Climate Change and Developmental Justice

The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World

Sivan KarthaStockholm Environment Institute

Tufts Climate Change Literacy SeminarJanuary 15, 2008

2

AcknowledgementsThe Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World:The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

• Collaborator– Paul Baer (Ecoequity)– Tom Athanasiou (Ecoequity)– Eric Kemp-Benedict (SEI)

• Support– Heinrich Böll Foundation (Germany)– Christian Aid (UK)– Stockholm Environment Institute core funds – Mistra - Foundation for Strategic

Environmental Research (Sweden)

3

Greenland Ice Sheet: here today…

2ºC is already risking catastrophic impacts

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

An

nu

al C

O2 E

mis

sio

ns

(GtC

)

GlobalNon-Annex 1Annex 1

What does an “Emergency Climate Program” imply for the South’s development pathway?

What kind of climate regime can enable this to happen…?

5

… in the midst of a development crisis?• 2 billion people are without access to clean

cooking fuels

• More than 1.5 billion without electricity

• More than 1 billion people have inadequate access to fresh water

• Approximately 800 million people are chronically undernourished

• 2 million children die per year from diarrhea

• HIV/AIDS kills 6,000 people each day and another 8,200 people are infected.

6

A viable climate regime must…

• Ensure mitigation consistent with an emergency climate stabilization program globally

• Enable the depth and extent of adaptation inevitably needed

• While at the same time safeguarding the right to development

7

A “Greenhouse Development Rights” approach

• Asserts a development threshold

• Assigns national obligations “progressively” in terms of that threshold

• Obliges those people (whether in the North or the South) with incomes and emissions above the threshold to pay the global costs of an emergency program of mitigation and adaptation

• Allows people with incomes and emissions below the threshold to prioritize development

8

Development threshold?What should a “Right to Development” preserve?

• Traditional poverty line: $1/day? …$2/day? (World Bank’s “destitution line” and “extreme poverty line”)

• $16/day? (“Global poverty line” after Pritchet (2006))

• Let’s say: $25/day (PPP $9,000/yr)

(~150% × global poverty line, PPP-adjusted)

9

Quantifying Obligations based on Capacity and Responsibility

Obligation: National share of global mitigation and adaptation burdens

Capacity: resources to pay w/o sacrificing necessities We use income (PPP), excluding income below the $9,000

development threshold

Responsibility: contribution to the climate problem We use cumulative per capita CO2 emissions, excluding

“subsistence” emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below the development threshold)

10

$9,000/capita (PPP)

“development threshold”

Income and Capacity National income distributions showing capacity (in green) as

fraction of income above the development threshold

India China US

11

Emissions vs. Responsibility Cumulative fossil CO2 emissions since 1990 compared to responsibility, which excludes “subsistence” emissions

12

National Obligations

population income capacityCumulativeemissions1990-2005

responsibilitynational

obligation

United States 4.7 20.2 31.8 23.7 37.0 34.3

EU (27) 7.7 21.5 29.0 17.8 23.1 26.6

United Kingdom 0.9 3.3 4.7 2.5 3.6 4.3

Germany 1.3 4.0 5.6 3.8 5.2 5.5

Russia 2.2 2.5 1.5 7.4 4.3 2.3

Brazil 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.6

China 20.4 14.7 7.1 13.8 6.6 7.0

India 17.0 6.1 0.4 3.8 0.3 0.3

South Africa 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.6 1.5 1.1

LDCs 8.3 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0

All high income 15.6 53.9 78.8 52.7 76.9 78.5

All middle Income 47.7 36.6 20.7 41.1 22.8 21.1

All low Income 36.7 9.5 0.5 6.2 0.4 0.5

World 100 100 100 100 100 100

13

Global Mitigation Burden

14

National “Obligation Wedges”

15

US Obligations under a GDRs Framework

Physical domestic reductions as 90% by 2050, but US obligations are much greater. Must be met internationally.

16

Chinese participation in a GDRs World

The vast majority of reductions in the South come from Annex 1 reduction commitments, rather than non-Annex 1 reduction

commitments.

17

Final Comments

• Large North-South transfers (financial, technological) are unavoidable.

• Realistic? Not today.

• The alternative to something like this is a weak regime with little chance of preventing catastrophic climate change

• This is about politics, not virtue.

18

Paper available: www.ecoequity.org/GDRs

Dataset and tool that allows you to examine calculations presented here and explore alternatives: gdrs.sourceforge.net

19

Emergency pathways: details

2050 CO2

emissions relative to

1990

Maximum rate of

reductions

Chance of exceeding

2ºC

Peak concentration(Co2/CO2-eq) ppm

Trajectory 1 (least stringent)

50% below 3.4%/yr 26-55% 445 /500

Trajectory 2 65% below 4.4%/yr 21-46% 435 / 485

Trajectory 3 (most stringent)

80% below 6.0%/yr 17-36% 425 / 470

Ref: Baer and Mastrandrea (2006)

Carbon concentrations in these scenarios peak and decline (rather than stabilize).

20

Alternative development thresholds

Low income Middle income High income World

Global income 2005 ($trillion PPP) 6 22 33 61

Share of global income (percent) 10 36 54 100

Share of population 2005 (percent) 37 48 16 100

Per capita income 2005 ($ thousands PPP ) 2.5 7.3 33.0 9.5

CAPACITY THRESHOLD 6000 9000 12000 6000 9000 12000 6000 9000 12000 6000 9000 12000

Capacity ($ billion PPP) 0.5 0.2 0.1 9 6 4 27 24 21 37 31 26

Share of global capacity(percent) 1.3 0.6 0.3 25 20 17 74 79 83 100 100 100

Percentage of population over capacity threshold 7.1 2.2 0.8 41 24 16 97 93 86 37 27 21

21

Percent of global RCI Bill at 1% of GWP ($ billion PPP adjusted)

Average individual bill at 1% of GWP ($)

Capacity threshold 6000 9000 12000 6000 9000 12000 6000 9000 12000

United States 31.7 35.0 38.0 193 214 232 678 796 933

EU (27) 26.5 27.2 27.3 162 166 167 317 357 399

United Kingdom 4.1 4.4 4.5 25 27 28 416 461 512

Germany 5.2 5.5 5.6 32 34 34 388 420 456

Russia 3.1 2.3 1.7 19 14 10 168 190 221

Brazil 1.7 1.6 1.5 10 10 9 139 191 255

China 9.0 6.9 5.4 55 42 33 107 144 188

India 0.9 0.4 0.2 5 2 1 39 53 71

South Africa 1.0 1.0 1.0 6 6 6 282 383 499

LDCs 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 19 34 65

All high income 73 78 82 446 479 503 459 517 584

All middle income 26 21 18 159 129 107 128 172 224

All low income 1.1 0.5 0.2 6 2.9 1 39 56 79

World 100.0 100.0 100.0 611 611 611 257 353 450