Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 3. Implications of future climate regime architectures 156
allowances at a regional level for different concentration targets (Criqui et al.,
2003; Böhringer and Welsch, 2004, 2006; den Elzenet al., 2005; Persson et al.,
2006).
The discussion presented in this Section will be based on the results obtained
with the FAIR 2.0 model and previously presented by den Elzen et al. (2005).
The abatement costs of three post-Kyoto regimes for differentiating
commitments compatible with stabilizing GHG concentrations at 550 ppmv
CO2eq. will be analyzed here.
3.1 Overview of approaches
The three regimes explored are:
• The Multistage approach, which assumes a gradual increase in the
number of participants who are adopting either emissions intensity or
reduction targets (based on the Multistage approach proposed by Berk
and den Elzen, 2001) (see Section 2.1.2.1 of Chapter 2);
• The Brazilian Proposal approach, i.e. the allocation or reductions based on
countries’ contribution to climate change (see Section 2.1.2.5 of Chapter 2);
• Contraction & Convergence, with full participation in convergence of per
capita emission allowances (see Section 2.1.2.2 of Chapter 2).
At that time - before 2005 -, the Brazilian Proposal approach was the only
climate regime that had been formally discussed and documented within the
UNFCCC, and therefore was included in the analysis. It is unlikely that
historical responsibility will be the only parameter used in the future climate
regime for burden sharing, however it may play a role in the design of a future
agreement - used as an indicator to determine when a country should act or to
determine the share of financial contribution to adaptation activities.
The Contraction & Convergence approach was chosen because of its appeal
in the developing world, due to its main element being per capita convergence
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008