Clarisse Kehler Siebert Sivan Kartha Stockholm Environment Institute

1. Seminar of the SEI programme Climate for Development 13 March 2009 Rights Based Approaches to Climate Change and the Greenhouse Development Rights framework Clarisse Kehler Siebert Sivan Kartha Stockholm Environment Institute

2. An emerging issue • The Maldives • Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights • International Council on Human Rights Policy • Oxfam • Other advocacy organisations

3. Relationship Human rights law is relevant because climate change causes human rights violations. But a human rights lens can also be helpful in approaching and managing climate change. ~ Mary Robinson

4. climate change (policy) human rights (regime) Relationship Threaten fullfillment of fundamental rights: to life, food, clean water, livelihoods, development phenomenon international effort Legally-binding norms; needs → entitlements; rights imply corresponding duties; enforcement mechanisms

5. Application • Funding for adaptation • Climate technology policy • Liability and compensation for climate damages • Outreach/education/awareness

6. Arctic Sea Ice 2005 2007 “The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing.” Mark Serreze, NSIDC, Oct. 2007. “This enormous ice retreat in the last two summers is the culmination of a thinning process that has been going on for decades, and now the ice is just collapsing.” Peter Wadhams, Cambridge University, Oct. 2008. 6

7. Greenland Ice Sheet IPCC-AR4: “0.18 – 0.59 m by 2100” Hansen, 2007: “several meters by 2100” 7

8. Carbon Cycle Feedbacks “Together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected.” (Canadell et al, 2007, PNAS) 8

9. Tipping Elements in the Climate System Lenton et al, 2008  2ºC is already risking catastrophic, irreversible impacts. This climate crisis calls for an emergency program. 9

10. The climate challenge: a thought experiment Global 2ºc pathway Emissions pathway in the South Emissions pathway in the North What kind of climate regime can enable this to happen…? 12

11. … in the midst of a development crisis? 2 billion people without access to clean cooking fuels More than 1.5 billion people without electricity More than 1 billion have poor access to fresh water About 800 million people chronically undernourished 2 million children die per year from diarrhea 30,000 deaths each day from preventable diseases 13

12. A viable climate regime must… Ensure the rapid mitigationrequired by an emergency climate stabilization program Support the deep, extensive adaptationprograms that will inevitably be needed While at the same time safeguarding the right to development

13. A “Greenhouse Development Rights” approach to a global climate accord… Defines and calculates national obligations with respect to a development threshold Allows those people with incomes and emissions below the threshold to prioritize development Obliges people with incomes and emissions above the threshold (in both the North and South) to pay the global costs of an emergency climate program 15

14. Development threshold? What should a “Right to Development” safeguard? Traditional poverty line: $1/day? …$2/day? (“destitution line” and “extreme poverty line” of World Bank, UNDP, etc.) Empirical analysis: $16/day (“global poverty line,” after Pritchett/World Bank (2006)) For indicative calculations, consider development threshold 25% above global poverty line about $20/day ($7,500/yr; PPP-adjusted)

15. Burden-sharing in a global climate regime Define National Obligation (national share of global mitigation and adaptation costs) based on: Capacity: resources to pay w/o sacrificing necessities We use income (PPP), excluding income below the $20/day ($7,500/year) development threshold Responsibility: contribution to the climate problem We use cumulative CO2 emissions, excluding “subsistence” emissions (i.e., emissions corresponding to consumption below the development threshold)

16. Income and Capacity: showing projected national income distributions in 2010, and capacity in green

17. Emissions vs. Responsibility Cumulative fossil CO2 (since 1990) showing portion considered “responsibility”

18. National obligations based on capacity and responsibility in 2010 24

19. Income and obligations over time 28

20. Allocating global mitigation obligationsamong countries according to their “RCI” 29

21. Implications for European Union 40

22. Implications for European Union Domestic reductions (~40% below 1990 by 2020) are only part of total EU obligation. The rest would have to be met internationally. 41

23. Implications for Sweden

24. What are the costs? 54

25. National Obligations in 2020 (if climate costs = 1% of GWP)

26. Final Comments The scientific evidence is a wake-up call. Carbon-based growth is no longer an option in the North, nor in the South. A rigorous, binding commitment to North-to-South flows of technology and financial assistance is critical. Domestic reductions in the North are only half of the North’s obligation. In principle, a corresponding commitment from the consuming class in the South is also necessary. In practice, Copenhagen will need to bring a period of trust-building. The alternative to something like this is a weak regime with little chance of preventing catastrophic climate change This is about politics, not only about equity and justice. 57

27. www.GreenhouseDevelopmentRights.org Full report released at Poznan Sweden country report released in Sept Online calculator and dataset For information: skartha@sei.se 58

28. additional slides

29. Emergency pathways: details Baer and Mastrandrea (2007) Carbon concentrations in these scenarios peak and decline (rather than stabilize).