International equity and justice in the politics of climate change

Résumé du document

A paradox surrounds the concern on equity in the debates and politics on climate change. In this field of research, Adam Rose appears to be the pioneer, opening in 1992 with the publication of Equity Considerations of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements, a wealth and luxuriant wave of complex publications by other scholars. Yet, on the other hand, the dispositions in the international treaties taking into account this concern remain largely invocatory, without any substantial and concrete implementation. Since 1992, the UNFCCC contains, in the first paragraph of article 3, such an invocatory disposition claiming that 'the Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.' However, the concrete translation of this principle of equity seems to be very simplistic, Article 3 continues as follows, 'Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effect thereof.' Even then, at the first Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, and at the negotiations to the Kyoto protocol, the developing countries still rejected binding commitments to reduce their GHG emissions.

Extraits

[...] Carraro, Carlo, Efficiency and Equity of Climate change policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers p Kverndokk, Snorre, Tradeable CO2 Emission Permits: Initial Distribution as a Justice Problem, Environmental Values p.129-148. See for example: Rose Adam, Equity Considerations of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements, in UNCTAD, Combatting Global Warming: Study on a Global System of tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements, 1992; Barett, Scott, “Acceptable” allocations of Tradeable Carbon emission entitlements in a Global Warming Treaty, in UNCTAD, Combatting Global Warming: Study on a Global System of tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements p.85-113; Grubb Michael et al., Sharing the Burden, in Confronting Climate change: Risks, Implications and Responses, Cambridge University Press, p. [...]

[...] Indeed, two relevant characteristics of the current situation can be raised here: the differences in the ability to bear the costs of mitigating GHG emissions, and the vulnerability to climate change. As regards the ability to bear the mitigation efforts, it is obvious that developing countries have a limited capacity to mitigate their emissions and cope with climate variability, because they have no coherent net of infrastructures, not enough resources, and often no efficient state-bureaucracy to organize mitigation and make their efforts coherent. [...]

[...] In this field, the EU seems to be at the avant-garde[3]. Indeed, the integration of environment into EU development cooperation is an obligation under Article 6 of the EC Treaty as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty. On 11 March 2003, the European Commission adopted a Communication on Climate Change in the Context of Development Cooperation, whose objective is to support EU partner countries in the implementation of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. This strategy was then endorsed by the EU Council of Ministers on 5 December 2003. [...]

[...] Indeed, there are two complementary means to reach equity in the climate regime. On the one hand, countries could define some cooperation mechanisms between the developed and the developing countries Yet, as this means remains currently inefficient, equity remains embryonic in the climate regime. On the other hand, countries should define a priori a common principle of justice to allocate the burdens of mitigation Yet, an agreement on this principle is very difficult to be reached among the parties, which further explains the lack of considerations for equity in the treaties. [...]

[...] What's more, the participation of the developing countries is also necessary for the developed countries to reach their highest mitigation capacity. Indeed, so long the developing countries don't commit themselves to reductions of their GHG emissions, developed countries won't agree to cut more in their own emissions. This point is particularly true for the USA, in the case of the Byrd–Hagel resolution, passed by the U.S. Senate prior to COP-3. This resolution opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol until developing countries committed themselves to binding emission limits. [...]