New Economics - reverses the relationship between GHG and economic growth and development. There is no exiting economic model.
Theoretically it is possible to inverse this relationship but at a huge cost. UNFCCC estimates that it should be around US $ 200-210 billion annually. That cost has now gone up.
How to deal with historical responsibility?
Developed countries are historically responsible. Roughly 77% of the GHG a product of industrialization (OECD countries).
Per capita emission in the United States is roughly 20 tonnes, UK is roughly 10 tonnes, Germany 9.7, Netherlands, 10.1 tonnes as opposed to developing countries like China, India, Pakistan Brazil, which range from less than 1 tonnes to 4.6 tonnes in the case of china.
The role of the non parties to the Kyoto Protocol in undertaking mitigation and that they must be treated just like any other developed country even if they are not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol i.e. comparability of efforts.
Provision of requisite finance and technology as a pre condition to enhancing the developing countries’ role on mitigation.
To this end, establishment of a new financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the overall authority of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC. To be financed through 0.5 to 1% of developed countries’ GNP, this would yield $200 to $400 billion a year.
All funds established or made available outside the UNFCCC framework should be linked with a financial mechanism to be established under the UNFCCCC.
Funding and technology transfer should supplement national development priorities and not just mitigation objective.
Climate friendly technologies should be made free from Intellectual Property Rights regime, which provides for exorbitant fee and profits to the owners of technologies and makes it difficult for the developing countries to acquire them.
Financing on Adaptation on a non debt creating basis.
Redesigning the criterion of vulnerability of countries to climate change of scientific basis as opposed to limiting them to LDCs or SIDs alone.
Avoiding any coercive measures such as trade sanctions and unilateral trade measures (trade protectionism) by developed countries on the grounds of taking climate action since it would pass on the burden and cost of adjustment to developing countries through the side door of trade measures .
What should be the form of such a goal? Should it be defined in emission reduction target alone? Or can such goal be in the form of financial and technology transfer commitments by the Annex-1 parties?
2 degrees? What is the implication?
Also, the “global goal of emission reduction” cannot be agreed to in a stand-alone way but has to emerge through an equity-based approach in which the developed and developing countries’ contributions are explicitly understood.
Can we establish Regional Technological Research and Development Centers which can be supported and promoted by the International community?
What would be the role of three market mechanisms? Emission Trading, Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the post 2012? Including if there is a successor agreement to Kyoto and if there is no successor agreement?