10.05.2013 Views

Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 2. Options for future climate change architectures 101<br />

4) Building upon Kyoto Protocol vs. negotiating a new Protocol<br />

Some countries, lead by the EU, clearly stated that a second commitment<br />

period of the Kyoto Protocol is the way forward. Building upon the existing<br />

elements and the institutional structure would avoid time-consuming future<br />

negotiations on a completely new institutional setup.<br />

Some other countries, mainly lead by the USA, see the Kyoto Protocol as<br />

having too many weaknesses to be a good basis for the future climate regime.<br />

Setting another mechanism is favoured by these countries.<br />

3.2.2 Incentives for participation of key countries<br />

For any climate change agreement to be environmentally effective, major<br />

emitting countries have to participate. Incentives for such participation are a<br />

key element of the future climate regime.<br />

3.2.2.1 India<br />

India has voiced very clear and strong positions: economic growth and<br />

meeting the needs of large parts of the Indian population are priority issues.<br />

India has stated that emissions will grow as the country seeks to expand its<br />

economic growth. No further commitments are accepted until developed<br />

countries have demonstrated to take the lead. At COP13 in Bali 2007, India<br />

voiced extreme positions – e.g. that no further negotiation process on non-<br />

Annex I participation is necessary – although finally endorsing the agreement<br />

reached.<br />

Under staged approaches (multistage and CDC) – emissions and GDP per<br />

capita are well below non-Annex I average – India would not have to<br />

participate early. Under C&C would not have to reduce emissions significantly<br />

below the reference scenario. The Tryptich approach would require relatively<br />

strict emission limits for the electricity sector – India is strongly dependant on<br />

coal -, and therefore stringent reductions below reference (Höhne et al., 2007b).<br />

Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI <strong>Carmen</strong> <strong>Bunzl</strong> Boulet Junio 2008

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!