Justice in climate cooperation: Restoring common but differentiated duties

In my last month’s column, I had focused on the rising threat of climate change and the serious shortfalls in the promise of commitments under the Paris Agreement of 2015.  I had argued for an acceleration of commitments, particularly by developed countries.  In this column, I try and elaborate on what the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30), to be held in Brazil this November, can do to secure agreement on the principles that should drive faster global cooperation and national action.

In my view, the most important principle that should be reasserted is the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). This was agreed in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was negotiated in the early 1990s and came into force after sufficient ratification in 1995. At that time, the differentiation of commitments was between Annex 1 countries, which were members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Economies in Transition (EIT) in Eastern and Central Europe and the rest of the countries, which were placed in the Non-Annex 1 category. At that time, these two were seen as developed and developing countries and the commitments of emission reduction negotiated in the Kyoto Protocol applied only to the Annex 1 countries. 

The group of Non-Annex I countries can no longer be fully identified with the developing states, as 20 Non-Annex I countries are now included in the World Bank’s list of high-income countries. However, the counter-argument to CBDR has focused more on the growth of emissions in China, which rose sharply from 2.9 tCO2 per capita in 1995 to 8.4 tCO2 per capita in 2023. This has led to the virtual elimination of the common but differentiated responsibility between developed and developing countries.

The public ranking of countries in climate change presentations is based on the volume of current emissions, ignoring the difference in cumulative emissions, which is the true basis for determining responsibility.  But countries differ greatly in size and the number of people who are citizens. That is why the evaluation of impact on global climate change must compare the per capita emissions of each country, not the total amount. To ask India to accelerate its emission rates because its CO2 emission in 2023 was about 8 per cent of global emissions ignores the fact that its per capita emissions were less than half the global average. Total annual emissions are the basis of concerns raised, not just by European governments but also by several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the West. This is wrong. Any meaningful assessment of the strength of emission reduction for each country should be based on per capita emissions, not total emissions. 

 

The table presents the country-wise distribution of per capita CO2 emissions in 2023. This data shows that the developed Annex I countries have moved downwards in their per capita emissions, while the mostly developing Non-Annex I countries have moved upwards. But the substantial difference between the two groups continues. In 2023, 100 Non-Annex I countries had per capita emissions below 3 tonnes of CO2, while none of the Annex I countries fell in this category. Also, countries with 41 per cent of the Annex I population recorded per capita emissions above 10 tonnes of CO2, compared with only 2 per cent of the population in Non-Annex I countries. 

The case for CBDR still exists. It cannot focus just on the original difference of demands on Annex I and Non-Annex I countries, because the latter group now includes 20 countries that are in the World Bank’s high-income group. The differentiation should be based on differences between countries in per capita emissions. The case for this focus on per capita emissions rests on the strategy needed to limit future emissions so as to keep the rise in average global temperature down to 1.5–2.0°C.

The IPCC in its sixth assessment report in 2021, gave an estimate of the volume of CO2 emissions from 2020 to 2050 that would be consistent with the targets for limiting temperature change. Dividing this by the sum of the population in each year, the required average emissions over the years from 2020 to 2050 work out to 1.1tCO2/per capita for the 1.5°C target and 3.3tCO2/per capita for the 2°C target.  On this basis, one can set the annual emissions target of all states at an average of 3tCO2/per capita over the years up to each country’s announced net-zero target year. This will not be sufficient for the 1.5°C target, which at the moment looks unrealisable. However, if the global per capita average till 2050 is accepted and effectively implemented immediately, then there is a possibility of reviving the 1.5°C target and progressively lowering the agreed global per capita target. 

The nationally determined contributions (NDCs) required by the Paris Agreement should include a plan for reaching the stated net-zero target year with measures that will lead to an average emission over the decades that amounts to 3tCO2/per capita. One reason for emphasising this is that few countries have specified their time path to the net-zero target. 

The United States at present is not supportive of global cooperation on climate change and has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. In view of this, the agreement on the goals should be pursued as part of the commitment to implementing the Paris Agreement, which would shield the negotiations from interference by the US. In summary, the goals should be:

 

• The principle of CBDR should be strongly affirmed to assert the greater immediate responsibility for climate mitigation action by countries with high emission rates. 

• The distinction between the two groups, analogous to the earlier distinction between Annex I and Non-Annex I countries, should be based on annual per capita emissions. 
• The standard for the division of countries into two groups should be 3 tonnes of CO2 per capita per year. 
• All countries must formulate a target year for reaching net-zero emissions and specify a time-profile policy structure that aims for an average annual per capita emission of 3tCO2 in the years leading up to the net-zero target. 

My hope is that India, with a current per capita CO2 emission of 2.1 tonnes, and Brazil, with 2.3 tonnes, will join hands to push this agenda.

 

desaind@iclouid.com