Search

This study developed a climatic-economic-technological integrated assessment model named CIECIA-TD-F. Based on model, the implementation effects of low carbon technology financing on climate mitigation, technology promotion, and economic development in the context of climate change cooperation were studied. The results indicate that carbon reduction, under the current pledged climate financing scale, is limited. Global surface warming in 2100 is still around 2.38 °C even when the technologies are globally shared. Low carbon technology financing improves technology R&D and absorptive capacities of the least developed countries. Their carbon reduction rates reach 50 percent under the capacity principle. However, donations impair the R&D inputs of developed countries and delay their advanced technological progress, leading to 1 percent more carbon emissions. This limits the imitations of China and Russia in turn by decreasing their imitation numbers by 1–2 percent. Collecting 800 billion USD per year from 2030 to 2100 is a climatically effective means. It holds global warming to 1.99 °C. However, the donors suffer more than 1 percent of economic losses. That indicates the economic feasibility of this means is weak. On this basis, we proposed a Pareto-improvement scheme which combines financing with technology sharing and national R&D improvements. This policy mix both achieves the 2 °C goal and protect the economic benefits of all countries. Thus, policy mix combining different measures will be more suitable for improving reduction effects and achieving multiple goals. Compared with sole technology financing, it has more significant global carbon governance meanings and is noteworthy in future climate negotiations. • Nine combinations of typical collection and dispensation principles were assessed. • The current scale of climate financing pledge was insufficient. • 2 °C goal can be achieved by improving financing scale dramatically in short term. • Advanced technology innovation was delayed for the economic losses of the funding donors. • A Pareto improving scheme was proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can norms of distributive fairness serve as pillars of a new and more effective global climate regime? Three general principles – responsibilities, capabilities (capacity), and needs (or rights) – are frequently invoked and rarely disputed. Yet, parties’ interpretations often diverge, reflecting conflicts of interests. To determine how much is at stake, we compare – by means of a global integrated assessment model (GRACE) – 15 legitimate interpretations of ‘responsibilities’ and ‘capabilities’ in terms of their implications for the mitigation obligations and costs of seven potentially pivotal actors. Most of these interpretations yield similar results for most actors. In a scenario where global emissions in 2030 are reduced by 20% compared to a business-as-usual baseline, mitigation costs vary by less than 1% of GDP for the United States, the European Union, Japan, India, and China. For Brazil and Russia, however, variance is much larger. Moreover, for all actors, mitigation costs rise steeply as ambition levels increase. Under such circumstances, searching for a single ‘fairness-optimizing’ formula is likely to fail. As negotiators explore systems of voluntary pledges, a more promising approach would conceive of fairness as a multidimensional construct and foster accommodation through mutual recognition of a limited range of legitimate norm interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]