Post Kyoto Protocol

What is then the long term horizon, particularly after the coming into end of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in the year 2012? KP covers only 1/3rd of the global GHG emissions. KP imposes no obligations upon non-Annex-I countries to reduce their GHG emissions. However, the main issue for consideration in this global fight is to decide upon an appropriate benchmark emission entitlement level for setting of future reduction targets. The benchmark of actual emission levels in the year 1990 is not only irrational, defying logic, but is grossly iniquitous to the lesser developed countries with higher energy usage intensities due to inferior technologies. The emission intensity measured as GHG emissions per unit of GDP (in US$ PPP) is only 0.683kg CO2eq in Annex-I countries as compared to 1.055kg CO2eq in non Annex-I countries. However, in absolute terms, the per capita CO2eq emissions is 16.1t in Annex-I countries, as compared to 4.2t in non Annex-I countries. Disparities in development levels between Annex-I and non-Annex-I countries are evident from the fact that the percentage share in global GDP of Annex-I countries comprising only 19.7% of the global population is 56.6%.

The attack on GHG emissions has to be thus holistic and complete, with all countries being equal stakeholders in this global effort. A more equitous baseline with reference to which GHG emission reductions targets are fixed in the post-KP period is more appropriately based on per capita emissions based formula irrespective of the level of development of the country.

The actual percentage reduction could be determined depending upon the sustainable global levels of CO2 concentrations in the longer term and reduction targets could be fixed as a percentage of this per capita baseline. The entitlement of each global citizen in terms of absolute units of entitled GHG emissions is recommended to be on par, and not based on the historical GHG emissions levels, which rewards greater polluters with greater per capita entitlements. Developed countries would thus require greater efforts in absolute terms to reduce their per capita emission levels to bring them at par with the levels in developing countries.

The more developed countries would perforce have to fund cleaner technologies on a large scale in developing countries, where the emissions intensity per unit of GDP in much higher. Since the marginal benefits accruing from greater reduction in emissions per unit of investment would be relatively higher in the developing countries, there would thus be a net transfer of resources from the developed world to the developing world. The truly “cap-and-trade” system of CERs would lead to purchase and adoption of cleaner and more efficient technologies in the south, leading to win-win situation for both the north and the south.