Comparing the Copenhagen emissions targets
Following the Copenhagen climate Accord, developed and developing countries have pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, emissions intensity or emissions relative to baseline. This analysis puts the targets for the major countries on a common footing, and compares them across different metrics. Targeted changes in absolute emissions differ markedly between countries, with continued strong increases in some developing countries but significant decreases in others including Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa, provided reasonable baseline projections are used. Differences are smaller when emissions are expressed in per capita terms. Reductions in emissions intensity of economies implicit in the targets are remarkably similar across developed and developing countries, with China's emissions intensity target spanning almost the same range as the implicit intensity reductions in the United States, EU, Japan, Australia and Canada. Targeted deviations from business-as-usual are also remarkably similar across countries, and the majority of total global reductions relative to baselines may originate from China and other developing countries. The findings suggest that targets for most major countries are broadly compatible in important metrics, and that while the overall global ambition falls short of a two degree trajectory, the targets by key developing countries including China can be considered commensurate in the context of what developed countries have pledged.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 2601|
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Web page: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2006. "Optimal Intensity Targets for Greenhouse Emissions Trading Under Uncertainty," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0605, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
- Warwick J. McKibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2010.
"Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord,"
CAMA Working Papers
2010-24, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Warwick J. Mckibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2011. "Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis Of The Copenhagen Accord," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 79-103.
- Stern, David I. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010.
"How ambitious are China and India's emissions intensity targets?,"
Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6776-6783, November.
- David I. Stern & Frank Jotzo, 2009. "How Ambitious are China and India's Emissions Intensity Targets?," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1051, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Stern, David I. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "How Ambitious are China and India’s Emissions Intensity Targets?," Research Reports 94947, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
- Peterson, Everett B. & Schleich, Joachim & Duscha, Vicki, 2011. "Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3697-3708, June.
- Ross Garnaut & Stephen Howes & Frank Jotzo & Peter Sheehan, 2008. "Emissions in the Platinum Age: the implications of rapid development for climate-change mitigation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 377-401, Summer.
- Fisher-Vanden, Karen & Jefferson, Gary H. & Liu, Hongmei & Tao, Quan, 2004. "What is driving China's decline in energy intensity?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 77-97, March.
- Lange, Andreas & Löschel, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2010.
"On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 359-375, April.
- Andreas Lange & Andreas Löschel & Carsten Vogt & Andreas Ziegler, 2009. "On the Self-interested Use of Equity in International Climate Negotiations," NBER Working Papers 14930, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Vazhayil, Joy P. & Balasubramanian, R., 2010. "Copenhagen commitments and implications: A comparative analysis of India and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7442-7450, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:107577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.