Fair shares in a constrained world. Equity principles for a new global climate-change deal

Transcription

1 Fair shares in a constrained world Equity principles for a new global climate-change deal

2 b Author: Mohamed Adow, Senior Advisor, Global Advocacy and Alliances, Christian Aid With thanks to Tom Athanasiou, Sivan Kartha and Paul Baer for expert inputs. Thanks also to Alison Doig, Alison Kelly, Andrew Hogg, Priya Lukka and Isaiah Toroitich for their comments. Cover: Wind turbines, Rafa Irusta Machin

3 1 Contents Urgency and equity 2 The new global deal 2 The Convention s core equity principles 3 Equity indicators 4 Actions required 10 Endnotes 13

4 2 Fair shares in a constrained world The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made human responsibility for global warming clearer than ever before. It stressed that the window of opportunity for containing its impacts is diminishing every day. 1 Greenhouse gas emissions must peak and start to decline as soon as humanly possible if we are to have a decent chance of keeping the global temperature rise well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Even swifter action is needed if the warming is to be kept below 1.5 C. Urgency and equity Despite the urgency, the progress of international negotiations aimed at controlling emissions remains agonisingly slow. The UN Environment Programme and many other organisations are warning that, given present trends, we risk a warming of between 2.5 C-5 C by Scientists warn that temperature rises of that magnitude will trigger climate chaos. No computer model is able to predict with accuracy the impact of melting ice caps and warming oceans. However, it now seems that even a 1.5 C rise will cause rising sea levels to flood many coastal areas and trigger the disappearance of a number of small island states. The IPCC report says that in order to have a 66% chance of limiting the temperature rise to below 2 C by the end of the century no more than a total of 800 billion tonnes of carbon can have been emitted. Of that target, some 531 billion tonnes of carbon have already been sent sailing into the atmosphere. The question now is how can the remaining 269 billion tonnes, and the effort required to remain within that very limited budget, be fairly shared between countries? If annual carbon emissions were to stay at current levels, the carbon budget would be used up in 13 to 25 years. In essence, the question of who is allowed to pollute, and by how much, lies at the heart of the impasse within which the climate negotiations, held under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have been locked for years. Developed countries, which are home to just 17.3% of the global population, are responsible for 71.5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions to date and, despite the mitigation pledges these countries have made in recent years, they manifest little urgency about cutting back. Once basic living costs have been taken into account, the developed countries have 68.5% of the wealth required to respond. 3 Poorer countries, which have done the least to cause global warming, consider themselves to have every right to seek better standards of living for their citizens. They argue that their sustainable development should not be put on hold because of the needs of richer countries, which created the problem in the first place. This paper is an attempt to establish a way forward by measuring the contribution different countries have made to the climate problem, and analysing their capacity to tackle it, in a bid to find a fair and ambitious solution. For it is clear that if the world is to live within the remaining constrained carbon budget, an equitable approach to sharing the effort and costs of emissions mitigation and adaptation among countries must be established. Such an approach can only proceed on the basis of assessing the responsibility, capacity and sustainable development needs of these countries. The new global deal The UN climate negotiations in Durban in 2011 established a new negotiating body, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), to negotiate a new global agreement that would cover all countries by For the deal to be fair, countries must take concrete steps to ensure a fair effort-sharing system is part of the ADP framework, in a manner that is consistent with core UNFCCC principles, including common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and equitable access to sustainable development. 5 In this context, Christian Aid is calling for the UNFCCC, starting this November at the climate summit in Warsaw, on the road to Paris for the 2015 agreement, to establish a process for equitable effort-sharing among all countries, rich and poor. It is a process that begins with the existing differentiation of Annex 1 (developed) and Non-Annex 1 (developing) countries and evolves forward in a manner based on the UNFCCC s principles and provisions. The process must deliver a framework to quantify efforts made with respect to both emissions mitigation and the provision of financial and technological support. It should include an agreed, standardised list of core equity indicators. Why equity matters At the centre of the issue of climate equity is the recognition that in order to effectively address the climate crisis, countries with the most responsibility for climate change and the greatest capacity to respond must do the heavy

5 3 lifting. This is particularly true of those who have fulfilled the basic needs of their population in other words, where the majority of the population has access to health, education, clean water and sanitation. However, Christian Aid recognises that in order to limit global warming to below 1.5 C, or even 2 C, all countries, both rich and poor, must contribute. An enormous amount of effort is required. Both rich and poor countries must, as a matter of urgency, seek to mitigate their emissions and undertake a low-carbon-development path. A deal that has the widest possible participation will have the greatest buy-in of all parties. But participation alone will not suffice. Since countries pollute at different levels and have different financial and technological capacities to deal with the climate problem, the collective climate effort must have fairness at its heart if it is to successfully reduce emissions. The maintenance of a stable climate system can be described as a public good, just as the emissions budget connected to that system can be described as a global commons. There is a risk of some countries not shouldering their responsibilities, so the international community must design a system that shares the climate actions fairly between all countries. The double crisis Christian Aid is concerned about the poverty suffered by billions of people worldwide and the threat of devastating climate change for current and future generations. In a world in which 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity and almost 2.7 billion are without clean cooking fuel, 6 the implications of climate change are stark. We are not just concerned about the growing impact of global warming on poor people, but also to ensure that they have proper opportunities for non-carbon based development. We take climate change very seriously, for we see its impact in our work with partners all around the world it threatens the lives and livelihoods of the poor first and foremost. Both poverty and climate change are real, urgent issues, and Christian Aid believes it is still possible to lift the poor out of poverty without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The way to do this is through climate equity. An unfair agreement would inequitably shift the burden of responding to climate change to the poor, depriving them of the right to sustainable development. To avoid this double crisis of poverty and climate change, and the related equity challenge, the world must be directed by the common goal of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, 7 while at the same time protecting the legitimate sustainable development rights of the world s poor under an equitable, effort-sharing framework. It is our belief that addressing poverty is essential in addressing climate change and vice versa. So both objectives must be brought closer together under the future 2015 climate agreement. For that to happen, we need to ensure climate-change solutions are negotiated within a framework that safeguards the right to sustainable development. For low-income countries there is an opportunity to leapfrog over unsustainable high-carbon development and, with assistance from international finance and technology, move to low-carbon, sustainable development. The Convention s core equity principles In 1992, countries in the UNFCCC agreed to cooperatively prevent dangerous climate change: to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. The UN climate negotiations will only be successful if they adhere to the following core UNFCCC s principles: 1. The adequacy principle requires all countries to cooperatively undertake and support urgent and adequate global actions to prevent dangerous climate change and provide effective adaptation to unavoidable impacts. It is based on the Convention s ultimate objective to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system 8, within a timeframe that enables ecosystems to adapt naturally, protect food production and ensure the right to sustainable development. It is an absolute necessity that the negotiations be informed by science, in order to deliver an adequate response. 2. The right to sustainable development explicitly focuses on safeguarding the sustainable development rights of all people, including future generations, and ensuring that all countries move towards low-carbon development, with the means of implementation (finance and clean technology) provided by countries consistent with their differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. 9 A country s right to sustainable development does not mean the right to unconstrained emissions. This would be in conflict with the Convention s objective of

6 4 limiting average global temperature increases. 3. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC). The cost of cutting global emissions and of adapting to a world where average temperatures exceed safe levels ought to be based on global differentiation of responsibility and capability. The parties share a common responsibility of protecting the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. 10 But the countries common responsibility does not oblige them all to act in the same way. Rather, they have different levels of responsibility, measured by the extent to which they have contributed to the climatechange problem. Respective capabilities recognises that countries have widely varying financial and technological capacities, and thus varying abilities to contribute to solving the climate problem. Equity indicators To divide the global climate actions between countries, and subsequently review them for adequacy and fairness, it is essential to agree on a set of equity indicators that reflect the Convention s core equity principles. These indicators must be put together in a meaningful way to provide a quantified system that shares the required global effort to tackle climate change and protects the right to sustainable development. Once the indicators are agreed on, they would give us a shared understanding of what is required in terms of emissions mitigation and financial commitments for each country. Each country s contributions could then be evaluated by the international community against the recommended commitment. Given that all countries must work together to tackle climate change, equity indicators may be the best way to hold accountable those countries not shouldering their fair share of the global effort. The indicators will also allow us to develop a dynamic approach to equity based on actual emissions and economic data that is responsive to the changing world, rather than just the current developed- and developing-country groupings. In this context, the goal when setting these indicators must be to enhance global cooperation based on the Convention s principles, including equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and equitable access to sustainable development. To that end, Christian Aid, together with the ACT Alliance and other members of Climate Action Network (CAN) International, has identified the following four key indicators to help give real meaning to the agreed principles of the UNFCCC: adequacy equitable access to sustainable development responsibility capacity Note that the figures presented in the following sections use analysis from the Greenhouse Development Rights framework (GDRs) web-based calculator. 11 We present the calculations not because we believe they are absolutely correct, but because we believe that they are close or, as the scientists say, indicative. They show how the indicators approach could be used to put into practice the Convention s principles of adequacy, sustainable development need, responsibility and capability. They illustrate how, taken together, the equity indicators can provide a quantifiable, equity-based system that shares the global effort among all countries. The GDRs framework is one of many possible equity reference frameworks. It is notable, however, for having design goals that match the problem that we face. It is an effort-sharing (as opposed to resource- or carbonbudget-sharing) framework, and it divides up the required global effort (calculated relative to an emissions-mitigation baseline) in order to support a global climate emergency mobilisation while, at the same time, preserving the rights of the world s poor to reach a dignified level of sustainable development. The GDRs approach includes a development threshold that is designed to put the right to sustainable development at the core of the emergency climate mobilisation programme.

7 5 1. Adequacy Adequacy refers to the collective global effort to limit global warming within safe levels of climate change and the resources that will be required to make that happen. To illustrate the required global effort under varying levels of ambition, we have considered three emissions-mitigation pathways. The first is a 1.5 C marker pathway, which is as ambitious as anything we can realistically imagine. The second is a 2 C pathway that conforms to the most commonly cited 2 C pathways in the current literature. The third is a G8 pathway, based on the political targets specified in the G8 s 2009 L Aquila declaration, and, as noted below, its chances of exceeding 2 C are far greater than 50%. The three pathways are illustrated below historical emissions G8 marker pathway 1.5C marker pathway 2.0 C marker pathway Gt C0 2 -Equivalent

8 6 1.5 C marker pathway 2.0 C marker pathway G8 marker pathway Peak year emissions (GtCO 2 eq) Peak annual rate of decline -7.1% -3.4% -4.4% Year peak decline rate reached % reduction by 2050 vs 1990 Budget ( ) (GtCO 2 /GtCO 2 eq) Budget ( ) (GtCO 2 /GtCO 2 eq) Budget ( ) (GtCO 2 /GtCO 2 eq) Budget ( ) (GtCO 2 /GtCO 2 eq) % -49% -42% 995 / 1,430 1,390 / 1,850 1,635 / 2, / 910 1,000 / 1,330 1,245 / 1,695 1,020 / 1,720 1,660 / 2,380 1,995 / 2, / 1,200 1,275 / 1,860 1,610 / 2,335 Table 1. Key mitigation-pathway data points The three mitigation pathways are shown on page 5. Their key characteristics, in terms of peak year and total carbon budgets, are given in Table 1, above. The 1.5 C marker pathway peaks in 2014 and has a maximum annual rate of decline of 7.1%. Its cumulative ( ) all-gas-emissions budget is 910 GtCO 2 e. The 2 C marker pathway peaks in 2014 and has a maximum annual rate of decline of 3.4%. Its cumulative ( ) all-gas-emissions budget is 1,330 GtCO 2 e. The G8 pathway peaks in 2021 and has a maximum annual rate of decline of 4.4%. Its cumulative ( ) all-gas-emissions budget is 1,695 GtCO 2 e. To cast these numbers in the terms of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM), note that the SPM reported the remaining carbon budget the maximum amount of carbon that can still be emitted into the atmosphere as being between about 184 and 354 GtC, relative to the strictest of its new scenarios. In CO 2 e terms, this comes to between about 675 GtCO 2 e and 1,298 GtCOe, and it would give us a 66% probability of holding the warming below 2 C. If we are willing to drop the odds to 50%, we can expand our budget to a range of GtC which equates to 821-1,445 GtCO 2 e. If we are really feeling lucky and are willing to accept a 33% chance of holding the warming below 2 C, our budget increases to a range of GtC which equates to 968-1,591 GtCO 2 e. 13 As you can see, when we compare our marker pathways to the IPCC s numbers, we are out of time. Only our strictest (1.5 C) marker pathway gives us a better-than-even chance of holding the 2 C line, and the semi-official G8 marker pathway doesn t yield very good odds at all. At the current

9 7 rate of annual emissions we would only have between years before exceeding the remaining carbon budget. The total global effort will depend on the agreed level of ambition and any further delay will mean there will have to be more rapid subsequent reduction rates. The higher the reductions-emission aim, the lower the probability of overshooting 2 C, and the smaller the destruction and suffering that will have to be borne. Climate adaptation, finance and clean technology must be made available at the necessary scale to meet the global need associated with the agreed global temperature goal. Any given temperature goal implies a level of adaptation (and loss and damage) needed to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change. These needs will be greater as the temperature goal is set higher. In turn, the finance and technology at the necessary scale to meet these needs must also be shared fairly among countries. 2. Equitable access to sustainable development To safeguard the right to equitable access to sustainable development, while protecting the climate system from dangerous change, and in accordance with countries differentiated capacities, it is necessary to define a development threshold. That is, a level of development or welfare, and corresponding emissions, below which people are not expected to share the cost of the climate transition, so that they can prioritise their urgent sustainable development needs. A country s aggregate capacity is defined as the sum of all individual income, excluding income below a development threshold; the GDRs framework uses, typically, a development threshold of $7,500 per person per year. The income below the threshold is excluded from a country s capacity to tackle climate change. The key point is that a level of development needs to be agreed on so that poor people s struggles for a decent standard of living, even within the remaining constrained budget, are not compromised. The poor of the world, with little responsibility for the climate problem and limited capacity to confront it, have a right to a decent standard of living, which the rich countries, who have emitted the bulk of the emissions, have already achieved. 3. Responsibility All countries share a common responsibility to protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind. So they must undertake actions to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. This means that while all countries must reduce their emissions, the relative burden on each must reflect its historic responsibility for climate change. Differentiated responsibility is measured based on the extent to which a country has contributed to the climate crisis. In other words, industrialised countries who have hitherto enjoyed a free right to pollute, and have grown rich partly through that process, must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof. 14 In any fair climate agreement, a country s contribution to the climate problem has to be taken into account. A robust measure of climate responsibility is a country s cumulative emissions since an agreed responsibility start date (eg, since 1850, 1970 or 1990). There are differing views on the appropriate responsibility start date. Developed countries use 1990, when the UNFCCC was first drawn up, and developing countries use 1850 to reflect the total emissions from the start of the industrial revolution. Annex 1 presents a table from the GDRs calculator with a comparison of emissions for 1850 and In our view, the global emissions mitigation must be shared fairly among all countries based on the measures of responsibility, capability and sustainable development need. Each country s share will depend on the values chosen for each equity indicator. But what is important is that the future international regime must be sufficiently ambitious and fair to protect the poor s right to sustainable development. Fair shares based on different scenarios According to the responsibility start date of 1850, the industrialised countries, with 17.3% of the global population, are responsible for 71.5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, while the developing countries, with 82.7% of the world s population, emitted 28.5% of the world s total emissions. Changing the start date to 1990 reduces industrialised countries responsibility to 61.8% of the total emissions and increases the share of the developing countries to 38.2%. But the historical trajectory of industrialised, developed countries cannot be ignored.

10 8 However, while the industrialised countries are largely responsible for the historical emissions, the developing countries, particularly the large, middle-income ones, are increasingly becoming part of the climate problem. According to the 2012 figures, the developing countries are responsible for about 62% of total annual emissions (an amount that is growing), but they are also still home to billions suffering from poverty that has been exacerbated by the effects of climate change. 4. Capability (or ability to pay) The UNFCCC calls on all parties to protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Parties have vast differences in financial and technological capabilities and thus different capacities to deal with the costs of climate change. The comparative wealth of a country, by which we mean its national income over and above what is needed to provide basic living standards, is used as an indicator for capacity. This available income reflects the country s ability to pay for climate actions. A country s aggregate capacity is defined as its national income, adjusted for purchasing power parity, minus the income below the development threshold discussed earlier. The Annex 1 (industrialised) countries, with only 17.3% of the global population, have 58.9% of the global income. When the development threshold of $7,500 is applied, to exclude the proportion of their population below the development threshold from the costs of tackling climate change, this translates to 68.5% of the global capacity. Of this, the 27 countries in the European Union have 23.5% of the global capacity, of which 21.8% is held by the old EU15 countries. The US has 26.6% of the global capacity to pay for climate costs. The 54 African countries, with 16.6% of the global population, and the least developed countries, with 12.7% of the global population, have 1.2% and 0.1% of the global income respectively. South Africa alone is responsible for about 40% of Africa s capacity. Country/group Population % 2020 income (US$ MER dollars/cap) 2020 capacity (% of global GDP, US$ MER) US , EU , EU , EU , UK , China , India , South Africa 0.7 9, Brazil , Africa , LDCs , Annex , Non-Annex , World , Table 2. Key capacity figures Capacity to pay adjusted for basic needs (% of global)

11 9 The responsibility and capacity index A country s fair share of the effort to address climate change is defined by combining its responsibility and capacity, adjusted for basic needs at a 50:50 ratio, to generate a single final indicator of obligation the Responsibility Capacity Index (RCI). This is represented in the last column of Table 3. The example illustrated below makes this clear. It shows the percentage of the global effort to mitigate and contribute to the international response to climate change that each country should commit to if the global effort is to be fairly shared among all countries using the UNFCCC s core equity principles detailed above. According to this measurement, the current Annex 1 countries are responsible for two-thirds of global action. Country/group Population % Income Capacity to pay adjusted for basic needs (% of global) Responsibility from 1990 US , EU , EU , EU , UK , China , India , South Africa 0.7 9, Brazil , Africa , LDCs , Annex , Non-Annex , World , RCI obligations as a % of total global effort Table 3. Responsibility and capacity indexes The remaining carbon budget (global effort) In order to apply the equity indicators of responsibility, capability and the right to sustainable development to all the issues that come under the climate negotiations including the scale of mitigation and the associated finance, technology and adaptation required to live within the remaining carbon emissions budget the global carbon budget (and the related global effort) to limit warming to within safe levels must be defined. The concentration of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalence in the atmosphere has risen from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to above 400ppm on several occasions since May 2013 the highest level in many millennia. Scientists cite 350ppm as the safe upper limit if global warming is to be curbed. 15 The cumulative ( ) gas-emissions-budgets for the 1.5 C and 2 C marker pathways presented in Table 1 above are 560/850 and 950/1,270 GtCO 2 and GtCO 2 e respectively. As noted, numbers greater than this radically reduce the chances of holding the warming to below 2 C. The effort that would be needed to hold to these pathways would be great. It has been formally agreed to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2 C, while over 100 of the most vulnerable countries want a temperature goal of below 1.5 C. However, after only experiencing a rise of 0.8 C, the world is already seeing the severe effects of climate change. The latest IPCC Working Group 1 report predicts

12 10 that the problems will get even worse. That is bad news for the world s poorest people, who have already been affected by these climate changes. We need to move away from the respective politics at work behind the temperature goals of 1.5 C or 2 C and ask whether the 1.5 C pathway is technically and economically possible. Studies have shown that the sort of mitigation effort that would be associated with a 1.5 C target is achievable, but would demand an all-out global effort of the first order. Yet, the same can be said of the 2 C pathway, given that its peak rate of annual decline is 4.5%, which is extremely high by historical standards. Christian Aid supports those who call for warming to be limited to below 1.5 C and from the analysis above it s worth noting that the 1.5 C marker pathway is and must be our proper goal for negotiations. Sharing the means of implementation When allocating each country s fair share of the global effort, there are a number of climate responses that should be included. These are: domestic mitigation effort contribution to a global climate fund for mitigation and adaptation at the necessary scale payments for technological resources to enable mitigation and adaptation a mechanism to compensate inevitable losses and damages. Low-income countries should have a fair share of climate funding to allow them to develop in a low-carbon manner and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Actions required Why pledge and review will not be adequate lessons from Cancun Since COP 16 in Cancun in 2010, governments have acknowledged what they termed the gigatonne gap the difference between the emissions the world is on course to produce, despite the pledges made, and the level required to get on track for a 2 C pathway. However, the world is currently falling far short of the levels of the 2 C mitigation pathway, which demands emissions of between 8-13 GtCO 2 e. In Durban in 2011, the governments initiated a process to increase the pre-2020 mitigation requirement. But identifying the gigatonne gap is only half the battle. Rating each country s emissions reductions pledges against their fair share of the global effort needed to reach the 2 C objective shows that we are in fact facing an equity challenge. The collective emissions reductions pledges of all countries fall short of what science says is required. With the current pledges, by 2020 we will be emitting 8-13 GtCO 2 e of carbon more each year than we should be for the 2 C pathway. However, the real concern is that countries that are largely responsible for global warming and have the capacity to reduce it have made emissions reduction pledges that are far lower than their required fair shares of the global effort. This can be demonstrated by the graph opposite, 16 which shows: The total emissions reduction required globally by 2020 to stay below the 2 C pathway (first bar). The pledges for emissions reductions that were submitted to COP 16 in Cancun, and the gap (in black) of emissions that still need to be cut (second bar). The fair shares, using historic responsibility from This does not include a development threshold (third bar). Fair shares calculated from capacity to pay, using GDP only (fourth bar). Fair shares calculated using capacity to pay, but adjusted for development threshold (fifth bar). The analysis opposite shows that developed countries pledges are not only lower than their mitigation obligations, as projected for 2020, but they also amount to less than the total mitigation of developing countries. A Stockholm Environment Institute report issued in 2011 also found that developing countries mitigation pledges under the Cancun Agreements for the period up to 2020 amounted to more net mitigation in gigatonnes than developed countries pledges. 17 Christian Aid calls on all countries to commit to scaling up their emissions reductions to match their fair shares to meet the pre-2020 global mitigation requirement. We believe the best way to close the gigatonne gap is to share the required effort in an equitable manner.

13 11 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% United States EU 27 Japan Rest of Annex 1 Gap China India Rest of non-annex 1 30% 20% 10% 0% Total mitigation needed for 2 C Pledged reductions (and gap) Responsibility (historic emissions) Capacity (MER GDP) Capacity (GDP adjusted for basic needs) What the world needs Christian Aid calls on all parties to agree on a clear equity process, one that sets the world on a path towards a climate deal in 2015 that is both equitable and ambitious. It should include the following benchmarks: The UNFCCC and its parties must establish a common vision for climate equity, bridge the different government views and increase their understanding of the need for equitable sharing of the global effort required for the 2015 deal. In order to prevent dangerous climate change and limit global warming to within safe levels, the international community must agree to a scientifically defined limit on greenhouse gas emissions. This limit will set the total global effort to be undertaken by all countries. The total global mitigation effort must be shared fairly among all countries, based on the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC. Each country s contribution should be determined on the basis of the equity indicators of historical responsibility, capacity and sustainable development need. All countries must contribute their fair share of the total agreed effort to prevent dangerous climate change. No country should be asked to do more than their fair share and no country should be allowed to free ride off other countries efforts. The level of finance, technology and other associated support required by developing countries must be established. The obligation to provide these resources must be shared fairly and distributed in a way that is consistent with the UNFCCC s equity principles.

14 12 Annex 1 GDRs responsibility comparison between 1850 and 1990 This table looks at the effort required by key countries and groups to meet the 2020 emissions-reduction target. It reflects historical responsibility for both the 1850 and 1990 start dates, using a calculator developed by the Greenhouse Development Rights framework. Country/group Population (% of global) Obligation under 1850 start date (% of total) Obligation under 1990 start date (% of total) USA EU EU EU UK China India South Africa Brazil Africa LDCs Annex Non-Annex World

15 13 Endnotes 1. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, images/uploads/wgiar5-spm_approved27sep2013.pdf 2. UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report 2010, ebooks/emissionsgapreport/pdfs/gap_report_sunday_singles_ LOWRES.pdf 3. Author s calculations, based on the data from the Greenhouse Development Rights framework calculator 4. UNFCCC, pdf#page=2 5. UNFCCC, publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf 6. World Energy Outlook, Energy for All: financing access for the poor, energydevelopment/weo2011_energy_for_all.pdf 7. UNFCCC, Article 2, background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf 8. Ibid 9. UNFCCC, Article 3.4, background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf 10. UNFCCC, Article 3, background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf Stockholm Environment Institute (US), The Three Salient Global Mitigation Pathways, P Baer, T Athanasiou and S Kartha. org/gdrs-scorecard-calculator-information/mitig-path-overview/ 13. IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, images/uploads/wgiar5-spm_approved27sep2013.pdf 14. UNFCCC, Article 3.1, background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf 15. The Keeling Curve: A daily record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego ucsd.edu/ 16. Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environment Institute 17. Annex 1 pledges, accounting loopholes and implications for the global 2 C pathway.

16 Christian Aid is a Christian organisation that insists the world can and must be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty. We work globally for profound change that eradicates the causes of poverty, striving to achieve equality, dignity and freedom for all, regardless of faith or nationality. We are part of a wider movement for social justice. We provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need is great, tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root causes.