National Carbon Reduction Commitments: Identifying the Most Consensual Burden Sharing

Gaël Giraud, Hadrien Lantremange (), Emeric Nicolas () and Olivier Rech ()
Additional contact information
Hadrien Lantremange: Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Agence Française de Développement and Chaire Energie et Prospérité, https://centredeconomiesorbonne.cnrs.fr
Emeric Nicolas: Chaire Energy et Prospérité
Olivier Rech: Chaire Energie et Prospérité

Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne from Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne

Abstract: How could the burden of GHG emission reduction be shared among countries? We address this arguably basic question by purely statistical methods that do not rely on any normative judgment about the criteria according to which it should be answered. The sum of current Nationally Determined Contributions to reducing GHG emissions would result in an average temperature rise in 2100 of the order of 3°C to 3.2°C. Implementing policies that enable to achieve the objective of a worldwide average temperature rise below 2°C obviously requires setting a more consistent and efficient set of national emissions targets. While a scientific consensus has been reached about the global carbon budget that we are acing, given the 2°C target of the Paris Agreement, no such consensus prevails on how this budget is to be divided among countries. This paper proposes a Climate Liabilities Assessment Integrated Methodology (CLAIM) which enables to determine national GHG budgets compliant with any average temperature target and time horizon. Our methodology does neither resort to any scenario nor any simulation-based model. Rather, it computes the allocation of 2°C-compatible national carbon budgets which has a priori the highest probability of emerging from the international discussion, whatever being the criteria on which the latter might be based. As such it provides a framework ensuring the highest probability of reaching a consensus. In particular, it avoids the pitfall of arbitrarily assigning weights according, say, to “capacity” or “responsibility” criteria, and simultaneously unifies the different methodologies that have been proposed in the literature aiming at setting national GHG budgets. Sensitivity tests confirm the robustness of our methodology

Keywords: climate change; global warming; GHG emissions; distribution of GHG emissions; emissions gap; 2°C scenario; carbon budget; Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q54 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 27 pages
Date: 2017-12
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ene and nep-env
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01673358 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: National Carbon Reduction Commitments: Identifying the Most Consensual Burden Sharing (2017)
Working Paper: National Carbon Reduction Commitments: Identifying the Most Consensual Burden Sharing (2017)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mse:cesdoc:17062

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne from Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Lucie Label ().