Anyone who’s following the “how the hell are we going to pay the costs of an emergency global climate transition in a reasonably fair way” debate should take a few minutes to read a short paper that Bert Metz just wrote under the title Making a Pledge and Review System Work: National Green Growth Plans, Policies, and a Different Approach to Equity.
This paper was written for a recent workshop, organized by the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi and held there just after the Warsaw climate conference. The workshop had the rather enigmatic title of Building the Hinge: Reinforcing National and Global Climate Governance Mechanisms, and it covered quite a lot of ground. A summary of the proceedings is here. Our focus is primarily on “Theme 4: Equity,” though the summary is very brief and, if you want the meat, it’s best to go back to Metz’s paper.
Metz posits an equity debate that is defined by the “Equity Reference Framework” approach on the one side and “Cost sharing” on the other. As long time supporters of the equity reference approach who are extremely concerned with cost sharing, we consider this to be a false dichotomy. In fact, we believe that the core of the climate equity challenge is, almost by definition, to contrive an approach that, while guided by an shared and constantly improving equity reference framework, nonetheless takes the uneven distribution of “mitigation potential,” and thus cost sharing, into proper account.