One of the ethical issues raised by these facts is is whether nations which may have much smaller national
emissions reductions commitment obligations for the nation derived from an acceptable equity framework should nevertheless be expected to limit activities of individuals causing high levels of ghg emissions
One of the ethical issues raised by these facts is whether nations which may have much smaller national
emissions reductions commitment obligations for the nation derived from an acceptable equity framework should nevertheless be expected to limit activities of individuals causing high levels of ghg emissions.
Not exact matches
An assessment belied by the fact that quite a few nations met their Kyoto goals and have already achieved significant
emissions reductions; that Paris NDCs are much more inclusive and ambitious, and there is already visible action toward meeting them; and that beyond treaty
obligations and
commitments, carbon intensity is falling over much of the world including the US and China.
CBAT allows those interested in developing a global solution to visualize the otherwise complex interactions of international carbon budgets, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, ghg
emissions reductions commitments, the effect of a nation taking its ethical
obligations seriously, resulting temperature, ocean acidification, and seal level rise,
In the absence of a court adjudicating what equity requires of nations in setting their national climate change
commitments, a possibility but far from a guarantee under existing international and national law (for an explanation of some of the litigation issues, Buiti, 2011), the best hope for encouraging nations to improve the ambition of their national
emissions reductions commitments on the basis of equity and justice is the creation of a mechanism under the UNFCCC that requires nations to explain their how they quantitatively took equity into account in establishing their INDCs and why their INDC is consistent with the nation's ethical
obligations to people who are most vulnerable to climate change and the above principles of international law.
For instance, a recent World Bank paper recommends that climate negotiations abandon attempts to achieve national ghg
emissions reductions commitments based upon «equitable»
obligations after a somewhat rigorous review of the extant literature on «equity» and a brief summary of what has happened in the negotiations.
As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas
emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international
obligations, (b) any
emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global
emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce
emissions to their fair share of safe global
emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Assuming a company gets 90 per cent of its allowances for free, and can meet eight per cent of its remaining
commitment through offsets, it could meet its compliance
obligation either by a minimal two per cent
reduction in its
emissions, or the purchase of an equivalent number of allowances.
A strong ethical case can be made that if nations have duties to limit their ghg
emissions to their fair share of safe global
emissions, a conclusion that follows both as a matter of ethics and justice and several international legal principles including, among others, the «no harm principle,» and promises nations made in the 1992 UNFCCC to adopt policies and measures required to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system in accordance with equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, nations have a duty to clearly explain how their national ghg
emissions reductions commitments arguably satisfy their ethical
obligations to limit their ghg
emissions to the nation's fair share of safe global
emissions.
Yet hardly any nations are explaining their national ghg
emissions reductions commitments on the basis of how they are congruent with their equitable
obligations and the international media for the most part is ignoring this vital part of this civilization challenging drama unfolding in Warsaw.