Benito Müller

Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change

Following the conclusion of the official work of the Ad Hoc Group for the Modelling and Assessment of Contributions to Climate Change (MATCH), this article considers the politically more sensitive aspect of the Brazilian proposal, namely the issue of differentiating (historic) responsibility for, and not merely (causal) contribution to climate change. Its aim is (1) to highlight the fact that, while related, the two issues (‘contribution to’ and ‘responsibility for’) are fundamentally different and should not be confused, and (2) to propose a methodology for calculating shares of responsibility as opposed to the shares in causal contribution arrived at through the MATCH results. Two conceptions of responsibility (‘strict’ or ‘limited’) are applied in order to operationalize the notion of ‘respective capabilities’ given in Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC. The key message resulting from the calculations is that causal contribution—while an important indicator of (environmental) relevance to the problem—must not be confused with the moral responsibility for it. The rather large difference between the responsibilities at the two extremes of the scale under both conceptions gives pause for thought as to what sorts of burdens can justly be demanded in any application of the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, whether in the context of the Brazilian proposal or beyond.

International Air Travel and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Proposal for an Adaptation Levy

Greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation services have been increasing rapidly and are likely to continue to do so in the absence of major policy changes. At the same time, while all countries will experience impacts from climate change, developing countries are the most vulnerable. Significant financial assistance for adaptation is therefore needed for developing countries, but current proposals are inadequate. Solutions to the challenges of both aviation greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation finance are thus urgently required. This paper proposes an international air travel adaptation levy that addresses both problems.

Price-related sensitivities of greenhouse gas intensity targets

Abstract Greenhouse gas intensities are an appealing tool to foster abatement without imposing constraints on economic growth. This paper shows, however, that the computation of intensities is subject to some significant statistical and conceptual problems which relate to the inflation proofing of GDP growth. It is shown that the choice of price-index, the updating of quantity weights and the choice of base year prices can have a significant impact upon the commitment of intensity targets.

The case for Japanese–Russian joint implementation in implementing the Kyoto Protocol☆

The Kyoto Protocol in Japanese policy making must be seen as an instrument in strategic energy planning. A greater focus in Japanese implementation policy on joint implementation within the Russian energy sector (and less emphasis on domestic sinks) is argued to be at least cost neutral, if not outright profitable. More importantly, it would have the capacity to deliver entry into force of the Protocol, and with it a key component in strategic Japanese energy policy: the flexible additional supply required for the successful liberalisation of the Japanese natural gas market.

Quo vadis, Kyoto? Pitfalls and opportunities

“If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be banished, and if the well-being of the worlds people enhanced – not just in this generation but in succeeding generations – we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends. ... And we now have sufficient evidence that human-made climate change is the most far-reaching – and almost certainly the most threatening – of all the environmental challenges facing us. ... And it is the poorest members of the community – those most dependent on the natural world for their survival, and those with the fewest resources to buy their way out of unhealthy environments – that suffer the most. ... Climate change is an issue of justice as much of economic development. It is a problem caused by the industrialised countries, whose effects will disproportionately fall on developing countries.”