If you see the atmosphere as a commons - a natural wealth for everyone to access equitably and sustainably - then it's not hard to see how deeply unjust the #COP29 $300bn per year goal from industrialised countries is, when historical responsibilities for excess emissions are taken into account. 1/ - ThreadSky

andrewlfanning.bsky.social • 93 days ago

If you see the atmosphere as a commons - a natural wealth for everyone to access equitably and sustainably - then it's not hard to see how deeply unjust the #COP29 $300bn per year goal from industrialised countries is, when historical responsibilities for excess emissions are taken into account. 1/

Comments

anthonyburke.bsky.social•93 days ago

Everyone??? every (human) *nation* you mean. Screw the corals and the ice caps.

anthonyburke.bsky.social•93 days ago

Did you even think about the ethics of assuming home sapiens has a human right to pollute the atmosphere well beyond its tolerances and kill hundreds of millions from toxic air? 🤦‍♀️

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

Hi Anthony, thanks. I have thought about this, yes, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Could you suggest a more acceptable atmospheric tolerance that takes into account non-human rights? Or you disagree with the entire approach?

anthonyburke.bsky.social•93 days ago

I am a fan of degrowth but disagree with the paper’s premises because it revives the notion of carbon space via notion of “atmospheric commons.” The safe and just planetary boundaries paper (which has a multispecies justice view) puts heating boundary at 1C. 90% of corals die at 1.5C.

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•92 days ago

Hi, we never said the 1.5C target is safe, even if it's the most ambitious aim in the Paris Agreement. We acknowledge this in the paper, calculated carbon budgets associated with the 350ppm planetary boundary, and explicitly coloured only the area below this 'safe' 350 ppm target in green/safe?

anthonyburke.bsky.social•92 days ago

Thnks for your response Andrew.

wildplumbay.bsky.social•93 days ago

I like this analogy so much.

wildplumbay.bsky.social•93 days ago

I have never heard this said like that. Air is like a public park.

zoesamuel.bsky.social•93 days ago

So:
$170 trillion over 25y= $6.8tn/yr
2024 global economy ~$100tn. 6.8% owed now.
Growth ~2.6%/yr
2050 economy ~$189tn, hence 3.6%.

I worry about the "aid is $ going from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries" thing. But the total itself, in context, smaller than I thought.

zoesamuel.bsky.social•93 days ago

Considering that most should be done as investment, and can displace other investment eg. solar instead of coal, it's not like anyone's being told to set $170tn on fire, or to cough up money that doesn't exist. There's a world where it's structured as a mutual win.

timmonsroberts.bsky.social•93 days ago

Yes for emissions reductions investments (low carbon energy)...but funding adaptation will mostly need to be grants, not investments or loans. But I like your points.

zoesamuel.bsky.social•93 days ago

Would love to hear more about your thoughts on why adaptation means grants? On principle because compensation so shouldn't have strings attached (fair answer), or are there other nuances around funding certain types of projects in the regions you have in mind that make it the right approach?

timmonsroberts.bsky.social•93 days ago

Well you can't make money from drilling deeper wells, building higher seawalls, moving people out of floodplains, and so on. Selling energy, yes. Just that.

zoesamuel.bsky.social•93 days ago

Ah gotcha. I suppose you CAN make money from charging a desperate person to get to (relative) safety but as the granddaughter of a refugee I agree, let's not.

zoesamuel.bsky.social•93 days ago

I realize the above # are silly because inflation exists, time value of money especially climate investment, etc etc. But the point stands that it isn't an unimaginable % of the economy, and a decent chunk was already set to be spent in stupid ways, thus could be redirected toward the goal.

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

To take just one approach for quantifying the scale of the injustice, last year @jasonhickel.bsky.social and I published a study proposing a compensation scheme across 168 countries based on excess CO₂ emissions beyond fair shares of global carbon budgets. 2/

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

We obtained remaining global carbon budgets for 1.5° and 2° from the IPCC and distributed shares across countries, based on population. Then we compared each country’s share against how much CO2 they have released since 1960, with a BAU scenario and a scenario that reaches ‘net zero’ by 2050. 3/

jojolepoisson.bsky.social•93 days ago

Population figures change substantially between 1960 and now. What do you mean by "population" in this skeet ? Are the results robust to other reasonable choices in the definition of this word ?

anthonyburke.bsky.social•93 days ago

It’s a pity 2050 is not 1.5C compliant. Math is hard.

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

Hi Anthony, can you explain what you mean a bit more? Thanks.

anthonyburke.bsky.social•93 days ago

This might be the simplest. There is no safe “carbon budget” to allocate. The atmosphere is a living entity bound to the biosphere. No one species should be allowed to poison it, even in the cause of justice.

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

We find that ambitious mitigation to reach net zero by 2050 in all countries could limit warming to 1.5°C - which is crucial - but the global North would overshoot its collective fair share of the 1.5°C carbon budget by 3 times, appropriating half of the global South’s fair share in the process. 4/

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

We use carbon prices from IPCC scenarios to put a monetary value on excess emissions, and distribute these funds to low-emitting countries as compensation, based on how much of their fair shares would be appropriated by over-emitting countries. The receipts total more than $6 trillion per year. 5/

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

The top 5 over-emitting countries would be liable to pay more than two thirds of total compensation. And the top 5 low-emitting countries would be entitled to receive more than half. This is compensation for mitigating far more rapidly that would otherwise be required, not grants or loans. 6/

andrewlfanning.bsky.social•93 days ago

This is one approach to demonstrate how compensation for atmospheric appropriation can be quantified in a way that accounts for historical and current responsibilities. Of course, it raises many questions around practical implementation, in need of future research and democratic deliberation. 7/

cowsmellcj.bsky.social•91 days ago

1. Prior to 1970s, CO2 emissions were unwitting.
2. Emissions between 1970 and 2000 had greater adverse effects on local populations, than on total planet.
3. There's no point in quibbling about the residual liability, because there will be nobody left to pay, unless we all act now.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply