Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Climate Change Mitigation pp 7–42Cite as

The Ultimate Objective of Climate Response Strategies, and a Desirable and Feasible International Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1544 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Energy ((LNEN,volume 4))

Abstract

In this chapter, the author examines the appropriateness and feasibility of the so-called 2 degree target as the ultimate objective of climate response strategies under Article 2 of the UNFCCC. Thereafter, a desirable and feasible international framework is discussed. First, the author presents a brief history and various interpretations of the Article 2 of the UNFCCC, and then examines the target from a purely climate change viewpoint (vertical balance), followed by another viewpoint of efficient allocation of scarce resources (horizontal balance). Based on the above analysis, the author tries to work out a desirable and feasible Post-Kyoto international framework. The author finds the top-down approach typically embodied in the Kyoto Protocol has failed. Finally, the author concludes global leaders should revisit the target, as the 2 degree target has no solid foundation and is not feasible. And, as for the international framework, the author argues for pursuing a bottom-up approach (pledge and review) that came out at the end of Copenhagen negotiation process. The author further argues all efforts, such as contribution in the field of adaptation, technology development and diffusion, and financing, should be integrated with mitigation efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The author was one of the lead authors of this chapter.

  2. 2.

    Yamin et al. (2006), recognizing it is almost impossible to define the dangerous level relying on just one event, proposed an alternative approach, i.e., using the word “tolerable” instead of “dangerous.”

  3. 3.

    Climate sensitivity was estimated to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C when the paper was written.

  4. 4.

    The purpose of geo-engineering is “to limit climate change by altering the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth. … The most prominent option involves throwing particles (sulfates or particles engineered specifically for this purpose) into the stratosphere” (Barrett 2010).

  5. 5.

    Nordhaus’s most recent study will be discussed later in relation to the Stern Review.

  6. 6.

    Top-down approach in this chapter means an approach to pursue legally binding international framework based on the ultimate target (e.g., the 2 degree target). Under the approach, total emissions necessary to achieve the target has been set at first, then, the emissions will be allocated to all participating countries (numerical targets). Though not all the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol assume numerical targets, the Protocol itself is the product of such approach.

  7. 7.

    The exact wording is as follows; We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reportwith a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity (emphasis added).

  8. 8.

    Please refer to Chap. 11.

  9. 9.

    There is no such explanation about the figure. But there is a clear description on this point about a similar figure found on page 16 of IPCC (2007b).

  10. 10.

    Strictly speaking, this index includes any change that is nothing to do with technology. One such example is a change in life style. After the nuclear accident in Japan, the lifestyle has changed toward energy saving. But to make the story simple, the author calls this figure technology improvement ratio.

  11. 11.

    The methodology of the RITE estimate is as follows; based on past per capita GDP and its growth rate obtained by the UN World Development Indicator, RITE estimated each country’s annual per capita GDP up to 2050. Then, based on the estimated per capita GDP and population projection by the UN2008 medium estimate (UN World Population Prospects 2008), RITE estimated GDP up to 2050. Next, those figures were added up to obtain annual world GDP. Finally, using these figures, the average annual GDP growth ratio was calculated. The outcome is very similar to those of IEA and US DOE/EIA forecasts. Refer to http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/sysken/research/alps/baselinescenario/RITEALPS_ScenarioA_POPGDP_20110405.xls.

  12. 12.

    Note that 11 studies had been conducted when climate sensitivity had been considered as 1.5–4.5 °C.

  13. 13.

    Pizer (2007, p. 290) challenged environmental advocates on why economic mitigation benefits have not been used to justify action. Stern (2006) was one of the few who tried to do this.

  14. 14.

    A 3% PRTR has continuously been criticized by “green” economists as too high. In order to keep consistency with real return of capital observed in the market, Nordhaus set the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption as 2, and made the real return on capital (discount rate) 5.5% for the first 50 years.

  15. 15.

    As explained previously, the optimal policy assumes participation by all countries. This is quite unlikely. If participants are limited to major economies such as OECD countries, China and India that cover around 75% global emissions, the cost will be 68% higher (Nordhaus 2008, p. 122). Even this case will not be realistic in the near future. This suggests that if major economies agree to the 2 degree target and take necessary policies and measures, the cost would be enormously high.

  16. 16.

    There are six SRES scenarios. Among them, the A2 scenario is explained as a scenario describing a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self-reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in a continuously increasing global population. Economic development is primarily region-oriented, and per capita economic growth and technological change are more fragmented and slower than in other storylines (IPCC 2000, p. 5).

  17. 17.

    The high climate scenario includes estimates of a weakening of natural carbon absorption, and increased natural methane releases from, for example, thawing permafrost (Stern 2006, p. 175).

  18. 18.

    The reason that a 14.4% (discounted present value) loss now and forever is bigger than a damage of 13.8% in 2200 is that the damage after 2201 has been integrated, and the total amount has been discounted with a very low discount rate to the present value.

  19. 19.

    When the Review became first available through the Stern Review Web site, there was an Executive Summary. In the page 15 of the Summary, there were the following sentences: “Stabilization at 450 ppm CO2-eq is already almost out of reach, given that we are likely to reach this level within 10 years and that there are real difficulties of making the sharp reductions required with current and foreseeable technologies.” Instead there are following sentences in the printed version, i.e., “It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilize at 450 ppm CO2-eq. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilize at 500–550 ppm CO2-eq may slip away.”

  20. 20.

    http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml.

  21. 21.

    For the sake of fairness, the author would like to introduce the lecture of Dr. James Hansen. Hansen, also a winner of the same prize emphasized, “for policy purposes all we need to know for the foreseeable future is that the CO2 target must be <350 ppm, if we wish to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed”. http://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/doc/list/2010lect-hansen.pdf.

  22. 22.

    Victor (2007) summarizes the key elements of the Kyoto Protocol as follows: universal participation, binding targets and timetables for GHG emissions, integrated international emission trading, and compensation to encourage participation by developing countries. He continues to argue that these four elements are the bedrock of the Kyoto system.

  23. 23.

    Schmalensee (2010) has the same idea. He writes that “[t]he task of developing and enacting the necessary legislation is likely to be sufficiently intellectually and politically complex that it will necessarily be ‘unilateral’—i.e., only loosely coupled to the international negotiation process” (p. 896).

  24. 24.

    Schmalensee also tends to return to what used to be called the “pledge and review” approach (Schmalensee 2010, p. 897). Pizer also writes “it suggests that rather than a centrally planned global solution of one flavor or another, we are likely to see a suite of domestic (or sub-domestic) responses that are gradually prodded and caroused into rough harmonization. And that is what we do see” (Pizer 2007, p. 284).

  25. 25.

    One recent notable exception can be seen in the international maritime transport sector (refer to Sect. 7.1.4 of Chap. 7).

  26. 26.

    As to the detailed description of technology diffusion and development, refer to Chap. 9.

  27. 27.

    In this regard, it is important to pay careful attention to the protection of Intellectual Property Right (IPR).

References

  • Agrawala S (1998) Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Clim Change 39:605–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azar C (1998) Are optimal CO2 emissions really optimal? Four critical issues for economists in the greenhouse. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):301–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azar C, Lindgren K (2003) Catastrophe events and stochastic cost-benefit analysis of climate change, an editorial comment. Clim Change 56:245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2010) A portfolio system of climate treaties. In: Aldy JE, Tavins RN (eds) Post-Kyoto international climate policy – Implementing architectures for agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 240–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianco NM, Litz FT (2010) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States using existing federal authorities and state action. WRI, Washington, DC. http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-ghg-emissions-using-existing-federal-authorities-and-state-action

  • Burtraw D, Fraas AG, Richardson N (2011) Greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act: a guide for economists. Resources For the Future discussion paper, February 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose R, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:564–581

    Google Scholar 

  • den Elzen MGJ, Hof AF, Roelfsema M (2011) The emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the 2 °C climate goal: options for closing and risks that could widen the gap. Glob Environ Change 21(2):733–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht AD, Tirpak D (1995) Framework agreement on climate change: a scientific and policy history. Clim Change 29:371–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011. OECD/IEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (1991) Climate change: the IPCC response strategies. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. In: Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) A special report of Working Group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: MaCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007c) Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jager J, Ferguson HL (eds) (1991) Climate change: science, impacts and policy. In: Proceedings of the second world climate conference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller K, Hall M, Kim S, Bradford DF, Oppenheimer M (2005) Avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Clim Change 73(3):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg B (ed) (2004) Global crisis, global solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomborg B (ed) (2008) Copenhagen consensus 2008. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Home.aspx

  • Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of “dangerous” climate change. Science 304:571–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meinshausen M (2006) What does a 2 °C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimate. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–279

    Google Scholar 

  • METI (2004) Sustainable future framework on climate change – Interim report by special committee on a future framework for addressing climate change. Global Environmental Sub-Committee, Industrial Structure Council, Japan. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/downloadfiles/gClimateChange0307e.pdf

  • Murase S (2011) International law – an integrative perspective of transboundary issues. Sophia University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258:1315–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance, weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world – economic models of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2002) Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto Protocol. Science 296:1971–1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer M (2005) Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: the role of science, the limits of science. Risk Anal 25(6):1399–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer M, Petsonk A (2005) Article 2 of the UNFCCC: historical origins, recent interpretations. Clim Change 73:195–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry M, Arnell N, McMichael T, Nicholls R, Martens P, Kovats S et al (2001) Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets. Glob Environ Change 11(3):181–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizer WA (2007) Practical global policy. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) Architectures for agreement – addressing global climate change in the Post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 280–314

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • RITE (2011) ALternative Pathways toward Sustainable development and climate stabilization (ALPS), Project Outline. http://www.rite.or.jp/English/lab/syslab/research/alps/outline-alps/E-ALPS_outline.pdf.. For GDP and population forecast, refer to http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/sysken/research/alps/baselinescenario/RITEALPS_ScenarioA_POPGDP_20110405.xls

  • Rogelj J, Hare W, Lowe J, van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Matthews B et al (2011) Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nat Clim Change 1:413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs JD (2004) Seeking a global solution, The Copenhagen Consensus neglects the need to tackle climate change. Nature 430:725–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee R (2010) Epilogue. In: Post-Kyoto international climate policy – implementing architectures for agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 889–898

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SH (1993) Pondering greenhouse policy. Science 259:1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toronto Conference Statement (1988) The changing atmosphere: implications for global security conference statement. In Selected international legal materials on global warming and climate change. Am Univ Int Law Rev 5(2):515–524, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers L (2007) Foreword. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) Architectures for agreement – addressing global climate change in the Post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp xviii–xxvii

    Google Scholar 

  • The Noordwijk Declaration on Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change (1990) Selected international legal materials on global warming and climate change. Am Univ Int Law Rev 5(2):592–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ (2007) Europe’s long-term climate target: a critical evaluation. Energy Policy 35:424–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ, Yohe GW (2006a) Of dangerous climate change and dangerous emission reduction. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley T, Yohe G (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 291–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ, Yohe GW (2006b) A review of the Stern review. World Econ 7(4):233–250. http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/tol/RM551.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2010) The emissions gap report. Are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C?. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • US CEQ, DOS (1980) The global 2000 report to the President, Entering the twenty-first century, vol 2. A report Prepared by Council of Environmental Quality and Department of State, USA. Council of Environmental Quality and Department of State, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USCIA (1975) Potential implications of trends in world population, food production, and climate. United States Central Intelligent Agency, Office of Political Research, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MGJ, Kram T, van Vliet J, Deetman S et al (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 °C. Clim Change 109:95–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor GD (2007) Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: implications for the design of effective architectures. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) Architectures for agreement – addressing global climate change in the Post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–160

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Victor GD (2011) Global warming gridlock, creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson R (2010) Ozone depletion, climate change and loss of biodiversity: implications for food, water and human security. 2010 Blue Planet Prize Commemorative Lecture, October 27, 2010, Tokyo. http://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/doc/list/2010lect-watson.pdf

  • Webster M, Sokolov AP, Reilly JM, Forest CE, Paltsev S, Schlosser A, et al (2009) Analysis of climate policy targets under uncertainty. MIT Joint Program of the Science and Policy of Global Change Report No. 180. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt180.pdf

  • Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • WMO (1986) Report of the international conference on the assessment of the role of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse gases in climate variations and associated impacts, Villach, Austria, 9–15 Oct 1985 (WMO 661)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi M, Sekine T (2006) A proposal for the Post-Kyoto framework. Keio Econ Stud 43(1):85–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamin F, Smith JB, Burton I (2006) Perspectives on “dangerous anthropogenic interference”; or how to operationalize Article 2 of the UN framework convention on climate change. In: Schellnhuber HJ (ed) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–91

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan

    Mitsutsune Yamaguchi

Authors
  1. Mitsutsune Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitsutsune Yamaguchi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tokyo, Meguro-ku 4-6-1, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan

    Mitsutsune Yamaguchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yamaguchi, M. (2012). The Ultimate Objective of Climate Response Strategies, and a Desirable and Feasible International Framework. In: Yamaguchi, M. (eds) Climate Change Mitigation. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 4. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4228-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4228-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4227-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4228-7

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation