WHAT might a truly fair and effective solution to climate change look like? One answer to that question has just been released and it makes for disturbing reading. For one thing, the scale and speed of emissions cuts required by developed nations is far greater than the commitments governments are currently willing to make.
The new analysis is based on the idea that each person on the planet has the right to the same carbon footprint. Researchers at the , which advises the country鈥檚 government, looked at the impact of this fairness principle on attempts to limit the average global temperature rise to 2 掳C, a level that is widely regarded as necessary to avoid disaster, such as high rises in sea level.
Calculations published earlier this year (Nature, ) suggested that no more than 750 billion tonnes of carbon can be released between now and 2050 if the world is to have a 2-in-3 chance of staying within the 2 掳C rise. If that global allowance was distributed according to population levels, many developed nations would face almost immediate carbon bankruptcy.
Advertisement
With 4.6 per cent of global population, the US would receive a 35 billion tonne allowance between now and 2050, which it would use up in around six years at current rates. The European Union鈥檚 budget would run out in 12 years and China鈥檚 in 24. 鈥淚t is clear that the industrialised countries must carry out rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation if they wish to present themselves as credible advocates of global climate protection,鈥� concludes the council.
鈥淭he US carbon budget would run out in six years, Europe鈥檚 in 12 and China鈥檚 in 24 years鈥�
Big emitters like the US would only be able to meet their target by buying unused emissions from poorer nations that have large populations but low per-capita emissions. For example, India and Brazil鈥檚 allowances would last 88 and 46 years respectively at current rates. That imbalance has benefits, says the council, because the money transferred would help poorer nations to improve their living standards using low-carbon technology such as wind and solar electricity generation.
Climate policy researchers say the analysis is a useful framework for evaluating the global challenge, but probably will have little effect on the .
at the University of Cambridge says that nations will come to the negotiations with emissions reduction targets in mind, based on what they believe is possible domestically. They would not be willing to sign up to a formula that takes that decision out of their hands, even if it is rational and equitable. 鈥淭his proposal is not grounded in political realities,鈥� adds at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington DC.
South Africa is one nation that might find the results hard to live with. It relies heavily on coal-fired power plants and so is grouped with rich nations in terms of per-capita emissions, despite having a GDP per capita just below the global average. To meet its allowance it would have to buy emissions credits from abroad. Without overseas support that prospect would be unacceptable in a developing country struggling with poverty.
Some flexibility would be needed to deal with cases like that, says , vice-chair of the council and director of the German Development Institute in Bonn, probably in the form of aid from richer nations. But even if some countries do not like the allowance that the formula produces, it could still be used to shed light on progress at Copenhagen. 鈥淚 hope it will bring some transparency to the debate,鈥� Messner says.
