A Simple Metric for Fair Burden Sharing?

Abstract

The 'Greenhouse Development Rights' (GDRs) framework is presented as a simple metric for fair burden sharing, but it is questionable whether there is a single unique mathematical solution to the equity equation. The quest for a unitary approach to equity is a far more intricate endeavor than the proponents of the GDRs framework seem to realize. Ethical inquiry should focus on the 'how' rather than on the 'what' of climate change policy. Existing literature on equity considerations for climate change mitigation and adaptation has almost exclusively focused on fair burden sharing between nations. However, disparities among regions and income groups within nations pose perhaps more equity concerns than those between nations: 'International arrangements for equity considerations such as technology and monetary transfers may actually exacerbate income inequality in the recipient country, as the poor may be excluded from implementation' (Pan, 2003, p. 7). Inequity in the developing world, according to Pan, requires particular attention, as the income inequality gap in these nations is generally wider than that in rich countries. He notes that the poor nations with more unequal income distribution at home are more vocal for equity demands at international negotiations: 'The nations that request for per capita allocation of emissions rights for the sake of equity are those in many cases with a record of the most unequal income distribution and a lack of social security and basic human rights' (Pan, 2003, p. 12). A case in point is Brazil, with almost half of the national income going into the pocket of the top 10% of its population. However, most of the existing literature not only ignores the climate responsibilities of affluent individuals and groups in developing countries ('the north in the south'), but also the existence of impoverished groups residing in the developed world ('the south in the north'). A major benefit of the 'Greenhouse Development Rights' (GDRs) approach, as proposed by Baer et al. (Baer, Athanasiou, Kartha & Kemp-Benedict, 2008; Baer, 2009), seems to be that it addresses the inequitable distribution of income both