人均历史累积排放权概念的操作性定义及分配方案研究

全球长期减排目标问题引发了各国对今后稀缺的大气温室气体容量资源如何进行公平分配的博弈,其中发展中国家提出了均等的人均历史累积排放权分配理念。该理念由于人口动态变化的因素存在4种可能的操作性定义,运用数学表达式推算出4种潜在的排放权分配方案。对4种方案的简单模拟和结果进行比较进一步揭示了各方案的优劣和特点。     

1.5℃全球温控目标浅析

《巴黎协定》将努力控制全球温升到2100年不超过工业化前的1.5℃确定为全球温控目标之一。继2℃目标后,1.5℃也被作为应对气候变化的全球温控目标之一。目前科学界对于1.5℃目标的研究还十分有限。已有的科学研究表明,尽管区域差异很大,将全球温升控制在1.5℃范围内地球各系统要承受的气候风险可能要低于2℃。相比于2℃目标,1.5℃目标对全球减缓行动的要求更为严苛。尽管在《巴黎协定》中各缔约方承诺了各自到2030（2025）年的减排目标,但相对于实现1.5℃目标而言仍有很大的差距。多家研究机构的模拟结果表明,如完全执行当前国家自主决定贡献（NDC),到21世纪末全球温升范围为2.2～3.4℃。截至2025年,实现当前NDC的减排承诺后,2℃温升目标下全球仍有467 Gt CO₂（万亿t CO₂当量）的排放空间,1.5℃温升目标下全球仅剩17 Gt CO₂。到2030年,基于NDC的排放已经超过了1.5℃目标的排放量。按当前的路径来看,若想实现将全球温升控制在1.5℃的范围内,全球不仅需要立即行动并采取强有力的减排、脱碳和固碳措施,在2100年前,还必须实现负排放才有可能实现这一目标。尽管当前的科学研究仍存在很大的不确定性,但1.5℃目标已是全球努力应对气候变化的方向,也是开启未来世界低碳可持续发展的重要标志。     

世界排放大国CO2排放和GDP的格兰杰因果分析及其对国际气候治理的影响和意义

基于1990—2015年世界前20个排放大国碳排放量和国内生产总值（GDP）的时间序列数据,采用协整分析、格兰杰因果检验,对主要排放大国碳排放与经济增长之间的关系进行了实证分析。通过协整分析得出大多数国家的碳排放量与经济增长之间存在长期均衡关系;碳排放量和GDP的格兰杰检验结果显示,大多数世界排放大国碳排放与经济增长之间存在单向因果关系。发达国家主要表现为经济增长是碳排放的格兰杰原因,发展中国家则主要表现为碳排放是经济增长的格兰杰原因。研究结果反映了发达国家和发展中国家在碳减排问题上的阶段性特征,碳减排对发展中国家经济发展的负面影响明显大于发达国家。基于格兰杰因果分析结果,国际气候治理进程中关于要求发展中国家现阶段提出大幅减排目标的诉求不符合发展中国家发展阶段特征,可能影响发展中国家经济发展的正常秩序和规律。发达国家基于历史排放责任、发展阶段和能力,都应该带头开展减排行动,并帮助发展中国家实现转型、升级发展,降低经济发展对碳排放的依赖。国际气候治理需要根据并考虑不同国家的发展需求和特征,形成国际合作制度安排,实现社会经济发展与全球气候治理的协同。     

“经济大国能源与气候论坛”进展及前景展望

"经济大国能源与气候论坛"在推动全球主要国家就应对气候变化主要议题达成一致方面取得了进展,已初步显示出其作为联合国气候谈判晴雨表的特征。该论坛的实质是主要发达国家为转移减排责任和压力,降低减排成本,绑架主要发展中国家在全球应对气候变化领域实施的集体强权政治。论坛的核心目标在于推动全球量化减排,目的是借全球量化减排,营造低碳和气候友好技术的广大市场,使得具有技术优势的这些经济大国拥有新的主导全球经济的力量。我国应坚持"共同但有区别的责任"原则,联合与会发展中国家强调气候变化的历史责任,反对为全球温室气体排放设限等不公平提议,团结广大发展中国家,同时抓住论坛力推低碳经济和低碳技术发展的机遇,使我国站在全球新一轮技术革命的前沿。     

从科学和政策视角看碳预算对全球气候治理的作用

IPCC第五次评估报告进一步阐述和明确了全球平均地表温升与累积CO₂排放之间的近似线性关系。尽管在科学上仍存在一定的不确定性,国际社会对2℃温升目标及所对应的全球累积碳排放空间(即全球碳预算目标)已达成一定的科学认知和政治共识。但如何将碳预算从目标要求转变为各国决策和实际行动,仍是政策制定者们所面临的一个重要问题。在此背景下,提出建立一个有效的碳预算综合管理框架,努力避免人为温室气体排放导致气候系统危害,并利用其科学和政策的双重内涵,来推动谈判进程和加大行动力度,在新型气候治理模式下推动全球减排目标的实现。     

部分国家长期温室气体低排放发展战略比较分析

面向21世纪中叶的长期低排放发展战略是继国家自主贡献之后,衡量各国长期减排努力的重要文件。文中针对已向《联合国气候变化框架公约》秘书处正式提交长期低排放发展战略的12个国家,从各国战略的总体结构、主要内容和实施面临的挑战等方面进行了比较分析。研究发现各国长期减排力度存在较大差别,分行业和分气体类型的减排目标分解仍较为初步,战略涉及的中长期减排目标与全球长期温升控制目标之间仍存在较大差距,长期减排政策措施的经济性尚不明确,并且对发展中国家的资金援助与需求间仍存在巨大缺口,这些问题均会严重制约长期低排放战略的后续有效实施。为推动中国长期战略的制订,文中从持续对各国战略跟踪分析、强化“两步走”战略安排下分阶段减排目标和任务分析研判、强化对战略路径特别是薄弱环节的梳理和拓展研究,以及加强对中国跨领域前瞻性相关重大战略问题的深入研究等4个方面提出了政策建议。     

国家自主决定贡献的减排力度评价

基于气候变化综合模型——全球变化评价模型（GCAM-TU),分析了2030年各国家/地区减排承诺下能源相关CO₂的全球排放路径与不同可能性下2℃温升目标对应的最优排放路径的差距。研究发现,当前减排承诺下的全球排放路径与最优路径仍存在一定差距,各国家/地区需加大2030年后的减排承诺力度。进一步分析了主要国家/地区在各自减排承诺下的碳强度下降率、减排成本和人均碳排放,得出中国在全球减排进程中的努力和贡献是巨大的,而南非、日本等国承诺力度不足。为实现自主决定贡献,中国终端能源消耗将较参考情景有所下降,能源结构将进一步优化。     

世界各国CO2排放历史和现状

根据美国橡树岭国家实验室CO2信息分析中心资料，对代表性国家的CO2排放总量和人均排放量的历史演化过程进行分析，对这些国家的CO2历史累积排放总量和人均历史累积排放量进行了计算和比较。文中提出了温室气体人均历史累积排放概念，这个概念兼顾了公正和公平及其历史与现实责任，在未来的全球气候变化历史责任分担研究中应该受到进一步重视。     

中国应对气候变化谈判的几点思考

通过中国和欧盟内部可以增加排放的中等发达国家在人均能源消费、人均CO2排放和人均GDP以及人文发展指标的对比,可以看出中国远低于欧盟5个中等发达国家的水平。因此,中国提出在达到中等发达国家水平之后承担减排义务是有根据的,中国要求获得与自身经济社会发展相适应的温室气体排放空间,以满足国民基本生存和发展的需要是合理的。中国在达到中等发达国家之前,可以考虑承诺在一定时期内保持CO2排放强度不增加。     

国际气候谈判的实质和出路

尽管国际气候谈判充满矛盾,但本质上它是一种认真而责任重大的全球性努力,气候谈判的目标在于建立合理的国际气候制度。应对气候变化的实质是引导全球以低碳、绿色、循环发展为路径,实现全人类的可持续发展。气候谈判应该是一个促进各方建设性达成全球气候制度安排的过程,为此建议抓住以下三个重点：先发达国家率先做出积极的绝对量减排承诺;发展中国家也根据自身的能力和发展阶段做出自己应有的贡献;发达国家应在资金和技术上做点实事。先在以上三方面取得实质性突破,再通过公约原则下的“审评”和“调整”机制,逐步补充和完善。这是一种体现“自下而上”和“自上而下”相结合的路径。国际气候谈判的最终出路在于合作共赢。中国积极而务实地参与国际气候谈判的深刻原因,首先源于自身科学发展和可持续发展的内在需求,同时也是一个负责任的发展中大国对国际责任的担当。     

国际碳排放特征演进及中国应对建议

通过系统地比较各主要国家CO₂排放总量、人均排放量及排放强度等,总结发达国家碳排放特点,分析中国碳排放历程及各阶段出现的原因。比较分析发达国家和发展中国家应对气候变化的相关政策,结合中外碳排放特征,总结中国碳排放及应对气候变化面临的主要问题。提出中国新常态下应对气候变化的建议,包括在国际层面上,积极参与气候谈判,推动国际社会低碳化发展,在中国层面上,切实改变经济增长方式,引领经济低碳发展等。     

Climate mitigation finance across developing countries: what are the major determinants?

This empirical study assesses the relationship between the characteristics of developing countries and the amount of official climate mitigation finance inflow. A two-part model and robustness checks were used to analyse 1998–2010 Rio Marker data on 180 developing countries. The results show that developing countries with higher CO₂ intensity, larger carbon sinks, lower per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and good governance tend to be selected as recipients of climate mitigation finance, and receive more of it. CO₂ emission is not used as a determinant of mitigation finance until the actual financial disbursement. Poverty aid tends to be allocated to countries with low CO₂ emissions, possibly to avoid diverting aid from poorer developing countries. However, such a diversion is unavoidable if the share of mitigation finance in climate finance and in overall official development assistance (ODA) continues to escalate. This study calls for an equitable allocation of total ODA mitigation and adaptation finance in addition to the 0.7% ODA/gross national income target, and for transparent criteria and the verification of reporting on the allocation of mitigation finance.     

Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach

This paper presents a new sector-based framework — called the multi-sector convergence approach — for negotiating binding national GHG mitigation targets after the first budget period defined by the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012). The major characteristics of this approach are that: (i) it is based on the distinction of different sectors within the national economy; (ii) it prescribes that, in principle, the amount of per capita emission assignments should ultimately converge to the same level for all countries; (iii) it accounts for differences in national circumstances by offering the opportunity to grant additional emission allowances to countries facing specific circumstances that justify higher emission assignments; and (iv) it offers a framework for negotiating mitigation commitments among parties of the UNFCCC, including a (gradual) participation of developing countries that pass a certain threshold level of per capita emissions. In addition to briefly discussing the underlying principles of promising proposals to differentiate future GHG mitigation commitments, the paper outlines the methodology and major characteristics of the multi-sector convergence (MSC) approach, followed by some numerical illustrations. The paper is concluded by a preliminary assessment of the MSC approach.     

Comparing developing countries under potential carbon allocation schemes

To stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, all countries will eventually need to be included in the effort to limit climate change. This article explores what potential future greenhouse gas allocation schemes might mean for key developing countries. The need for development is widely acknowledged, but growth in non-Annex I country emissions means that such development may need to take a different path to business as usual. The national interests of developing countries in negotiating potential future commitments are shaped by basic characteristics, notably emissions (both annual and historical cumulative), economic growth and population. These factors in turn shape the acceptability of allocations based on ability to pay, emissions intensity, or emissions per capita.Results for six major developing countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina and Nigeria) show that the implications for developing countries differ widely. For example, ability to pay does not favour Argentina; a reduction based on emissions intensity is not appropriate for Brazil; and per capita allocations would be problematic for South Africa. It is difficult to conceive of a single allocation scheme that would be appropriate for all developing countries. This points to the need for differentiation between developing countries in terms of any potential future commitments.     

Comparing developing countries under potential carbon allocation schemes

Abstract

To stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, all countries will eventually need to be included in the effort to limit climate change. This article explores what potential future greenhouse gas allocation schemes might mean for key developing countries. The need for development is widely acknowledged, but growth in non-Annex I country emissions means that such development may need to take a different path to business as usual. The national interests of developing countries in negotiating potential future commitments are shaped by basic characteristics, notably emissions (both annual and historical cumulative), economic growth and population. These factors in turn shape the acceptability of allocations based on ability to pay, emissions intensity, or emissions per capita.

Results for six major developing countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina and Nigeria) show that the implications for developing countries differ widely. For example, ability to pay does not favour Argentina; a reduction based on emissions intensity is not appropriate for Brazil; and per capita allocations would be problematic for South Africa. It is difficult to conceive of a single allocation scheme that would be appropriate for all developing countries. This points to the need for differentiation between developing countries in terms of any potential future commitments.     

Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach

Abstract

This paper presents a new sector-based framework—called the multi-sector convergence approach—for negotiating binding national GHG mitigation targets after the first budget period defined by the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012). The major characteristics of this approach are that: (i) it is based on the distinction of different sectors within the national economy; (ii) it prescribes that, in principle, the amount of per capita emission assignments should ultimately converge to the same level for all countries; (iii) it accounts for differences in national circumstances by offering the opportunity to grant additional emission allowances to countries facing specific circumstances that justify higher emission assignments; and (iv) it offers a framework for negotiating mitigation commitments among parties of the UNFCCC, including a (gradual) participation of developing countries that pass a certain threshold level of per capita emissions. In addition to briefly discussing the underlying principles of promising proposals to differentiate future GHG mitigation commitments, the paper outlines the methodology and major characteristics of the multi-sector convergence (MSC) approach, followed by some numerical illustrations. The paper is concluded by a preliminary assessment of the MSC approach.     

Exchange Rates and Climate Change: An Application of Fund

As economic and emissions scenarios assume convergence of per capita incomes, they are sensitivity to the exchange rate used for international comparison. Particularly, developing countries are project to grow slower with a purchasing power exchange rate than with a market exchange rate. Different exchange rates may lead to scenarios with very different per capita incomes. However, these scenarios also assume convergence of energy intensities, which at least partly offsets the income effect, so that scenarios with different exchange rates would differ less in greenhouse gas emissions. Differences become smaller still if atmospheric concentrations and global warming is considered. However, differences become larger again if one considers the costs of meeting a certain stabilisation target, as the gap between baseline and target is more sensitive to the exchange rate used than the baseline itself. Differences also grow larger if one looks at climate change impacts, which are determined not just by climate change but also by development. The sensitivity to the exchange rate is purely due to imperfect data, imperfect statistical analysis of data, a crude spatial resolution, and imperfect models.     

National contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target

Globally, agriculture and related land use change contributed about 17% of the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 (8.4 GtCO₂e yr^?1), making GHG mitigation in the agriculture sector critical to meeting the Paris Agreement’s 2°C goal. This article proposes a range of country-level targets for mitigation of agricultural emissions by allocating a global target according to five approaches to effort-sharing for climate change mitigation: responsibility, capability, equality, responsibility-capability-need and equal cumulative per capita emissions. Allocating mitigation targets according to responsibility for total historical emissions or capability to mitigate assigned large targets for agricultural emission reductions to North America, Europe and China. Targets based on responsibility for historical agricultural emissions resulted in a relatively even distribution of targets among countries and regions. Meanwhile, targets based on equal future agricultural emissions per capita or equal per capita cumulative emissions assigned very large mitigation targets to countries with large agricultural economies, while allowing some densely populated countries to increase agricultural emissions. There is no single ‘correct’ framework for allocating a global mitigation goal. Instead, using these approaches as a set provides a transparent, scientific basis for countries to inform and help assess the significance of their commitments to reducing emissions from the agriculture sector.

Key policy insights

• Meeting the Paris Agreement 2°C goal will require global mitigation of agricultural non-CO₂ emissions of approximately 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 by 2030.

• Allocating this 1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 according to various effort-sharing approaches, it is found that countries will need to mitigate agricultural business-as-usual emissions in 2030 by a median of 10%. Targets vary widely with criteria used for allocation.

• The targets calculated here are in line with the ambition of the few countries (primarily in Africa) that included mitigation targets for the agriculture sector in their (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions.

• For agriculture to contribute to meeting the 2°C or 1.5°C targets, countries will need to be ambitious in pursuing emission reductions. Technology development and transfer will be particularly important.

     

Linkages between climate change and sustainable development

Climate change does not yet feature prominently within the environmental or economic policy agendas of developing countries. Yet evidence shows that some of the most adverse effects of climate change will be in developing countries, where populations are most vulnerable and least likely to easily adapt to climate change, and that climate change will affect the potential for development in these countries. Some synergies already exist between climate change policies and the sustainable development agenda in developing countries, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and sustainable land-use policies. Despite limited attention from policy-makers to date, climate change policies could have significant ancillary benefits for the local environment. The reverse is also true as local and national policies to address congestion, air quality, access to energy services and energy diversity may also limit GHG emissions. Nevertheless there could be significant trade-offs associated with deeper levels of mitigation in some countries, for example where developing countries are dependent on indigenous coal and may be required to switch to cleaner yet more expensive fuels to limit emissions. The distributional impacts of such policies are an important determinant of their feasibility and need to be considered up-front. It follows that future agreements on mitigation and adaptation under the convention will need to recognise the diverse situations of developing countries with respect to their level of economic development, their vulnerability to climate change and their ability to adapt or mitigate. Recognition of how climate change is likely to influence other development priorities may be a first step toward building cost-effective strategies and integrated, institutional capacity in developing countries to respond to climate change. Opportunities may also exist in developing countries to use regional economic organisations to assist in the design of integrated responses and to exploit synergies between climate change and other policies such as those designed to combat desertification and preserve biodiversity.