This notable paper, written by Aaditya Mattoo and Arvind Subramanian of the World Bank’s Development Research Group,is notable not only for its providence but for its argument, which is admirably clear. The abstract does a good job, so here it is:
“This paper presents an analytical framework to encompass contributions to the literature on equity in climate change, and highlights the consequences—in terms of future emissions allocations—of different approaches to equity. Progressive cuts relative to historic levels—for example, 80 percent by industrial countries and 20 percent by developing countries—in effect accord primacy to adjustment costs and favor large current emitters such as the United States, Canada, Australia, oil exporters, and China. In contrast, principles of equal per capita emissions, historic responsibility, and ability to pay favor some large and poor developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, but hurt industrial countries as well as many other developing countries. The principle of preserving future development opportunities has the appeal that it does not constrain developing countries in the future by a problem that they did not largely cause in the past, but it shifts the burden of meeting climate change goals entirely to industrial countries. Given the strong conflicts of interest in defining equity in emission allocations, it may be desirable to shift the emphasis of international cooperation toward generating a low-carbon technology revolution. Equity considerations would then play a role not in allocating a shrinking emissions pie but in informing the relative contributions of countries to generating such a pie-enlarging revolution.”
This is, of course, very closely related to the GDRs approach, which is also focused on development rights and relative contributions to “a pie-enlarging revolution.”
We don’t, of course, know what limits such a pie-enlarging revolution would encounter. What we do know, or should, is that unless we try for one, we’re not going to maximize the rate of global decarbonization. We also know, after this paper, that even World Bank and IMF economists can think boldly. Particularly notable in this regard is the author’s argument that, contrary to the usual mix-and-match approach to climate equity, in which it’s assumed that the partisans of different approaches will never agree, there may well a right solution to the climate problem, and it may well be a singular focus on “preserving future development opportunities.”
