Utilitarian benchmarks for emissions and pledges promote equity, climate and development

被引:17
作者
Budolfson, Mark B. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Anthoff, David [4 ]
Dennig, Francis [3 ,5 ]
Errickson, Frank [3 ,6 ]
Kuruc, Kevin [7 ]
Spears, Dean [3 ,8 ,9 ,10 ]
Dubash, Navroz K. [11 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Environm & Occupat Hlth & Justice, Rutgers Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Populat Level Bioeth, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Philosophy, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[3] Princeton Univ, Sch Publ & Int Affairs, Climate Futures Initiat, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
[4] Univ Calif Berkeley, Energy & Resources Grp, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[5] Yale NUS Coll, Social Sci Econ, Singapore, Singapore
[6] Princeton Univ, Sch Publ & Int Affairs, Ctr Policy Res Energy & Environm, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
[7] Univ Oklahoma, Dept Econ, Norman, OK 73019 USA
[8] Univ Texas Austin, Dept Econ, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[9] Indian Stat Inst, Econ & Planning Unit, New Delhi, India
[10] IZA Inst Lab Econ, Bonn, Germany
[11] Ctr Policy Res, New Delhi, India
关键词
ABATE CARBON EMISSIONS; CO2; PRIORITY; WORLD; FAIR; COMPARABILITY; EQUALITY; IMPACTS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1038/s41558-021-01130-6
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Climate mitigation will require allocations of emission allowances to nations. This study proposes a utilitarian benchmark to ensure equitable allocations whilst mitigating climate change. Tools are needed to benchmark carbon emissions and pledges against criteria of equity and fairness. However, standard economic approaches, which use a transparent optimization framework, ignore equity. Models that do include equity benchmarks exist, but often use opaque methodologies. Here we propose a utilitarian benchmark computed in a transparent optimization framework, which could usefully inform the equity benchmark debate. Implementing the utilitarian benchmark, which we see as ethically minimal and conceptually parsimonious, in two leading climate-economy models allows for calculation of the optimal allocation of future emissions. We compare this optimum with historical emissions and initial nationally determined contributions. Compared with cost minimization, utilitarian optimization features better outcomes for human development, equity and the climate. Peak temperature is lower under utilitarianism because it reduces the human development cost of global mitigation. Utilitarianism therefore is a promising inclusion to a set of benchmarks for future explorations of climate equity.
引用
收藏
页码:827 / +
页数:11
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]   CRED: A new model of climate and development [J].
Ackerman, Frank ;
Stanton, Elizabeth A. ;
Bueno, Ramon .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2013, 85 :166-176
[2]  
Adler M.D., 2019, Measuring social welfare
[3]  
Adler M, 2017, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V7, P443, DOI [10.1038/nclimate3298, 10.1038/NCLIMATE3298]
[4]  
Adler MD, 2009, GEORGE WASH LAW REV, V77, P1478
[5]  
Aldy J, 2016, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V6, P1000, DOI [10.1038/NCLIMATE3106, 10.1038/nclimate3106]
[6]   The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Policies [J].
Aldy, Joseph E. ;
Pizer, William A. .
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMISTS, 2015, 2 (04) :565-595
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2018, CSO EQUITY REV FAIR, DOI [10.6084/m9.figshare.5917399, DOI 10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5917399]
[8]  
[Anonymous], GLOB CARB ATL CO 2 E
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2018, CSO EQUITY REV EQUIT, DOI [10.6084/m9.figshare.5917408, DOI 10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5917408]
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Climate Ethics: Essential Readings