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

Elzen, Michel den; Fuglestvedt, Jan S.; Höhne, Niklas; Trudinger, C. M.; Lowe, Jason; Matthews, Ben; Romstad, Bård; Campos, CP de; Andronova, Natalia

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.007

Cited by 83 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We use the default case CBDR scenario 2 as a reference, in line with the choices of the default cases made in other studies (den Elzen et al (2005a) and Höhne et al (2008)). In the selection of the parametric choices related to responsibility indicators we choose those that are most relevant and of major influence based on the detailed discussions in den Elzen et al…”

Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing the Burden of Adaptation Financing: An Assessment of the Contributions of Countries

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryClimate change may cause most harm to countries that contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. This paper identifies deontology, solidarity and consequentialism as the principles that can serve as a basis for a fair international burden sharing scheme of adaptation costs. We translate these principles into criteria that can be applied in assigning contributions of individual countries, namely historical responsibility, equality and capacity to pay. Specific political and scientific choices are discussed, highlighting implications for international burden-sharing. Combining historical responsibility and capacity to pay seems a promising starting point for international negotiations on the design of burden-sharing schemes. From the numerical assessment, it is clear that UNFCCC Annex I countries carry the greatest burden under most scenarios, but contributions differ substantially subject to the choice of an indicator for capacity to pay. The total financial contribution by the Annex I countries could be in the range of $55-68 billion annually. Keywords AbstractClimate change may cause most harm to countries that contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. This paper identifies deontology, solidarity and consequentialism as the principles that can serve as a basis for a fair international burden sharing scheme of adaptation costs. We translate these principles into criteria that can be applied in assigning contributions of individual countries, namely historical responsibility, equality and capacity to pay. Specific political and scientific choices are discussed, highlighting implications for international burden-sharing. Combining historical responsibility and capacity to pay seems a promising starting point for international negotiations on the design of burden-sharing schemes. From the numerical assessment, it is clear that UNFCCC Annex I countries carry the greatest burden under most scenarios, but contributions differ substantially subject to the choice of an indicator for capacity to pay. The total financial contribution by the Annex I countries could be in the range of $55-68 billion annually.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing the Burden of Adaptation Financing: An Assessment of the Contributions of Countries

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that future attribution end dates attribute the effect of emissions from a future emissions trajectory, not just historical emissions. Using a different IPCC-SRES emission scenario, as analysed in den Elzen et al (2005a), has a strong influence on a region's relative contribution to temperature change in 2100 (not shown here).…”

Section: Varying the Start Datementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this analysis we use the simple default model as used in the earlier MATCH exercise (also MATCH climate model), as described in detail in (den Elzen et al, 2005a). This model is based on Impulse Response Functions (IRFs) for the calculations of concentrations, temperature change and sea level rise, and based on functional dependencies from the IPCC-TAR (Ramaswamy et al, 2001) for the radiative forcing (e.g., logarithmic function for CO 2 ).…”

Section: Appendix I Modelling Assumptions and Data Choices Match Climentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This analysis build on Den Elzen et al (2005a), with respect to both a set of primarily technical / scientific options (discussed further in Appendix I) and a set of primarily policy options (presented in Müller (2008).…”

Section: Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides analysing the dynamics of these choices a set of scenarios is discussed, using a CBDR, which may serve as a useful starting point or reference case in the negotiation process. The quantitative analysis in this report primarily builds upon the work of den Elzen et al (2005a), which uses the general MATCH climate model (see Appendix I) to analyse the influence of different policy-related and scientific choices on the calculated regional contributions to global climate change (the "Brazilian Proposal" as discussed in Chapter 1) 3. We further extend the analysis to a country-level, using the general MATCH climate model combined with a historical emissions dataset at the level of 192 UN countries, as described in Höhne et al (2008) and briefly explained in the Appendix I.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations