It would be unthinkable for developing countries to bestow 41% of their natural resources to developed countries.

But the unthinkable has indeed happened with the most precious natural resource. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change, non-Annex 1 parties (mostly developing countries) have given up 41% of their equitable share of the global atmospheric resource for the benefit of Annex 1 parties.

While every citizen of non-Annex parties will emit 2.8 tonnes of CO₂ per year in the period 2008-2012, Annex 1 parties will emit 9.7 tonnes per-capita per year. And every citizen of the United States of America (party to the Convention but not to the Kyoto Protocol) will emit 22.6 tonnes per year in the same period. The equitable emission right for said period is 4.8 tonnes per-capita per year.

And the unthinkable continues. During the Conferences of the Parties in Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010), many non-Annex 1 parties battled for the extension of the Kyoto Protocol to a second period (2013-2020). Said countries justify their decision on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” established in the Convention, which supposedly applies to the Kyoto Protocol also.

In practice however the Kyoto Protocol grants developed parties emission rights of 9.7 tonnes of CO₂ per-capita per year in the period 2008-2012. By contrast, developing parties will only emit 2.8 tonnes per-capita per year. These figures demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol applies the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in reverse, granting developed parties emission rights 3.5 times the emissions of developing parties. The equitable emission right for the period 2008-2012 is 4.8 tonnes of CO₂ per-capita per year.

The extension of the Kyoto Protocol to the period 2013-2020 would grant developed parties, United States of America included, emission rights of 10.7 tonnes of CO₂ per-capita per year, while developing parties would emit 3.3 tonnes only. Once again, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” would be applied in reverse, granting developed parties emission rights 3.2 times the emissions of developing parties. The equitable emission right for the period 2013-2020 is 4.7 tonnes of CO₂ per-capita per year.

The Kyoto Protocol (and its probable extension) violates not only the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. The Convention states that the parties should protect the climate system on the basis of equity. The Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are equal in rights.

An equitable climate treaty would be much simpler than the Kyoto Protocol and its intricate flexibility mechanisms, and much simpler as well than a new treaty based on the Kyoto Protocol’s architecture (e.g. Copenhagen Accord).

Under an equitable climate treaty the parties agree on an annual global emission target that is equitably distributed among all inhabitants on the planet. Each party receives absolute emission rights proportional to its population. Parties emitting more than their absolute emission right purchase unused emission rights directly from parties emitting less than their emission right.

An equitable climate treaty would be more effective than a regime based on the Kyoto Protocol’s architecture by avoiding inequity, which is the fundamental cause of the permanent burden-sharing impasse between developing and developed parties.

Any ad hoc climate financing, namely the global finance blueprint proposed by the European Commission and later partially adopted by developed parties in the Copenhagen Accord, would lose most of its ground under an equitable climate regime. Under such regime, trading of unused emissions would provide developing parties with a source of just and immediate financing of their own, substantially higher than the ad hoc financing offered by developed parties.

During the period 2013-2020, emission trading under an equitable climate regime would generate US$1.2 trillion (US$152 billion per year) at current CO₂ prices. The global finance blueprint would represent in the best case US$380 billion for the same period (US$47.5 billon per year).

The global finance blueprint also considers a fast-start finance of US$22.5-31.5 billion for the period 2010-2012 (US$10.5 billion per year in the best case). By comparison, carbon trading under an equitable regime would produce at least US$ 633 billion in the same period (211 billion per year).

Note: For the sake of simplicity, all emissions figures above correspond to CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion alone..

Data source

Mhai Selph, January 2011

© 2011 Mhai Selph  All rights reserved