全球长期减排目标与碳排放权分配原则

全球长期减排目标将对世界未来的碳排放形成严重制约,减排义务的分担原则涉及各国的发展空间,事关根本利益。部分发达国家倡导人均排放趋同原则,回避发达国家的历史责任,中国等发展中国家提出人均累积排放趋同原则,强调公平性。按人均累积排放量计算,发达国家自工业革命以来的CO₂排放量已远超出其到2050年前应有的限额,其当前和今后相当长时期的高人均排放都将继续挤占发展中国家的排放空间。因此,发达国家在哥本哈根会议的中近期减排承诺中必须深度减排,以实现全球长期减排目标下的排放轨迹,并为发展中国家留有必要的发展空间。同时必须对发展中国家给予充足的资金和技术支持,作为对其过度挤占发展中国家发展空间的补偿,使发展中国家能够在可持续发展框架下,提高应对气候变化的能力。我国在对外坚持公平原则,努力争取合理的排放空间的同时,对内要加强向低碳经济转型,努力实现保护全球气候和国内可持续发展的双赢。     

A no cap but trade proposal for emission targets

One problem in international climate policy is the refusal of large developing countries to accept emission reduction targets. Brazil, China and India together account for about 20% of today's CO₂ emissions. We analyse the case in which there is no international agreement on emission reduction targets, but countries do have domestic targets, and trade permits across borders. We contrast two scenarios. In one scenario, Brazil, China and India adopt their business as usual emissions as their target. In this scenario, there are substantial exports of emission permits from developing to developed countries, and substantial economic gains for all. In the second scenario, Brazil, China and India reduce their emissions target so that they have no net economic gain from permit trade. Here, developing countries do not accept responsibility for climate change (as they bear no net costs), but they do contribute to an emission reduction policy by refusing to make money out of it. Adopting such break-even targets can be done at minor cost to developed and developing countries (roughly $2 bn/year each in extra costs and forgone benefits), while developing countries are still slightly better off than in the case without international emissions trade. This result is robust to variations in scenarios and parameters. It contrasts with Stewart and Wiener (2003) who propose granting ‘hot air’ to developing countries to seduce them to accept targets. In 2020, China and India could reduce their emissions by some 10% from the baseline without net economic costs.     

Countries’ contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress

In the context of recent discussions at the UN climate negotiations we compared several ways of calculating historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and assessed the effect of these different approaches on countries’ relative contributions to cumulative global emissions. Elements not covered before are: (i) including recent historical emissions (2000–2010), (ii) discounting historical emissions to account for technological progress; (iii) deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’; (iv) including projected emissions up to 2020, based on countries’ unconditional reduction proposals for 2020. Our analysis shows that countries’ contributions vary significantly based on the choices made in the calculation: e.g. the relative contribution of developed countries as a group can be as high as 80 % when excluding recent emissions, non-CO₂ GHGs, and land-use change and forestry CO₂; or about 48 % when including all these emissions and discounting historical emissions for technological progress. Excluding non-CO₂ GHGs and land-use change and forestry CO₂ significantly changes relative historical contributions for many countries, altering countries’ relative contributions by multiplicative factors ranging from 0.15 to 1.5 compared to reference values (i.e. reference contribution calculations cover the period 1850-2010 and all GHG emissions). Excluding 2000–2010 emissions decreases the contributions of most emerging economies (factor of up to 0.8). Discounting historical emissions for technological progress reduces the relative contributions of some developed countries (factor of 0.8) and increases those of some developing countries (factor of 1.2–1.5). Deducting emissions for ‘basic needs’ results in smaller contributions for countries with low per capita emissions (factor of 0.3–0.5). Finally, including projected emissions up to 2020 further increases the relative contributions of emerging economies by a factor of 1.2, or 1.5 when discounting pre-2020 emissions for technological progress.     

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。     

欧盟《气候与能源2030政策框架》要点分析与启示

通过分析《气候与能源2030政策框架》（以下简称《框架》）方案要点,认为欧盟2030年的减排目标相对2020年承诺目标更为积极,可再生能源目标略高于之前官方预期。由于东欧国家的参与,欧盟一方面获得了这些国家盈余的排放配额,帮助欧盟作为一个整体实现减排目标;另一方面,成员国经济发展水平差异增大,导致欧盟施行相对积极的环境政策阻力加大,未来大幅调整减排目标的可能性不大。《框架》目标将可能对2020年后国际碳市场需求预估产生影响,未来国际碳市场的健康运行,将不仅需要欧盟外的发达国家提出具有雄心的减排目标,也需要欧盟提高减排目标,增加其对于国际减排配额的需求;此外,欧盟辅助实现40%减排目标的相关生产标准和措施,可能对未来全球自由贸易产生影响,其他国家尤其是对外贸易依存度较高的发展中国家需要密切关注相关动向。《框架》方案所提出的以应对气候变化引领和促进经济发展、采用组合目标且针对不同目标采取不同实现形式、展现制定目标的透明度、充分考虑成员国差异等提法和操作方式值得中国借鉴。     

世界主要国家气候谈判立场演变历程及未来减排目标分析

在以时间顺序梳理世界主要国家气候谈判立场演变历程的基础上,研究了主要国家在《京都议定书》中减排目标的执行情况,并对这些国家至2025、2030年的中长期减排目标进行了评估。研究发现,美国、加拿大、澳大利亚对待气候变化问题的积极性均与执政者相关,而从当前3个国家执政党看,均表现出不积极减排的立场,至2030年,美国、加拿大、澳大利亚的温室气体排放量比1990年水平下降均低于20%,远低于欧盟至2030年比1990年减排40%的水平。基础四国在国际减排谈判中由最初的反对者逐渐转变为积极参与者,其中,中国不仅提出了国内2030年左右碳排放达峰的减排目标,而且积极提供资金用于其他发展中国家的减排;南非的长期碳排放将趋于稳定,但在2025年之后有反弹的可能;巴西得益于毁林减少在气候谈判中表现积极,至2030年排放量下降显著;而印度至2030年排放路径保持上升趋势。     

Sector-based approach to the post-2012 climate change policy architecture

A sectoral approach to GHG emissions reductions in developing countries is proposed as a key component of the post-2012 climate change mitigation framework. In this approach, the ten highest-emitting developing countries in the electricity and other major industrial sectors pledge to meet voluntary, ‘no-lose’ GHG emissions targets in these sectors. No penalties are incurred for failing to meet a target, but emissions reductions achieved beyond the target level earn emissions reduction credits (ERCs) that can be sold to industrialized nations. Participating developing countries establish initial ‘no-lose’ emissions targets, based upon their national circumstances, from sector-specific energyintensity benchmarks that have been developed by independent experts. Industrialized nations then offer incentives for the developing countries to adopt more stringent emissions targets through a ‘Technology Finance and Assistance Package’, which helps to overcome financial and other barriers to technology transfer and deployment. These sectorspecific energy-intensity benchmarks could also serve as a means for establishing national economy-wide targets in developed countries in the post-2012 regime. Preliminary modelling of a hybrid scenario, in which Annex I countries adopt economy-wide absolute GHG emissions targets and high-emitting developing countries adopt ‘no-lose’ sectoral targets, indicates that such an approach significantly improves the likelihood that atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ can be stabilized at 450 ppmv by the end of the century.     

全球贸易隐含碳变化及其影响分析

基于最新的GTAP8 (Global Trade Analysis Project）数据库,使用投入产出法,分析了2004年到2007年全球贸易变化下南北集团贸易隐含碳变化及对全球碳排放的影响。结果显示,随着发展中国家进出口规模扩张,全球贸易隐含碳流向的重心逐渐向发展中国家转移。2004年到2007年,发达国家高端设备制造业和服务业出口以及发展中国家资源、能源密集型行业及中低端制造业出口的趋势加强,该过程的生产转移导致全球碳排放增长4.15亿t,占研究时段全球贸易隐含碳增量的63%。未来发展中国家的出口隐含碳比重还将进一步提高。贸易变化带来的南北集团隐含碳流动变化对全球应对气候变化行动的影响日益突出,发达国家对此负有重要责任。     

Proposal for a poverty-adaptation-mitigation window within the Green Climate Fund

The stakes for alleviating poverty and avoiding unbridled climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change impacts will slow down and may even reverse trends in poverty reduction. The pathways consistent with global warming of no more than 2?°C require strategies for poverty alleviation to make allowance for the constraint of low-carbon development. Existing climate funds have failed to target poverty alleviation as a high-priority strategy for adaptation or as a component of low-carbon development. This article proposes a funding window as part of the Green Climate Fund in order to foster synergies targeting greater satisfaction of basic needs, while making allowance for adaptation and mitigation. This financial mechanism is based on indicators of the satisfaction of basic needs and could respond to the claims of the developing countries, which see alleviating poverty as the first priority in climate negotiations. It defines a country continuum, given that there are poor people everywhere; all developing countries are therefore eligible with a mechanism of this sort.

Policy relevance

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for substantial emissions reductions and adaptation strategies over the next decades to reduce the high risks of severe impacts of climate change over the 21st century. Industrialized countries and developing countries alike recognize the need to mitigate climate change and to adapt to it. But they face many challenges that lead to an ‘emissions gap’ between an emissions level consistent with the 2?°C increase limit and the voluntary pledges that they have made thus far in the climate negotiations (United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The Emissions Gap Report 2014. A UNEP synthesis report). In this arena, many developing countries underline that their first domestic priority is the satisfaction of basic needs. In the run-up to the next climate negotiations at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, the proposed poverty-adaptation-mitigation funding window could contribute to alleviate the conflict between development and climate goals in developing countries. In this sense, it could spur developing countries to integrate more ambitious emissions limitations pledges into their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. This could in turn entice industrialized countries to act similarly. In the end, it could pave the way to an ambitious climate agreement in Paris at COP 21.     

Drivers of national climate policy

Patterns of national climate policy performance and their implications for the geopolitics of climate change are examined. An overview of levels of emissions performance across countries is first provided. Substantial changes in emissions trends over time are documented, notably with GHG emissions trajectories, which are shaped less and less by the developed/developing country divide. Various patterns of policy convergence and divergence in the types of policies states implement are then surveyed. Four broad types of explanation that may account for these trends are then explored: (1) variation in the institutional form of country-level governance regimes, (2) patterns of dependence on fossil fuel energy, (3) broad systemic differences among states (specifically in their population densities, carbon intensity, and per capita incomes, and (4) variations in the traditions of economic intervention by states. The article contributes to the growing body of work on comparative climate policy, and provides a first attempt at exploring the comparative politics of instrument choice. The analysis challenges the continued importance of a North–South divide for the future of climate policy, thus reinforcing a sense of the ‘new geopolitics’ of climate change. Some of the implications of the analysis for debates about the form of future international agreement on mitigation policy are also explored.

Policy relevance

The article contributes to the understanding of the variety of institutional conditions under which policy makers develop policy and thus the constraints and opportunities for the design of international agreements under these conditions.     

Linkages between climate change and sustainable development

Abstract

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.

© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.     

国外应对气候变化的立法进展与启示

国外应对气候变化立法进程与国际社会对气候变化问题的关注度呈正相关性。目前,欧盟、英国、德国、法国、芬兰、丹麦、瑞士、韩国、日本、菲律宾、新西兰、墨西哥和南非均正式颁布或完成起草了应对气候变化或低碳发展相关法律。文中通过系统研究发现,国外已开展应对气候变化立法的国家和地区均通过立法明确了其应对气候变化管理机构的法律地位和职责,将温室气体减排目标和配套制度纳入法律,确定了应对气候变化的宗旨和原则,成为其高水平履行国际气候条约的重要保障。中国启动国家应对气候变化立法工作已有10年,可借鉴国外立法在减排目标、管理体制、减排措施、应对气候变化的法律原则等方面的立法经验,尽快推进国内立法进程。     

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。     

对斯特恩新报告的要点评述和解读

 2006年10月,英国推出的由著名经济学家斯特恩爵士领导编写的《斯特恩回顾：气候变化经济学》,从经济学的角度着重论述了全球应对气候变化的紧迫性,强调只有尽快大幅度减少温室气体排放,才能避免全球升温超过2℃可能造成的巨大经济损失,且减排成本并不高。2008年4月,斯特恩爵士再次推出一份报告,提出为实现上述目标构建2012年后国际气候制度的基本要素,这对后续国际谈判可能会产生一定的影响。通过比较分析两份报告的关系和不同特点,对新报告中国际气候制度设计和评价的基本原则,全球减排的长期目标和减排义务的分担,通过资金、技术、市场、适应等国际政策措施吸引发展中国家参与,减少毁林排放,以及政策执行和制度建设等问题进行了评述和解读,其中内涵对深入开展国际气候制度的研究和我国参与国际气候谈判有重要启发。     

对斯特恩新报告的要点评述和解读

2006年10月,英国推出的由著名经济学家斯特恩爵士领导编写的《斯特恩回顾：气候变化经济学》,从经济学的角度着重论述了全球应对气候变化的紧迫性,强调只有尽快大幅度减少温室气体排放,才能避免全球升温超过2℃可能造成的巨大经济损失,且减排成本并不高。2008年4月,斯特恩爵士再次推出一份报告,提出为实现上述目标构建2012年后国际气候制度的基本要素,这对后续国际谈判可能会产生一定的影响。通过比较分析两份报告的关系和不同特点,对新报告中国际气候制度设计和评价的基本原则,全球减排的长期目标和减排义务的分担,通过资金、技术、市场、适应等国际政策措施吸引发展中国家参与,减少毁林排放,以及政策执行和制度建设等问题进行了评述和解读,其中内涵对深入开展国际气候制度的研究和我国参与国际气候谈判有重要启发。     

Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2°C

In order to stabilize long-term greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm CO₂-eq or lower, developed countries as a group should reduce emissions by 25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020, while developing countries' emissions need to be reduced by around 15–30%, relative to their baseline levels, according to the IPCC and our earlier work. This study examines 19 other studies on the emission reductions attributed to the developed and developing countries for meeting a 450 ppm target. These studies considered different allocation approaches, according to equity principles. The effect of the assumed global emissions cap in these studies is analysed. For developed countries, the original reduction range of 25–40% by 2020 is still within the average range of all studies, but does not cover it completely. Comparing the studies shows that assuming a global emissions cap of 5–15% above 1990 levels by 2020 generally leads to more stringent reduction targets than when a global emissions cap of 20–30% above 1990 levels is assumed. For developing countries, the reduction range of 15–30% below their baseline levels by 2020 corresponds to an increase on the 1990 level from 70% (about the 2006 level) to 120%. Reducing deforestation emissions by 50% below baseline levels by 2020 may relax the emission reductions for either group of countries; for developing countries by about 7% or for developed countries by about 15% (but not for both).     

The scale and drivers of carbon footprints in households,cities and regions across India

The carbon footprint (CF) has emerged as an important yardstick to understand the total contribution of countries, sectors and individuals to climate change. In contrast to conventional emissions accounting which captures only territorial or local production activities, the CF includes the emissions imposed by consumption across global supply chains for goods and services. Recent interest has grown in the application of CF assessment for municipalities owing to their large contribution to global carbon emissions and the limited coverage of existing data to monitor their climate pledges. By linking household-level consumer surveys to a global supply chain database, spatially-explicit CF assessment is possible at a district and household scale. To date, such technique has exposed otherwise unforeseen differences in consumer carbon footprints in developed countries. Within this study we calculate and compare the household carbon footprints 623 districts in India, based on micro consumption data from 203,313 households and explain their variation by economic, cultural and demographic factors. We show the eradication of extreme poverty does not conflict with ambitious climate change mitigation in India. However, our analysis suggests CF reduction policies within India need to target high-expenditure households which are responsible for nearly seven times the carbon emissions than low-expenditure households (living on $1.9 consumption a day). These vast disparities between the carbon footprint of citizens in India highlights the need to differentiate individual responsibilities for climate change in national and global climate policy.     

Quantifying the social equity of carbon mitigation strategies

Many tools that are helpful for evaluating emissions mitigation measures, such as carbon abatement cost curves, focus exclusively on cost and emissions reduction potential without quantifying the direct and indirect impacts on stakeholders. The impacts of climate change will be the most severe and immediate for billions of poor people, especially for those whose livelihoods are based on agriculture and subsistence activities and are directly dependent on weather patterns. Thus, equity and vulnerability considerations must be central to GHG emissions reduction strategies. A case study of a carbon abatement cost curve for an electricity system in two Nicaraguan rural villages is presented and is complemented with assessments based on the poverty metrics of the poverty headcount, the Gini coefficient, and the Kuznets ratios. Although these metrics are relatively easy to calculate, the study provides a general indication as to how the social impacts of mitigation strategies on the poor (whether they are in rural or urban environments, developed or developing countries) can be revealed and highlights the inequalities that are embedded in them. Further work analysing how mitigation measures affect the various more detailed poverty indices, such as the Human Development, Gender Equality, or Multidimensional Poverty indices, is needed.     

发达国家2020年前应对气候变化行动和支持力度盘点

在应对气候变化问题上,发达国家有率先减排和为发展中国家提供气候资金支持的义务。根据《联合国气候变化框架公约》相关成果,发达国家做出了到2020年减排温室气体和每年动员1000亿美元气候资金的承诺,综合相关数据信息盘点了上述承诺的实施进展,结果显示发达国家2020年减排目标力度不足,核算规则不清晰,部分国家缺乏减排进展,气候资金的概念和范围尚有争议,现有气候资金规模与承诺仍有较大差距,《联合国气候变化框架公约》下资金机制作用仍待加强,并且发展中国家需要更大规模的气候资金支持。发达国家2020年承诺兑现不力不利于巩固多边进程各方互信,且有向发展中国家转嫁责任之嫌。为此,建议中国在国际气候谈判进程中,依托谈判联盟,进一步敦促发达国家履行2020年承诺并提高力度。     

Delivering the two degree global climate change target using a flexible ratchet framework

Global climate negotiations have been characterized by a divide between developed and developing nations – a split which has served as a persistent barrier to international agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. Notable progress in bridging this division was achieved at the 21st Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris through the introduction of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). However, the collective ambition of submitted INDCs falls short of a global 2°C target, requiring an effective ratchet mechanism to review and increase national commitments. Inequitable distribution of additional responsibilities risks re-opening historic divisions between parties. This article presents a flexible ratchet framework which shares mitigation commitments on the basis of per capita equity in line with emerging requirements for a 2°C target. The framework has been designed through convergence between developed and developing nations; developed nation targets are based on an agreed standardized percentage reduction wherever emissions are above per capita equity; developing nations are required to peak emissions at or below per capita equity levels by an agreed convergence date. The proposed framework has the flexibility to be integrated with current INDCs and to evolve in line with shifting estimates of climate sensitivity.

Policy relevance

The outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) negotiations in Paris offered mixed results in terms of level of ambition and submitted national commitments. A global agreement to keep average global temperature rise below two degrees was maintained; however, current pledged Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are projected to result in an average warming of close to three degrees. The implementation of a global ratchet mechanism to scale-up national commitments will remain key to closing this ambition gap to reach this two degree target. How this upscaling of responsibility is shared between parties will be a defining discussion point within future negotiations. This study presents a standardized, equity-based framework for how this ratchet mechanism can be implemented – a framework designed to be flexible for evolution in line with better understanding of climate sensitivity, and adaptable for integrations with current INDC proposals.