Reduction targets and abatement costs of developing countries resulting from global and developed countries’ reduction targets by 2050

The European Union (EU) has advocated an emission reduction target for developed countries of 80% to 95% below the 1990 level by 2050, and a global reduction target of 50%. Developing countries have resisted the inclusion of these targets in both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements. This paper analyses what these targets would imply for emission targets, abatement costs and energy consumption of developing countries, taking into account the conditional emission reduction pledges for 2020. An 80% reduction target for developed countries would imply more stringent per capita emission targets for developing countries than developed countries by 2050. Moreover, abatement costs of developing countries would be higher than those of developed countries. An 85% to 90% reduction target for developed countries would result in similar per capita emission targets and abatement costs for developed and developing countries by 2050. Total reduction targets for developing countries would range from 30% to 40% below 2005 levels by 2050 and from 30% to 35% above 2005 levels by 2030. The 2030 target for China would be 40% to 45% above 2005 levels, compared to a target for the EU of 45% to 50% below 1990 and for the United States of America (USA) 30% to 35% below 1990. Emission target trajectories for Brazil, South Africa and China would peak before 2025 and for India by around 2025. From the analysis, we may conclude that from the viewpoint of developing countries either developed countries increase their target above 85%, and/or make substantial side-payments.     

The effect of different mitigation strategies on international financing of adaptation

Recent proposals at the UNFCCC meeting in Bali in December 2007 suggest that a 2% levy on the CDM could finance adaptation costs in developing regions. Other proposals include extending the scope of the levy to emissions trading. This study applies an Integrated Assessment Model to gain insight in the interactions between adaptation costs, residual damages and mitigation costs and to analyse the effectiveness of a 2% levy on both the CDM and emissions trading from developing countries. We show that adaptation is especially important in lower income regions where damages are higher. The revenues of a 2% levy strongly depend on both the climate mitigation target and the burden-sharing regime. A more stringent climate mitigation target results in more emissions trade and, in the longer run, less need for adaptation. Both factors increase the share of adaptation costs that can be funded. The burden-sharing regime strongly affects the revenues of a 2% levy as well: relatively more stringent targets for developed countries increase the revenues of a 2% levy. However, in the next two decades the share of adaptation that can be financed remains well below 20% in most cases. Additional funding mechanisms are therefore necessary to substantially finance adaptation costs in developing countries.     

Analysing countries’ contribution to climate change: scientific and policy-related choices

This paper evaluates the influence of different policy-related and scientific choices on the calculated regional contributions to global climate change (the “Brazilian Proposal”). Policy-related choices include the time period of emissions, the mix of greenhouse gases and different indicators of climate change impacts. The scientific choices include historical emissions and model representations of the climate system. We generated and compared results of several simple climate models. We find that the relative contributions of different nations to global climate change—from emissions of greenhouse gases alone—are quite robust, despite the varying model complexity and differences in calculated absolute changes. For the default calculations, the average calculated contributions to the global mean surface temperature increase in 2000 are about 40% from OECD, 14% from Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union, 24% from Asia and 22% from Africa and Latin America. Policy-related choices, such as time period of emissions, climate change indicator and gas mix generally have larger influence on the results than scientific choices. More specifically, choosing a later attribution start date (1990 instead of 1890) for historical emissions, decreases the contributions of regions that started emitting early, such as the OECD countries by 6 percentage points, whereas it increases the contribution of late emitters such as Asia by 8 percentage points. However, only including the fossil CO₂ emissions instead of the emissions of all Kyoto gases (fossil and land use change), increases the OECD contributions by 21 percentage points and decreases the contribution of Asia by 14 percentage points.