| 摘要 | ABSTRACT
1. Research Background and Purpose
This study aims to explore comparative analysis of the Post-2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets, which is called INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) of major eleven countries. In preparing the Paris Agreement (2015), nations were requested to communicate INDC for year 2030. It is necessary to compare these INDCs and analyze implication for fairness and ambitions of these targets.
This study analyzed INDCs of eleven major countries, Korea, EU, U.S.A., Japan, Canada, Australia, China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Mexico. Emissions shares of these eleven countries over the world were 79% in 2010 and is expected to be 78% in 2030.
The analysis has been taken in two stages. Firstly, ��appropriate reduction rates�� for eleven countries were derived based on various indicators. Secondly, reduction ambition of the countries were analyzed based on appropriate reduction rates and reduction level required for 2 degrees target.
2. Summary of the Analysis
Appropriate reduction rates were derived based on six indicators. These are comprised of two types of indicators. The first types of indicators are ��share of cumulative emissions, ��share of GDP, and ��share of current CO2 emissions. I will label those ��share indicators��. The second type of indicators are ��per capita emissions relative to the world average, ��per capita income relative to the world average, and ��emissions per GDP relative to the world average. I will label those ��comparative indicators��. Eight scenarios were developed(S1 ��S8) based on combination of these indicators.
1) Appropriate reduction rates for eleven countries
For scenario 1 using one single indicator of the share of cumulative emissions, appropriate reduction rates are lowest for Brazil, Korea, Australia, and Mexico, with these sequence. That is, if international community utilizes one indicator of the share of cumulative emissions for equitable burden sharing, Brazil, Korea, Australia, and Mexico are the lowest in terms of appropriate reduction rates. U.S.A. and E.U. are among the highest in terms of reduction rates.
For scenario 2 using one indicator of the share of GDP, appropriate reduction rates are lowest for Australia, Russia, Mexico, and Korea, with these sequence. For scenario 3 using one single indicator of the share of current CO2 emissions, appropriate reduction rates are lowest for Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, and Korea, with these sequence. China, U.S.A., and EU are among the highest for scenario 3.
For scenario 4 utilizing composit indicator of share of cumulative emissions and share of GDP with equal weights of 1/2, appropriate reduction rates are lower for Australia, Mexico, Korea, and Brazil in these sequence, while higher for EU, U.S.A., China, and Japan.
For scenario 5 utilizing composit indicator of share of GDP and share of current CO2 emissions with equal weights of 1/2, appropriate reduction rates are lower for Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Korea in these sequence, while higher for EU, U.S.A., and China. For scenario 6 utilizing composit indicator of share of cumulative emissions, share of GDP, and per capita emissions relative to the world average, with equal weights of 1/3, appropriate reduction rates are lower for India, Brazil, and Mexico, while higher for U.S.A., Australia, Canada, and Korea.
For scenario 7 utilizing composit indicator of share of cumulative emissions, share of GDP, and per capita imcome relative to the world average, with equal weights of 1/3, appropriate reduction rates are similar with scenario 6. For scenario 8 utilizing composit indicator of share of cumulative emissions, share of GDP, and emissions per GDP relative to the world average, with equal weights of 1/3, appropriate reduction rates are lower for Japan, Brazil, Mexico, while highest for China, Russia, and India.
For comparison between S4 and S6, reduction rates are 1% for Australia, 2% for Korea, and 2% for Canada in case of S4, while reduction rates get much higher with Australia of 14%, Korea of 11%, and Canada of 14% for S6.
2) Analysis of ambition of INDCs for eleven countries
Comparing appropriate reduction rates derived in step one above with INDCs of countries, ambition of INDCs are analysed for eight scenarios.
For scenario 1(S1), Brazil��s INDC is the most ambitious with 50% stronger than appropriate reduction rate. Stronger here is used to indicate reduction rate given by the INDC is greater in absolute number than appropriate reduction rate. Korea��s INDC is also ambitious with 24% stronger than appropriate reduction rate. On the other hand, INDCs of U.S.A. and Japan are not ambitious with 10% weaker than their appropriate reduction rates respectively.
For scenario 2(S2), Japan��s INDC is not ambitious with 50% weaker than its appropriate reduction rates. Brazil and Korea��s INDC is regarded as ambitious with 25% and 8% stronger than their appropriate reduction rates. For scenario 3(S3), where using share of current CO2 emissions as single indicator, INDCs of Brazil (-40%), EU(-22%), Korea(-10%) are analysed as ambitious, with Brazil 40% stronger than its appropriate reduction rates. For scenario 4(S4), INDCs of Brazil (-38%), Korea(-16%) are analysed as ambitious than their appropriate reduction rates. For scenario 6(S6), story for Korea changes drastically with 144% weaker emissions than emissions derived from its appropriate reduction rate.
For scenario 7(S7), INDCs of EU(-23%) and Brazil(-18%) are ambitious while that of Korea not ambitious(115%). Similar result is derived from scenario 8(S8).
3. Policy Implications and Suggestion
The analysis of the appropriate reduction rates reveals the following implications. Firstly, application of single indicator would produce very extreme ��appropriate reduction rates�� for countries. Therefore, it is recommended to use combination of indicators, which would produce modest and more relevant results.
Secondly, characteristics of indicators determines final results for appropriate reduction rates. In case of Korea, appropriate reduction rates, derived from share indicators such as share of cumulative emissions, share of GDP, or share of current CO2 emissions, would yield low level of appropriate reduction rate with 1��2 %(S1��S5). However, using comparative indicators, such as per capita emissions relative to the world average, per capita income relative to the world average, and emissions per GDP relative to the world average, would produce very high level of appropriate reduction rates for Korea. For scenario for these cases(S6��S8) would produce very high level of 6%��11% for appropriate reduction rates for Korea. This level of appropriate reduction rates is similar level to highly advanced countries such as U.S.A. and Japan.
Thirdly, when discussion begin in the future regarding appropriate reduction rates, Korea needs to emphasize the role of share indicators rather than comparative indicators.
The analysis of the ambition of INDCs using 8 scenarios reveals the following implications and suggestion. Firstly, indicators to assess ambition of INDCs tend to provide relative outcomes. With same INDC, assessment of ambition varies greatly depending on indicators applied. Indicators reflecting various equity principles would produce varying outcome for the same country. That is, comparative assessment for ambition of INDS is inevitably relative assessment. There could be no single indicator that can be applied and agreed among countries.
Secondly, due to their relative feature of the impacts of the various indicators, each country would have different preference on indicators when there is discussion regarding possible equitable way of allocating carbon budget. Developed countries except Australia and Canada would have strong preference on comparative indicators such as per capita emissions relative to the world average, per capita income relative to the world average, and emissions per GDP relative to the world average.
Thirdly, the impact and role of indicators change dramatically for Korea between ��share indicators�� and ��comparative indicators��. INDC of Korea is very ambitious when share indicators such as share of cumulative emissions or share of GDP are applied, while highly less ambitious when comparative indicators such as per capita emissions relative to the world average are applied. Therefore, when discussion on indicators begin, Korea needs to pay close attention to the impacts and role of the various indicators.
Fourthly, it is suggested that comparative indicators such as per capita emissions relative to the world average need to be applied to a group of countries which have similar economic circumstances. Otherwise, role of indicators may distort the outcomes.
BAS 2016-07.pdf |
