National Fair Shares is our major new report — download it here. Here’s a description, from the abstract:
In this report, we systematically apply a generalized and transparent equity reference framework (see Appendix 2), with the goal of quantitatively examining the problem of national fair shares in a global effort to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This framework is based upon an effort-sharing approach, uses flexibly-defined national “responsibility and capacity indicators,” and is explicitly designed to reflect the UNFCCC’s core equity principles. It can be applied using a range of possible assumptions, and whatever values are chosen, they are applied to all countries, in a dynamic fashion that reflects the changing global economy.
In this report, we present results for twelve representative countries and a selected set of illustrative “cases.” Each case begins with the selection of a reference mitigation pathway; this choice corresponds to a certain level of ambition and level of risk of exceeding 2°C. The mitigation pathway also implies an annual global mitigation effort, which drives society to diverge rapidly from business-as-usual emissions growth. Each country’s share of global responsibility and capacity determines its fair share of the global mitigation effort.
The quantitative analysis in this report is based upon the Climate Equity Reference Calculator, an online tool and database that allows the user to select “equity settings” relating to key equity-related parameters, including responsibility, capacity, and development need. These settings are then used, together with standard demographic and macroeconomic indicators (e.g., national population, GDP and carbon-intensity) to calculate implied national fair shares of the global mitigation effort. Importantly, this fair share is expressed as a sum of domestically- and internationally-supported mitigation.
We provide illustrative results for various alternative levels of ambition, for various equity settings, and for various estimates of national emissions reductions. We also show that the differences between the cases are much less significant than the similarities, and that a great deal of the detail can therefore be set aside in favor of an “equity band” that is bound by “High Equity Settings” on one side and “Low Equity Settings” on the other. We have defined this equity band to span a wide range of perspectives on fairness, but of course more work remains to be done on this front. In particular, as we explain below, it is easier to argue that the “Low Equity Settings” are “too low” than it is that the “High Equity Settings” are “too high.”