Viable responses to the equity-responsibility dilemma: A consequentialist view

Climate Policy

Volumn 3, Issue SUPPL 1, 2003, Pages

  Ghersi, Frédéric ^a   Hourcade, Jean Charles ^a   Criqui, Patrick ^b  

^a Centre International de Recherche sur lEnvironnement et le Developpement   (France)

^b LEPII   (France)

Author keywords

Development; Efficiency; Equity; GHG quota allocation

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ECONOMIC INSTRUMENT; EMISSION CONTROL; EQUITY; GREENHOUSE GAS; KYOTO PROTOCOL; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 0346965367     PISSN: 14693062     EISSN: 17527457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.011     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Agarwal, A., Narain, S., 1991. Global Warming in an Unequal World, a Case of Environmental Colonialism. Center for Science and Environment, Delhi.
2. Baer, P., Harte, J., Haya, B., Herzog, A. V., Holdren, J., Hultman, N. E., Kammen, D. M., Norgaard, R. B., & Raymond, L. (2000). Climate change: equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science, 2287 289.
3. Blanchard O., Criqui, P., Kitous, A., Viguier, L., 2003. Combining efficiency with equity: a pragmatic approach. In: Kaul, I., Conceiçäo, P., Le Goulven, K., Mendoza, R.U. (Eds.), Providing Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Office of Development Studies, United Nations Development Program, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Chichilnisky G., Heal G., Starett, D. (Eds.), 2000. Environmental Markets. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 280.
5. Den Elzen, M., Berk, M., Schaeffer, M., Olivier, J., Hendriks, C., Metz, B., 1999. The Brazilian proposal and other options for international burden sharing : an evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the fair model. RIVM Report no. 728001011.
6. Ghersi, F., & Hourcade, J. C. (2002). The economics of a lost deal: Kyoto - The Hague - Marrakesh. Energy J., 23(3), 1-26.
7. Godard, O., 2000. Sur l'éthique, l'environnement et l'économie: la justification en question. Cahier du Laboratoire d'Econométrie de l'Ecole Polytechnique no. 513, Paris.
8. Groenenberg, H., Phylipsen, D., & Blok, K. (2000). Differentiating commitments world wide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach-a preliminary assessment. Energy Policy, 29(12), 1007-1030.
9. Grubb, M., 1998. Emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: core issues in implementation. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, vol. 7, no. 2. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford (August).
10. Hourcade, J.C., 1994. Economic issues and negotiation on global environment: some lessons from the recent experience on greenhouse effect. In: Carraro, C. (Ed.), Trade, Innovation, Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 385-405.
11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Third Assessment Report of Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 752.
12. Jacoby, H.D., Schmalensee, R., Wing, I.S., 1999. Toward a useful architecture for climate change negotiations. Report no. 49. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
13. Jansen, J.C., Battjes, J.J., Sijm, J.P.M., Volkers, C.H., Ybema, J.R., 2001. The multi-sector convergence approach, a flexible framework for negotiating global rules for national greenhouse gas emissions mitigation targets. CICERO Working Paper 2001:4, ECN-C-01-007.
14. Manne A., Richels, R., 1997. The greenhouse debate: economic efficiency, burden sharing and hedging strategies. In: Flannery, B.P., Kohlhase, K.R., LeVine, D.G. (Eds.) IPIECA Symposium on Critical Issues in the Economics of Climate Change, IPIECA, London, pp. 81-106.
15. Mathy, S., Hourcade, J. C., & De Gouvello, C. (2001). Clean development mechanism: leverage for development?. Climate Policy, 1 251-268.
16. McKibbin W., Shackleton R., Wilcoxen, P., 1998. The potential effects of international carbon emissions permit trading under the Kyoto Protocol. In: Economic Modelling of Climate Change, OECD Workshop Report, OECD, Paris, pp. 49-80 (Conference proceedings).
17. Meyer A., 2000. Contraction and convergence, a global framework to cope with climate change. Schumacher Briefing No. 5, Green Books, p. 96.
18. Müller B., 2002. Equity in Global Climate Change: The Great Divide. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
19. Müller B., 2001. Varieties of Distributive Justice in Climate Change. Climatic Change 48 (2-3).
20. Philibert, C., Pershing, J., 2002. Beyond Kyoto - Energy Dynamics and Climate Stabilisation. OCDE/AIE, Paris, p. 164.
21. Phylipsen, G. J. M., Bode, J. W., & Blok, K. (1998). A triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation GHG emissions in the European bubble. Energy Policy, 26(12), 929-943.
22. Reiner, D.M., Jacoby, H.D., 1997. Annex I differentiation proposals: implications for welfare, equity and policy, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT, Report no 27.
23. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., & Holtsmark, B. (1998). Can multi- criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens - OECD results from three burden sharing rules. Energy Policy, 26(10), 777-793.
24. UNFCCC, 1996. Implementation of the Berlin Mandate. Comments by Parties. Notes by the Secretariat, document AGBM/1996/Misc.1/.
25. UNFCCC, 1997a, Implementation of the Berlin Mandate. Comments by Parties. Notes by the Secretariat, document AGBM/1997/Misc.1/.
26. UNFCCC, 1997b, Implementation of the Berlin Mandate. Comments by Parties. Notes by the Secretariat. Addendum, document AGBM/1997/ Misc.1/Add.3
27. UNFCCC, 1998. Preparatory work for the fourth session of the Conference of the Parties on the items listed in decision 1/CP.3, paragraph 5, Indonesia (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), document SB/1998/MISC.1/Add.3/Rev.1 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/ 1998/sb/misc01a3r1.pdf