But the rich have moved slowly, and now many governments are balking at undertaking expensive and disruptive action while the developing world gets a free pass.
"The rich should lead, but the rich can't get domestic legislation enacted until they can level the playing field," said Robyn Eckersley, a professor in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne.
"Those domestic demands are totally undermining the environmental justice elements of the international climate regime."
****
The fairest goal is widely seen as a per-capita allocation, where everyone in the world is given the same cap on personal greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations favor an approach, known as "contraction and convergence," that would bring rich countries' per capita emissions down while increasing the allowance for everyone else.
To hold climate change to a minimum and keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations stable at 450 parts per million, that per capita line would need to be well below the current global per-capita average of four tons of carbon dioxide per year.
But it also means revolutionary—and for now, at least, politically impossible—lifestyle changes for the Western world, particularly the United States, where annual per capita carbon emissions top 20 tons.
Another approach, also favored by developing economies, seeks to quantify historical responsibility and capacity to pay. Those countries above the per-capita income threshold pay the costs of the global transition to new energy and emissions paradigms.
That's a non-starter for most rich nations, which seek a different type of equity. They're adding caveats to their cuts, proposing tariffs or other penalties on imports from countries that don't impose tough greenhouse-gas limits. Last month, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives tacked a "border adjustment tax" to its landmark climate bill, prompting criticism from President Obama and much of the developing world.
That's where this new study could break the impasse.
By focusing on high emitters worldwide, say study authors, it offers a bridge to a more equitable per capita emissions cap.
"The two approaches will eventually converge," said Massimo Tavoni, a researcher at Princeton's Environmental Institute and a study co-author. "This gives you the transition to get to equal per capita emissions.... It's obviously very fair, but it's just very far in the future."
****
Of course, none of this really works unless the developed world takes the lead. The original 1992 United Nations climate convention, ratified by more than 160 countries, including the United States, says that the developed world needs to act first.
They haven't done that yet, and experts agree time is quickly running out. This proposal is a way to bring the world together soon, they say.
"The north has got some sort of come-to-Jesus moment in its future. We just don't know how it's going to play out," said Tom Athanasiou, founder of EcoEquity, a think tank focused on global climate justice. "It's a terrible situation. It just is. We're way late."
Whether this proposal will earn a spot at the negotiating table is anyone's guess, but Eckersley and Susskind are optimistic its simplicity and fairness could cut through the ossified and polarized negotiations.
"This is not a panacea. This is not all you do," Eckersley said. "There are a lot of other factors you have to put on the table. But this is a starting point."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThis proposal is similar to a per capita emissions limit. It can not work and is not fair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poorest nations on our planet benefit from the technology created by the advanced nations. This technology benefits the few in the less developed nations, and they continue to exploit their poor. It is the intent of the rich in poorer nations to maintain a large poor uneducated community for their benefit. Any help received by their poor comes from the citizens of wealthy nations.
Everyday citizens from the wealthy nations provide huge amounts of aid to the poor. This aid has in fact added to the problem, populations are out of control because of the amount of food aid provided.
At the end of the day population is the underlying cause of climate change. Poor populations clear forests, kill wildlife and breed like rabbits.
Multiple species in an environment neutralise each others impact on the environment. Loss of biodiversity eliminates this neutralising effects.
Climate change is driven by over-population. It is politically correct to blame carbon dioxide and the other emissions for climate change, they are the result of an unsustainable population.
I remember reading an article in the late '80's in one of SA"s competitor's magazine (before it went broke over feeding the readers poorly researched info on some guy who swindled many over an invention heralded by that magazine, but that is another topic) ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article I read was about a legitimate study on the New Zealand sheep population. Explanation being they were concerned because of their proximity to the actual Ozone hole...The study was on the only way I can think of it being called now is 'farts"? My conclusion to reading this was we're all gonna die when the polar ice cap melts because I won't give up my Taco Bell!!
Overpopulation! I agree. However, be it poor or rich countries,I think it fair to have GLOBAL standards in high emission industries and with their vehicles. Make plans that benefit the 'green' up clean up...TRYING to not have one GOOD be canceled by 10 million BADS....and the New Zealand sheep population and Taco Bell.... < Smile>
I wonder how much they would fine Al Gore for his 1000,s of tons of carbon foot print.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"....virtually every country has a class of individuals - the so-called "high emitters" - enjoying a rich, carbon-intensive lifestyle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the U.S. this class would include congress, movie stars and corporate executives. You know, the ones who lecture ordinary people about carbon emissions. Al Gore is the president of this class.
I think it is unfair to count CO2 emissions on yearly basis for the countries. CO2 is being accumulated in the atmosphere since centuries. I would propose to agree on a date to start to calculate the total emission figures. That is for example starting from year 1900 the total emission produced for the countries should be calculated. Than the total emission produced since 2009-1900= 109 years devided by the population should be calculated. Every country/person should have the right to produce that much of emission found by the max figure calculated by above calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be very unfair to put every nation (developed/underdeveloped) in the same benchmark with total CO2 emisision produced today.
I think it is unfair to count CO2 emissions on yearly basis for the countries. CO2 is being accumulated in the atmosphere since centuries. I would propose to agree on a date to start to calculate the total emission figures. That is for example starting from year 1900 the total emission produced for the countries should be calculated. Than the total emission produced since 2009-1900= 109 years devided by the population should be calculated. Every country/person should have the right to produce that much of emission found by the max figure calculated by above calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be very unfair to put every nation (developed/underdeveloped) in the same benchmark with total CO2 emisision produced today.
It'll never work. Nobody would let themselves be taken to task for their very lifestyle, least of all the financial and consumer elite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully the US Senate will defeat the effort to force the US to destroy it's economy - and the rest of the worlds as well and the skepticism of AGW will continue to grow. Maybe then all the nonsense will stop and we can spend our money developing profitable alternatives to fossil fuels rather than being forced to subsidize unprofitable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully the US Senate will defeat the effort to force the US to destroy it's economy - and the rest of the worlds as well and the skepticism of AGW will continue to grow. Maybe then all the nonsense will stop and we can spend our money developing profitable alternatives to fossil fuels rather than being forced to subsidize unprofitable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe researchers center this article around the need for individuals above the carbon line even in developing countries to take up responsibilities.The reason given in the afore mentioned article is because of the awareness of the impending damage that could be caused by the developing nations in the future. If the matter is about taking responsibility then one should be made aware of the the past mistakes. Nations that were primarily responsible for industrialisation leading to global warming and intensive enironmental damage must own up to all the past damage and accounted for the present add ons and then only should it be thought that the developing nations individuals must assume equal responsibility as those living in any other part of the world.The extremely conveneint interpretation hold no worth because the problem of global warming cannot be solved by placing responsisbilities in an unfair manner .The entire world is very well aware of the exceedingly essential need to cut down carbon emissions but fuelling it through articles that tell individuals above the carbon emissions line in a small developing nation ( where they maybe a part of the highest income of the country, an industrialist... on who the countries future may depend) is highly skewed and will not be successful as moniotring will become far more difficult on an idividual basis rather than a nation basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter yet would be to tax fossil carbon sources directly. We know fossil carbon fuel providers will pas these cost on directly as higher prices for their products. Then anyone who consumes more will pay more. This will foster conservation, efficiency improvemements, and investment in renewable carbonless energy sources by anyone using fossil fuels. If you really want to see change, refund 100% of this Fossil Carbon Tax back to consuming individuals as a Dividend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskbarry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefunding the tax back to the consuming individuals will give them no incentive to cut back.
Having said that I am totally opposed to a carbon tax of any kind. I do not believe man is having an appreciable affect on the climate. CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere (less than 1/2 of 1 percent) that, when experiments are done with those concentrations, there is no appreciable temperature increase.
Further proof that this tax is not about reducing consumption is the fact that, as far as greenhouse gasses go, methane and water vapor are far more potent than CO2 but are not covered by these taxes. In fact there are those pushing for hydrogen power - the byproduct of which is water vapor.
This movement is about controlling who gets what and who gets to decide that. It is about global domination by the few. I want no part of it.