对斯特恩新报告的要点评述和解读

2006年10月,英国推出的由著名经济学家斯特恩爵士领导编写的《斯特恩回顾：气候变化经济学》,从经济学的角度着重论述了全球应对气候变化的紧迫性,强调只有尽快大幅度减少温室气体排放,才能避免全球升温超过2℃可能造成的巨大经济损失,且减排成本并不高。2008年4月,斯特恩爵士再次推出一份报告,提出为实现上述目标构建2012年后国际气候制度的基本要素,这对后续国际谈判可能会产生一定的影响。通过比较分析两份报告的关系和不同特点,对新报告中国际气候制度设计和评价的基本原则,全球减排的长期目标和减排义务的分担,通过资金、技术、市场、适应等国际政策措施吸引发展中国家参与,减少毁林排放,以及政策执行和制度建设等问题进行了评述和解读,其中内涵对深入开展国际气候制度的研究和我国参与国际气候谈判有重要启发。     

国际气候谈判的实质和出路

尽管国际气候谈判充满矛盾,但本质上它是一种认真而责任重大的全球性努力,气候谈判的目标在于建立合理的国际气候制度。应对气候变化的实质是引导全球以低碳、绿色、循环发展为路径,实现全人类的可持续发展。气候谈判应该是一个促进各方建设性达成全球气候制度安排的过程,为此建议抓住以下三个重点：先发达国家率先做出积极的绝对量减排承诺;发展中国家也根据自身的能力和发展阶段做出自己应有的贡献;发达国家应在资金和技术上做点实事。先在以上三方面取得实质性突破,再通过公约原则下的“审评”和“调整”机制,逐步补充和完善。这是一种体现“自下而上”和“自上而下”相结合的路径。国际气候谈判的最终出路在于合作共赢。中国积极而务实地参与国际气候谈判的深刻原因,首先源于自身科学发展和可持续发展的内在需求,同时也是一个负责任的发展中大国对国际责任的担当。     

中国参与构建2012年后国际气候制度的战略思考

 2009年将是构建2012年后应对气候变化国际制度的关键时期,而除了温室气体的减排目标和责任分摊之外,减缓和适应气候变化以及相应的技术和资金支持都将会是最为关键的影响要素。在对国际气候制度的关键影响要素进行梳理并对其进程进行分析的基础上,结合不断变化的国际国内政治、经济、环境和社会形势,对中国在2012年后国际气候谈判以及中长期应对气候变化的策略进行了探讨。     

国际气候谈判中的南北矛盾

国际气候谈判中的南北矛盾是制约国际气候合作进程的主要矛盾。发达国家与发展中国家从自身利益出发,在温室气体减排的责任承担、对全球气候变化的减缓与适应、可持续发展三大问题上展开了激烈的斗争。理解南北矛盾及其实质,可以使我们探寻解决矛盾的路径与措施,从而建立有效的国际气候制度,推进国际气候合作的顺利进行。     

《气候变化绿皮书:应对气候变化报告(2014)》出版

<正>2014年11月5日,中国社会科学院-中国气象局气候变化经济学模拟联合实验室发布了第6本气候变化绿皮书——《应对气候变化报告2014:科学认知与政治争锋》。绿皮书由长期从事气候变化科学评估、应对气候变化经济政策分析以及直接参与国际气候谈判的资深专家撰稿,全面介绍华沙会议以来全球应对气候变化的最新进展,     

斯特恩报告及其对后京都谈判的可能影响

 2006年10月正式发布的斯特恩报告在国际社会引起了广泛反响。文章概述和分析了该报告出台的国际背景、主要特点和关键结论，综合评述了包括各国政府、学术界、企业界及环境非政府组织等各方对该报告的不同观点，研究探讨了斯特恩报告对后京都谈判的可能影响。该报告尽管肯定了中国气候变化政策的积极贡献，但其提出的排放情景和基于市场的政策处方并不能满足中国等发展中国家的发展需求，也忽视了资金来源、技术转让、适应等重要问题。     

IPCC第五次评估报告第一工作组主要结论对《联合国气候变化框架公约》进程的影响分析

IPCC评估报告对国际气候变化谈判进程有重要影响,目前正在陆续发布的第五次评估报告已明确作为气候变化新协议谈判的重要信息来源,对讨论2020年后应对气候变化国际合作机制的影响不容忽视。最先发布的第一工作组评估报告基于新的科学观测事实、更为完善的归因分析和气候系统模式模拟结果,进一步确认了气候变暖的事实,发现了人类活动与全球温升之间因果关系的新证据,以及温室气体累积排放与温升响应之间的定量联系。本文通过分析其中一些关键结论可能的政策含义,探讨了这些关键结论对目前国际气候变化谈判进程和新协议等相关问题的可能影响,探讨了科学信息在气候变化决策过程中的作用,以及如何更为科学地理解和利用这些重要结论。     

“经济大国能源与气候论坛”进展及前景展望

"经济大国能源与气候论坛"在推动全球主要国家就应对气候变化主要议题达成一致方面取得了进展,已初步显示出其作为联合国气候谈判晴雨表的特征。该论坛的实质是主要发达国家为转移减排责任和压力,降低减排成本,绑架主要发展中国家在全球应对气候变化领域实施的集体强权政治。论坛的核心目标在于推动全球量化减排,目的是借全球量化减排,营造低碳和气候友好技术的广大市场,使得具有技术优势的这些经济大国拥有新的主导全球经济的力量。我国应坚持"共同但有区别的责任"原则,联合与会发展中国家强调气候变化的历史责任,反对为全球温室气体排放设限等不公平提议,团结广大发展中国家,同时抓住论坛力推低碳经济和低碳技术发展的机遇,使我国站在全球新一轮技术革命的前沿。     

全球气候治理对中国中长期发展的影响分析及未来建议

全球气候变暖毋庸质疑。政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第五次评估报告(AR5)再次证实,全球气候持续变暖,由此引发风险越来越明确,而人类活动对全球气候变化影响的证据也越来越确凿。如何应对气候变化带来的不利影响是全人类共同的任务。中国作为人类命运共同体的一员,一直非常重视气候变化。2007年,国务院成立国家应对气候变化及节能减排工作领导小组,作为国家应对气候变化和节能减排工作的议事协调机构。自此,国家应对气候变化领导小组统一领导、国家发展和改革委员会归口管理、有关部门和地方分工负责、智库机构有力支撑、全社会广泛参与的应对气候变化管理体制和工作机制已经初步形成,并逐步将应对气候变化工作放入中国中长期发展战略中。随着对全球气候变化认知的深入,气候变化对中国中长期发展及战略部署的影响也越来越大,应对气候变化工作也将成为中国中长期发展必须考虑的一部分。应对气候变化是生态文明建设的重要一环,力推绿色低碳安全发展应是未来发展的必然之路。同时,对外需积极参与全球气候治理,对内更需加强科普宣传,提高全民意识。     

气候变化影响评估与适应研究

由于全球气候变化,气温升高导致的极端天气气候事件发生的频率和强度也随之加大。针对这一有关全球的发展问题,文章参考“气候变化对增长和发展的影响”（斯特思报告第2部分）、“应对气候变化的政策响应”（斯特恩报告第5部分）以及日本东京大学工程研究生院Yuzuru Matsuoka等人的“气候变化综合评估模式：亚太综合模式（AIM）”,提出了气候变化对人类基本生活要素的影响,预估了温室气体“常规商务”（BAU）排放情况下气候变化可能对全球社会经济产生的潜在影响,讨论了适当气候变化产生的成本与效益,简介了斯特恩报告中采用的基本评估模式和亚太综合评估模式。     

What role for climate negotiations on technology transfer?

Little progress has been made in climate negotiations on technology since 1992. Yet the diffusion of climate change mitigation technologies to developing countries (non-Annex I) has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. The shift has mostly concerned emerging economies, which are now reasonably well connected to international technology flows. This is good news, as the bulk of emissions increases are expected to take place in these countries in the near future. In contrast, the least developed countries still appear to be excluded from international technology flows, mostly because of their negligible participation in the recent economic globalization. This article focuses on the policy implications of the contribution of climate negotiations to international technology diffusion.

Policy relevance

The discrepancy between the small amount of progress made in climate negotiations on technology since 1992 and the steady increase in the international diffusion of climate mitigation technologies leads to the perhaps controversial view that the diffusion of climate mitigation technologies does not need strong international coordination over technology issues under the UNFCCC. However, climate negotiations can play a key role in stimulating the demand for low-carbon technologies by setting ambitious emission reductions targets and policies.     

Climate policy strength compared: China,the US,the EU,India, Russia,and Japan

The few systematic international comparisons of climate policy strength made so far have serious weaknesses, particularly those that assign arbitrary weightings to different policy instrument types in order to calculate an aggregate score for policy strength. This article avoids these problems by ranking the six biggest emitters by far – China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan – on a set of six key policy instruments that are individually potent and together representative of climate policy as a whole: carbon taxes, emissions trading, feed-in tariffs, renewable energy quotas, fossil fuel power plant bans, and vehicle emissions standards. The results cast strong doubt on any idea that there is a clear hierarchy on climate policy with Europe at the top: the EU does lead on a number of policies but so does Japan. China, the US, and India each lead on one area. Russia is inactive on all fronts. At the same time climate policy everywhere remains weak compared to what it could be.

Policy relevance

This study enables climate policy strength, defined as the extent to which the statutory provisions of climate policies are likely to restrict GHG emissions if implemented as intended, to be assessed and compared more realistically across space and time. As such its availability for the six biggest emitters, which together account for over 70% of global CO₂ emissions, should facilitate international negotiations (1) by giving participants a better idea of where major emitters stand relative to each other as far as climate policy stringency is concerned, and (2) by identifying areas of weakness that need action.     

圣保罗案文的基本要点

2006年8月,BASIC项目的巴西课题组推出了一个后京都国际气候制度的全面设计方案,简称圣保罗案文。概括介绍了该案文的设计思路和基本要点,包括全球中长期目标、附件I和非附件I国家的不同义务、市场机制、适应问题、技术研发和转让,以及议定书的审评和遵约机制等。在此基础上,简要比较了圣保罗案文与巴西案文的不同特点,客观评价了圣保罗案文在政治阻力和技术难度上存在的内在缺陷。     

From burden-sharing to opportunity-sharing: unlocking the climate negotiations

In conventional thinking on climate negotiations, traditional fossil fuel-based economic growth is coupled with carbon emissions, thus mitigation has been regarded as a burden on economic growth. The scarcity within the global emission budget and the interpretation of climate change as ‘global public goods’ have led climate change negotiations into a burden-sharing deadlock. However, some recent economics studies suggest that mitigation could actually promote local economic growth opportunities; consequently increasing the incentives for unilateral mitigation actions. This article highlights the implications for the strategies of unlocking the climate negotiations deadlock. Following an explanation of how climate change negotiations have led to a burden-sharing game and have become a deadlock, some new ways of thinking (based on the emerging literature) are used to suggest how mitigation could promote local economic growth.Policy relevanceOne policy implication is the need to change the current mindset in global climate change negotiations. The current framing of burden-sharing can be abandoned in favour of opportunity-sharing. This more positive approach will stimulate progress on climate action. Therefore, green growth should be situated at the heart of post-2020 climate change regime. A new two-track architecture is proposed for achieving the transformation as a combined top-down and bottom-up approach. A lower legally binding target based on equity principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) could form a more politically realistic and inclusive basis for participation. To complement this, a green growth club would promote a higher voluntary global ambition and accelerate mitigation.     

Delivering the two degree global climate change target using a flexible ratchet framework

Global climate negotiations have been characterized by a divide between developed and developing nations – a split which has served as a persistent barrier to international agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. Notable progress in bridging this division was achieved at the 21st Conference of the Parties meeting in Paris through the introduction of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). However, the collective ambition of submitted INDCs falls short of a global 2°C target, requiring an effective ratchet mechanism to review and increase national commitments. Inequitable distribution of additional responsibilities risks re-opening historic divisions between parties. This article presents a flexible ratchet framework which shares mitigation commitments on the basis of per capita equity in line with emerging requirements for a 2°C target. The framework has been designed through convergence between developed and developing nations; developed nation targets are based on an agreed standardized percentage reduction wherever emissions are above per capita equity; developing nations are required to peak emissions at or below per capita equity levels by an agreed convergence date. The proposed framework has the flexibility to be integrated with current INDCs and to evolve in line with shifting estimates of climate sensitivity.

Policy relevance

The outcome of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) negotiations in Paris offered mixed results in terms of level of ambition and submitted national commitments. A global agreement to keep average global temperature rise below two degrees was maintained; however, current pledged Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are projected to result in an average warming of close to three degrees. The implementation of a global ratchet mechanism to scale-up national commitments will remain key to closing this ambition gap to reach this two degree target. How this upscaling of responsibility is shared between parties will be a defining discussion point within future negotiations. This study presents a standardized, equity-based framework for how this ratchet mechanism can be implemented – a framework designed to be flexible for evolution in line with better understanding of climate sensitivity, and adaptable for integrations with current INDC proposals.     

Proposal for a poverty-adaptation-mitigation window within the Green Climate Fund

The stakes for alleviating poverty and avoiding unbridled climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change impacts will slow down and may even reverse trends in poverty reduction. The pathways consistent with global warming of no more than 2?°C require strategies for poverty alleviation to make allowance for the constraint of low-carbon development. Existing climate funds have failed to target poverty alleviation as a high-priority strategy for adaptation or as a component of low-carbon development. This article proposes a funding window as part of the Green Climate Fund in order to foster synergies targeting greater satisfaction of basic needs, while making allowance for adaptation and mitigation. This financial mechanism is based on indicators of the satisfaction of basic needs and could respond to the claims of the developing countries, which see alleviating poverty as the first priority in climate negotiations. It defines a country continuum, given that there are poor people everywhere; all developing countries are therefore eligible with a mechanism of this sort.

Policy relevance

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for substantial emissions reductions and adaptation strategies over the next decades to reduce the high risks of severe impacts of climate change over the 21st century. Industrialized countries and developing countries alike recognize the need to mitigate climate change and to adapt to it. But they face many challenges that lead to an ‘emissions gap’ between an emissions level consistent with the 2?°C increase limit and the voluntary pledges that they have made thus far in the climate negotiations (United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The Emissions Gap Report 2014. A UNEP synthesis report). In this arena, many developing countries underline that their first domestic priority is the satisfaction of basic needs. In the run-up to the next climate negotiations at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris, the proposed poverty-adaptation-mitigation funding window could contribute to alleviate the conflict between development and climate goals in developing countries. In this sense, it could spur developing countries to integrate more ambitious emissions limitations pledges into their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. This could in turn entice industrialized countries to act similarly. In the end, it could pave the way to an ambitious climate agreement in Paris at COP 21.     

Aligning climate action with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers

The global and long-term nature of climate change conflicts with the self-interest and short-term dominated priorities of decision-makers. Climate change mitigation makes sense at the global level, but not at the level of the individual decision-maker. This conflict has been and remains the main obstacle to effective global cooperation and mitigation. This paper proposes a framework that aligns climate action with short-term self-interest through results-based payments to governments. Its key components are: determining an emission benchmark for each country as well as a price for carbon saving; paying countries annually for reducing emissions below their respective benchmark; a new international fund to finance these annual payments by borrowing capital from private investors; and repaying borrowings in the long-term through payments made by countries to the fund based on a pre-determined allocation mechanism. This framework would offer important benefits over an approach focused on allocating climate action or a carbon budget among countries. These include the improved prospect of reaching an effective climate agreement and delivering fast and dramatic mitigation thanks to stronger political commitment, the transformation of short-term self-interest from an obstacle into a driver of climate action, and the additional financing created. The paper also proposes a pilot scheme focusing on hydrofluorocarbon emissions with a considerably lower financing requirement. This offers the possibility of an alternative financing mechanism, and thus a faster and more straightforward implementation path. Short-term financial incentives offered to governments could turn policy action from a burden into an opportunity from their perspective unlocking a huge potential for timely mitigation.

Key policy insights

• A new international framework that offers short-term, results-based payments to governments to promote mitigation action could lead to much more effective global mitigation and international cooperation.

• The financing of such an approach could be solved through a novel financing structure, backed by the long-term commitments of participating countries and thus aligning the timeframe of the financial costs of mitigation with its climate benefits.

• The effectiveness of results-based payments and the concept behind this new approach could be proven through a pilot scheme focusing on hydrofluorocarbon emissions.