IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v17y2017i8p1031-1045.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delivering the two degree global climate change target using a flexible ratchet framework

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Ritchie
  • David S. Reay

Abstract

Global climate negotiations have been characterized by a divide between developed and developing nations – a split which has served as a persistent barrier to international agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. Notable progress in bridging this division was achieved at the 21st Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris through the introduction of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). However, the collective ambition of submitted INDCs falls short of a global 2°C target, requiring an effective ratchet mechanism to review and increase national commitments. Inequitable distribution of additional responsibilities risks re-opening historic divisions between parties. This article presents a flexible ratchet framework which shares mitigation commitments on the basis of per capita equity in line with emerging requirements for a 2°C target. The framework has been designed through convergence between developed and developing nations; developed nation targets are based on an agreed standardized percentage reduction wherever emissions are above per capita equity; developing nations are required to peak emissions at or below per capita equity levels by an agreed convergence date. The proposed framework has the flexibility to be integrated with current INDCs and to evolve in line with shifting estimates of climate sensitivity.Policy relevanceThe outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) negotiations in Paris offered mixed results in terms of level of ambition and submitted national commitments. A global agreement to keep average global temperature rise below two degrees was maintained; however, current pledged Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are projected to result in an average warming of close to three degrees. The implementation of a global ratchet mechanism to scale-up national commitments will remain key to closing this ambition gap to reach this two degree target. How this upscaling of responsibility is shared between parties will be a defining discussion point within future negotiations. This study presents a standardized, equity-based framework for how this ratchet mechanism can be implemented – a framework designed to be flexible for evolution in line with better understanding of climate sensitivity, and adaptable for integrations with current INDC proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Ritchie & David S. Reay, 2017. "Delivering the two degree global climate change target using a flexible ratchet framework," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 1031-1045, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:17:y:2017:i:8:p:1031-1045
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1222260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2016.1222260
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2016.1222260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lange, Andreas & Löschel, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2010. "On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 359-375, April.
    2. Hjerpe, Mattias & Löfgren, Åsa & Linnér, Björn-Ola & Hennlock, Magnus & Sterner, Thomas & Jagers, Sverker C., 2011. "Common ground for effort sharing? Preferred principles for distributing climate mitigation efforts," Working Papers in Economics 491, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    3. Anthony Brenton, 2013. "'Great Powers' in climate politics," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 541-546, September.
    4. Michael Grubb, 2015. "From Lima to Paris, Part 1: The Lima Hangover," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 299-301, May.
    5. Zou Ji & Fu Sha, 2015. "The challenges of the post-COP21 regime: interpreting CBDR in the INDC context," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 421-430, November.
    6. Michael Grubb & Heleen de Coninck & Ambuj D. Sagar, 2015. "From Lima to Paris, Part 2: Injecting Ambition," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 413-416, July.
    7. Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen & William Hare & Sarah C. B. Raper & Katja Frieler & Reto Knutti & David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, 2009. "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1158-1162, April.
    8. Scott Barrett & Robert Stavins, 2003. "Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 349-376, December.
    9. Dieter Helm, 2008. "Climate-change policy: why has so little been achieved?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 211-238, Summer.
    10. Miranda Schreurs, 2015. "The Paris Climate Negotiations and Beyond: Staying Under a Two Degree Celsius Ceiling," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 50(6), pages 310-311, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Badami, Marco & Fambri, Gabriele, 2019. "Optimising energy flows and synergies between energy networks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 400-412.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrian Amelung, 2016. "Das "Paris-Agreement": Durchbruch der Top-Down-Klimaschutzverhandlungen im Kreise der Vereinten Nationen," Otto-Wolff-Institut Discussion Paper Series 03/2016, Otto-Wolff-Institut für Wirtschaftsordnung, Köln, Deutschland.
    2. Antoine Mandel & Solmaria Halleck Vega & Dan-Xia Wang, 2020. "The contribution of technological diffusion to climate change mitigation: a network-based approach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 609-620, June.
    3. Halleck-Vega, Solmaria & Mandel, Antoine & Millock, Katrin, 2018. "Accelerating diffusion of climate-friendly technologies: A network perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Geng Qin & Hanzhi Yu, 2023. "Rescuing the Paris Agreement: Improving the Global Experimentalist Governance by Reclassifying Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Max Meulemann, 2017. "An Empirical Assessment Of Components Of Climate Architectures," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 1-36, November.
    6. Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Comparing the Copenhagen emissions targets," Working Papers 249378, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    7. Martin Kesternich, 2016. "Minimum participation rules in international environmental agreements: empirical evidence from a survey among delegates in international climate negotiations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(12), pages 1047-1065, March.
    8. Nichola Raihani & David Aitken, 2011. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 47-55, September.
    9. Andreas Lange & Claudia Schwirplies, 2017. "(Un)fair Delegation: Exploring the Strategic Use of Equity Rules in International Climate Negotiations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 505-533, July.
    10. Kesternich, Martin & Löschel, Andreas & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Negotiating weights for burden sharing rules among heterogeneous parties: Empirical evidence from a survey among delegates in international climate negotiations," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-031, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Martin Kesternich & Andreas Löschel & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "Negotiating weights for burden sharing rules in international climate negotiations: an empirical analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 309-331, April.
    12. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    13. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    14. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    15. Waldemar Karpa & Antonio Grginović, 2021. "(Not So) Stranded: The Case of Coal in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    17. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Economic and environmental effectiveness of a technology-based climate protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 229-248, September.
    18. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    19. Laeven, Luc & Popov, Alexander, 2023. "Carbon taxes and the geography of fossil lending," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    20. Jin Xue & Hans Jakob Walnum & Carlo Aall & Petter Næss, 2016. "Two Contrasting Scenarios for a Zero-Emission Future in a High-Consumption Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:17:y:2017:i:8:p:1031-1045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.