Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research

Klinsky, Sonja; Roberts, J. Timmons; Huq, Saleemul; Okereke, Chukwumerije; Newell, Peter; Dauvergne, Peter; O’Brien, Karen; Schroeder, Heike; Tschakert, Petra; Clapp, Jennifer; Keck, Margeret; Biermann, Frank; Liverman, Diana; Gupta, Joyeeta; Rahman, Atiq; Messner, Dirk; Pellow, David N.; Bauer, Steffen

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002

Cited by 201 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an approach is unproblematic at the global scale, but when applied at a country scale, this introduces a preferential treatment of countries or other emitters that have large historical methane emissions-an unintended feature which we illustrate further in the body of this paper. An assessment of the use of the new GWP * metric in the context of fairness and equity is hence useful (Klinsky et al 2017).…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level

Rogelj

Schleußner

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2015 Paris Agreement sets out that rapid reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are needed to keep global warming to safe levels. A new approach (known as GWP * ) has been suggested to compare contributions of long-and short-lived GHGs, providing a close link between cumulative CO 2 -equivalent emissions and total warming. However, comparison factors for non-CO 2 GHGs under the GWP * metric depend on past emissions, and hence raise questions of equity and fairness when applied at any but the global level. The use of GWP * would put most developing countries at a disadvantage compared to developed countries, because when using GWP * countries with high historical emissions of short-lived GHGs are exempted from accounting for avoidable future warming that is caused by sustaining these emissions. We show that when various established equity or fairness criteria are applied to GWP * (defined here as eGWP * ), perceived national non-CO 2 emissions vary by more than an order of magnitude, particularly in countries with high methane emissions like New Zealand. We show that national emission estimates that use GWP * are very sensitive to arbitrary choices made by countries and therewith facilitate the creation of loopholes when CO 2 -equivalent emissions based on the GWP * concept are traded between countries that use different approaches. In light of such equity-dependent accounting differences, GHG metrics like GWP * should only be used at the global level. A common, transparent and equity-neutral accounting metric is vital for the Paris Agreement's effectiveness and its environmental integrity.

show abstract

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level

Rogelj

Schleußner

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Expanding industrialization of the world during the past two centuries has led to a steady rise in emissions with effects on global climate (IPCC, , , p. 365). The consequences of global warming will affect all life on Earth but will differentially affect the global South and exacerbate social inequalities everywhere (Klinsky et al, ).…”

Section: Climate Change: Four Policy Assemblagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consequences of global warming will affect all life on Earth but will differentially affect the global South and exacerbate social inequalities everywhere (Klinsky et al, 2017).…”

Section: The Un "Sustainable Development" Policy Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐assembling climate change policy: Materialism, posthumanism, and the policy assemblage

Fox

Alldred

2020

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National and international policy‐makers have addressed threats to environmental sustainability from climate change and other environmental degradation for over 30 years. However, it is questionable whether current policies are socially, politically, economically, and scientifically capable of adequately resolving these threats to the planet and living organisms. In this paper we theorize and develop the concept of a “policy assemblage” from within a new materialist ontology, to interrogate critically four policy perspectives on climate change: “liberal environmentalism”; the United Nations policy statements on sustainable development; “green capitalism” (also known as “climate capitalism”) and finally “no‐growth economics.” A materialist analysis of interactions between climate change and policies enables us to establish what each policy can do, what it ignores or omits, and consequently its adequacy to address environmental sustainability in the face of climate change. None, we conclude, is adequate or appropriate to address climate change successfully. We then use this conceptual tool to establish a “posthuman” policy on climate change. Humans, from this perspective, are part of the environment, not separate from or in opposition to it, but possess unique capacities that we suggest are now necessary to address climate change. This ontology supplies the starting point from which to establish sociologically a scientifically, socially, and politically adequate posthuman climate change policy. We offer suggestions for the constituent elements of such a policy.

show abstract

“…The purposes of this mechanism will be to review global cumulative efforts of tackling climate change and calculate their impacts on temperature rise, on a five-yearly basis. Additionally, it will ensure that these efforts are in line with the equity-related values [1] of the Agreement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

From Integrated to Integrative: Delivering on the Paris Agreement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In pursuit of the drastic transformations necessary for effectively responding to climate change, the Paris Agreement stresses the need to design and implement sustainable, robust, and socially acceptable policy pathways in a globally coordinated and cooperative manner. For decades, the scientific community has been carrying out quantitative modelling exercises in support of climate policy design, primarily by means of energy systems and integrated assessment modelling frameworks. Here, we describe in detail the context of a hitherto ineffective scientific contribution to policymaking, highlight the available means to formulate a new paradigm that overcomes existing and emerging challenges, and ultimately call for change. In particular, we argue that individual modelling exercises alone widen the gap between formal representation and real-life context in which decisions are taken, and investigate major criticisms to which formalised modelling frameworks are subject. We essentially highlight the importance of employing diverse modelling ensembles, placing the human factor at the core of all modelling processes, and enhancing the robustness of model-driven policy prescriptions through decision support systems. These altogether compose a truly integrative approach to supporting the design of effective climate policy and sustainable transitions and, therefore, strengthen the modelling-policymaking interface.

show abstract

Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research

Cited by 201 publications

References 7 publications

Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level

Unintentional unfairness when applying new greenhouse gas emissions metrics at country level

Re‐assembling climate change policy: Materialism, posthumanism, and the policy assemblage

From Integrated to Integrative: Delivering on the Paris Agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About