     

Remedies for loss and damage caused by climate change from the dimension of climate justice

Adverse consequences to the ecological system and human health caused by impacts potentially attributable to climate change have already drawn great and widespread concern of many scientists and international organizations. However, we still have a hard time determining exactly the impact of climate change on the environment or the damage that climate change inflicts on countries comprising small islands or low-lying lands in light of today’s science and technology. The progress for dealing with the issue of loss and damage has been struggling for a long time from the beginning to the present. In this paper, the author begins by summarizing talks on the concept and the positions of commentators. The author is proposing that the development of future climate negotiations and rule-making process be based on global climate justice as a standard for measuring value. Also, the author proposes that a holistic view of climate justice be established. Generally, three aspects of climate justice can be derived. First, the dimension of human rights protection shows that protection of fundamental human rights is a logical precondition if small-island and low-lying countries are able to achieve climate justice. Second, the definite and traditional concepts of distributive justice and corrective justice hold the view that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should be upheld as a basic standard of allocating rights and duties associated with climate change. Third, climate justice requires that any state follow the “no-harm principle,” which is regarded as an international customary rule. According to the principle, the obligation of states to prevent the use of their territory for causing trans-boundary harm to the environment shall be a violation of state responsibility, which incurs international punishment. Then we put forward three remedial approaches in light of climate justice, including the approach of State Responsibility (SR) based on the principles and rules of international human rights law and international environmental law. Based on clear rules, the judge can determine whether the damaging behavior or the damage perpetrated by a state party constitutes a state responsibility. The International Environmental Regulation (IEB), which means solving the problems within the framework established by the Conventions on Climate Change, takes advantage of the market mechanisms and incentives such as fund and insurance support system to relieve or compensate the loss and damage. International Environmental Dispute Settlement Mechanism (IEDSM), which includes the means such as consultations, negotiations, nonmandatory ways and international arbitration, international judicial ways to solve these disputes, functions as a procedural safeguard. As an active promoter of global climate governance, China should no doubt stand by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) and take it as a basis for negotiations, actively strengthen the work of South-South cooperation, fulfill her international climate commitments without reservation, vigorously develop a low-carbon economy, and actively promote international negotiations on the subject of loss and damage.     

The Paris Agreement and climate change negotiations: Small Islands,big players

Climate change poses an existential threat to Small Island Developing States (SIDS). They have played a leading role in raising awareness of climate change on the international stage and advocating for strong climate action, notably through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Despite their heterogeneity, they succeeded in building a common diplomatic discourse and influencing strategy, and mobilized political leaders as well as talented negotiators and advisors.Small Island States were a crucial group in the negotiating period up to, during the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), and for the entry into force of the Paris Agreement. SIDS succeeded to secure their special circumstances as vulnerable countries, demonstrated leadership in raising ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help secure an ambitious long-term temperature goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C, and advanced the complex debate on loss and damage.Small Island States face major challenges to advance their leadership on climate change moving forward: securing immediate actions for those particularly vulnerable countries and increasing their influence within and outside the climate change negotiations. For Small Island states, the 1.5 °C goal should be considered “the visible part of the iceberg” for their diplomacy in a post-Paris context.     

The Concept and Theoretical Implications of Carbon Emissions Rights Based on Individual Equity

Abstract

Climate change has become a hot topic in international environmental negotiations. For post-Kyoto international climate regime negotiations, many countries have proposed a variety of frameworks to share the emission reduction responsibilities and allocate carbon emission rights, and have tried to quantify the emission reduction obligations of all countries based on the perspectives of international equity and individual equity. In this paper, the authors have distinguished the concepts of carbon emissions rights based on these two perspectives respectively, have analyzed the relationship between carbon emissions per capita and economic development, and have calculated and compared the proportion of cumulative emissions per capita of different countries in history and future, and then authors conclude that emission reduction obligations should be allocated based on each country’s conditions, including historical emissions, development stage, and future demands. Developed countries should take the initiative to significantly reduce their emissions because they have already accomplished their industrialization process. However, developing countries are still in the process of industrialization, which requires more emission rights to meet their development needs. For China, the concept of carbon emissions based on individual equity can be used as a theoretical tool for the allocating the international carbon emissions rights.