Post Kyoto Options: The Next Climate Change Policy, Jon Rosales

2,631 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,631
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
51
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
125
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Post Kyoto Options: The Next Climate Change Policy, Jon Rosales

    1. 1. Post-Kyoto Options: The Next Version of International Climate Change Policy Jon Rosales, Ph.D. Environmental Studies St. Lawrence University
    2. 7. Important point… <ul><li>GHGs mix evenly in the atmosphere. </li></ul>
    3. 8. Important point… <ul><li>GHGs mix evenly in the atmosphere. </li></ul><ul><li>It doesn’t matter where they are reduced. </li></ul>
    4. 9. Important point… <ul><li>GHGs mix evenly in the atmosphere. </li></ul><ul><li>It doesn’t matter where they are reduced. </li></ul><ul><li>Or does it? </li></ul>
    5. 10. Kyoto Protocol
    6. 11. Kyoto Protocol: targets (% change from 1990 emissions)
    7. 12. Kyoto Protocol: GHGs <ul><li>Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Methane (CH 4 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) </li></ul><ul><li>Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) </li></ul><ul><li>Perlurorocarbons (PFCs) </li></ul><ul><li>Sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) </li></ul>
    8. 13. Kyoto Protocol : policy options <ul><li>1. Domestic </li></ul><ul><li>Conservation </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency </li></ul><ul><li> 2. International </li></ul><ul><li>Emissions Trading </li></ul><ul><li>Project-based: CDM & JI </li></ul>
    9. 19. Post-Kyoto <ul><li>Where to start? </li></ul>
    10. 20. Post-Kyoto <ul><li>Where to start? </li></ul>
    11. 21. GHG emissions by country : top 25 (MtCO 2 e) <ul><li>1. US 6,928 14. Mexico 512 </li></ul><ul><li>2. China 4,938 15. Indonesia 503 </li></ul><ul><li>3. EU-25 4,725 16. Australia 491 </li></ul><ul><li>4. Russia 1,915 17. Ukraine 482 </li></ul><ul><li>5. India 1,884 18. Iran 480 </li></ul><ul><li>6. Japan 1,317 19. South Africa 417 </li></ul><ul><li>7. Germany 1,009 20. Spain 381 </li></ul><ul><li>8. Brazil 851 21. Poland 381 </li></ul><ul><li>9. Canada 680 22. Turkey 355 </li></ul><ul><li>10. UK 654 23. Saudi Arabia 341 </li></ul><ul><li>11. Italy 531 24. Argentina 289 </li></ul><ul><li>12. S. Korea 521 25. Pakistan 285 </li></ul><ul><li>13. France 513 Source: WRI </li></ul>
    12. 22. Cumulative CO 2 emissions (1850-2002) <ul><li>1. US 29.3% 18. Brazil 0.8% </li></ul><ul><li>2. EU-25 26.5% 21. Indonesia 0.5% </li></ul><ul><li>3. Russia 8.1% 25. Pakistan 0.2% </li></ul><ul><li>4. China 7.6% </li></ul><ul><li>5. Germany 7.3% </li></ul><ul><li>6. UK 6.3% </li></ul><ul><li>7. Japan 4.1% </li></ul><ul><li>8. France 2.9% </li></ul><ul><li>9. India 2.2% </li></ul><ul><li>10. Ukraine 2.2% </li></ul><ul><li>_____ </li></ul><ul><li>Source: WRI </li></ul>
    13. 23. GHG emissions per capita (TCe, 2000) <ul><li>1. Australia 6.8 14. Spain 2.6 </li></ul><ul><li>2. US 6.6 15. Italy 2.5 </li></ul><ul><li>3. Canada 6.3 16. France 2.3 </li></ul><ul><li>4. Saudi Arabia 4.3 17. Argentina 2.1 </li></ul><ul><li>5. Russia 3.6 18. Iran 1.9 </li></ul><ul><li>6. Germany 3.2 19. Turkey 1.5 </li></ul><ul><li>7. UK 3.1 20. Mexico 1.4 </li></ul><ul><li>8. South Korea 3.1 21. Brazil 1.3 </li></ul><ul><li>9. Ukraine 2.9 22. China 1.1 </li></ul><ul><li>10. Japan 2.9 23. Indonesia 0.7 </li></ul><ul><li>11. EU-25 2.8 24. Pakistan 0.6 </li></ul><ul><li>12. Poland 2.7 25. India 0.5 </li></ul><ul><li>13. South Africa 2.6 </li></ul><ul><li>_____ </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Pew </li></ul>
    14. 24. GHG emissions intensity : TCO 2 e/$mil GDP <ul><li>1. Ukraine 2,369 </li></ul><ul><li>2. Russia 1,817 </li></ul><ul><li>3. Iran 1,353 </li></ul><ul><li>4. Saudi Arabia 1,309 </li></ul><ul><li>5. Pakistan 1,074 </li></ul><ul><li>6. China 1,023 </li></ul><ul><li>7. South Africa 1,006 </li></ul><ul><li>8. Poland 991 </li></ul><ul><li>9. Australia 977 </li></ul><ul><li>15. US 720 </li></ul><ul><li>16. Brazil 679 </li></ul><ul><li>20. Germany 471 </li></ul><ul><li>21. EU-25 449 </li></ul><ul><li>23. Japan 400 </li></ul><ul><li>25. France 344 </li></ul><ul><li>_______ </li></ul><ul><li>Source: WRI </li></ul>
    15. 25. Corporations <ul><li>122 corporations = 80% of all CO 2 emissions </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Exxon = 80% of Africa or South America </li></ul><ul><li>____ </li></ul><ul><li>CoporateWatch; Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies </li></ul>
    16. 26. New York? NY = Turks and Caicos Islands, Niue, Saint Helena, Kiribati, Cook Islands, Montserrat, Vanuatu, Sao Tome and Principe, Dominica, Comoros, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Cape Verde, Tonga, Samoa, Nauru, Saint Vincent/Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Chad, Lesotho, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Western Sahara, The Gambia, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Maldives, Cayman Islands, Laos, Burundi, Liberia, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Cambodia, Benin, Mali, Seychelles, Somalia, French Polynesia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Malawi, Aruba, French Guiana, Togo, Burkina Faso, Niger, Swaziland, Uganda, Afghanistan, Guinea, Eritrea, Mozambique, Madagascar, Haiti, Barbados, Suriname, Guadeloupe, Macau, Guyana, New Caledonia, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Martinique, Zambia, Namibia, Reunion, Mauritius, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Nepal, Congo (Brazzaville), Mauritania, Ethiopia, Armenia, Botswana, The Bahamas, Nicaragua, Congo, Brunei, Paraguay, Senegal, Sudan, Ghana, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Mongolia, Gabon, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Uruguay, Cyprus, Kenya, Yemen, Panama   NYC = Ireland or Portugal
    17. 27. New York? POPULATION 19,047,800 = 641,056,700     US (288,212,300) = 151 countries (2,631,990,800) _____________ National Environmental Trust (2002)
    18. 28. How do we proceed?
    19. 29. How do we proceed? <ul><li>1. Stabilize climate </li></ul><ul><li>2. Cost effective </li></ul><ul><li>3. Equitable </li></ul><ul><li>4. Flexible </li></ul><ul><li>5. Complementary and continuous </li></ul><ul><li>6. Politically palatable </li></ul>
    20. 30. <ul><li>Ability to Pay </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed Domestic Carbon Taxes </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom-Up </li></ul><ul><li>Brazilian Proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Broad but Shallow Beginning </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Marshall Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Contraction and Convergence </li></ul><ul><li>Converging Markets </li></ul><ul><li>Domestic Hybrid Trading Schemes </li></ul><ul><li>Dual Intensity Targets </li></ul><ul><li>Dual Track </li></ul><ul><li>Equal Mitigation Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded “Common but Differentiated” </li></ul><ul><li>Further Differentiation </li></ul><ul><li>Global Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Global Preference Score </li></ul><ul><li>Global Triptych </li></ul><ul><li>Graduation and Deepening </li></ul><ul><li>Growth Baselines </li></ul><ul><li>Harmonized Common Taxes </li></ul><ul><li>Human Development Goals w/ Low Emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid International Emissions Trading </li></ul>Post-Kyoto Proposals Insurance for Adaptation Funded by Emissions Trading International Agreements on Energy Efficiency Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) Long-Term Permit Program Multi-Dimensional Structure Multi-Sector Convergence Multistage and New Multistage Orchestra of Treaties Parallel Climate Policy Per Capita Allocation Portfolio Approach Purchase of a Global Public Good Safety Valve Safety Valve with Buyer Liability Soft Landing in Emissions Growth South-North Dialogue Sustainable Development Policies and Measures Technology Backstop Protocol Technology-Centered Approach Three-Part Policy Architecture Two-Part Commitments for Industrialized Countries UNFCCC Impact Response Instrument
    21. 31. <ul><li>Ability to Pay </li></ul><ul><li>Agreed Domestic Carbon Taxes </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom-Up </li></ul><ul><li>Brazilian Proposal </li></ul><ul><li>Broad but Shallow Beginning </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Marshall Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Contraction and Convergence </li></ul><ul><li>Converging Markets </li></ul><ul><li>Domestic Hybrid Trading Schemes </li></ul><ul><li>Dual Intensity Targets </li></ul><ul><li>Dual Track </li></ul><ul><li>Equal Mitigation Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Expanded “Common but Differentiated” </li></ul><ul><li>Further Differentiation </li></ul><ul><li>Global Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Global Preference Score </li></ul><ul><li>Global Triptych </li></ul><ul><li>Graduation and Deepening </li></ul><ul><li>Growth Baselines </li></ul><ul><li>Harmonized Common Taxes </li></ul><ul><li>Human Development Goals w/ Low Emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid International Emissions Trading </li></ul>Post-Kyoto Proposals Insurance for Adaptation Funded by Emissions Trading International Agreements on Energy Efficiency Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) Long-Term Permit Program Multi-Dimensional Structure Multi-Sector Convergence Multistage and New Multistage Orchestra of Treaties Parallel Climate Policy Per Capita Allocation Portfolio Approach Purchase of a Global Public Good Safety Valve Safety Valve with Buyer Liability Soft Landing in Emissions Growth South-North Dialogue Sustainable Development Policies and Measures Technology Backstop Protocol Technology-Centered Approach Three-Part Policy Architecture Two-Part Commitments for Industrialized Countries UNFCCC Impact Response Instrument
    22. 32. Tonnes
    23. 33. 3.3 Tonnes
    24. 34. How to decide? <ul><li>1. Stabilize climate: yes </li></ul><ul><li>2. Cost effective: yes </li></ul><ul><li>3. Equitable: yes </li></ul><ul><li>4. Flexible: yes </li></ul><ul><li>5. Complementary and continuous: yes </li></ul><ul><li>6. Politically palatable: mixed </li></ul>
    25. 35. <ul><li>end </li></ul>

    ×