Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

A compromise to break the climate impasse

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 543–549 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

An Erratum to this article was published on 29 October 2014

This article has been updated

Abstract

To overcome the current impasse in global climate negotiations we propose a compromise for sharing the remaining carbon budget, based on four elements. First, limiting initial action to the Major Economies Forum members would streamline negotiations greatly. Second, using consumption-based carbon accounting would overcome important fairness concerns of key developing countries. Similarly, applying equity principles of responsibility and capability to apportion the burden of emissions reductions within the group can address concerns of both the global north and south. And fourth, promptly bringing this compromise back to the United Nations negotiations for wider adoption will be critical. Based on an indicative carbon budget of 420 gigatonnes carbon dioxide over the period 2012–2050, our analysis shows that ambitious but feasible emissions reductions will be needed, with sharp differences by world economic groups. The compromise offers effectiveness, feasibility and fairness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: MEF members' emission reductions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 02 October 2014

    In the version of this Perspective originally published, reference 20 contained a typographical error and should have read: Purdon, M. Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 17, 301–338 (2014). This error has now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Perspective.

References

  1. Keohane, R. O. & Victor D. G. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Polit. 9, 7–23 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bodansky, D. The Copenhagen climate change conference: A postmortem. Am. J. Int. Law 104, 230–240 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Falkner, R., Hannes, S. & Vogler, J. International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a building blocks approach. Glob. Policy 1, 1–11 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parks, B. C. & Roberts J. T. Climate change, social theory and justice. Theor. Cult. Soc. 27, 134–166 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hurrell, A. & Sengupta, S. Emerging powers, North–South relations and global climate politics. Int. Aff. 88, 463–484 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Like-Minded Developing Countries on Climate Change. Submission to the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) on the Implementation of all the elements of decision 1/CP.17, (a) Matters related to paragraphs 2 to 6. (UNFCCC, 2013).

  7. Harris, P. G. & Symons, J. Norm conflict in climate governance: greenhouse gas accounting and the problem of consumption. Global Environ. Polit. 13, 9–29 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barrett, S. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Terhalle, M. & Depledge, G. Great-power politics, order transition, and climate governance: insights from international relations theory. Clim. Policy 13, 572–588 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Underdal, A. in International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity (ed. Zartman, I. W.) 178–197 (Jossey-Bass, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Young, O. Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society. Int. Organ. 45, 281–308 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Andresen, S. & Agrawala, S. Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environ. Chang. 12, 41–51 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grundig, F. & Ward, H. Structural group leadership and regime effectiveness. Polit. Stud. http://doi.org/sz4 (2013).

  14. Price, R. Moral limit and possibility in world politics. Int. Organ. 62, 191–220 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sen, A. K. The Idea of Justice (Belknap/Harvard, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Stocker, T. F. The closing door of climate targets. Science 339, 280–282 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stern, N. (ed.) The Economics of Climate Change [The Stern Review] (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Nordhaus, W. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policy (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Purdon, M. Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 17, 301–338 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rose, G. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Polit. 51, 144–172 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grundig, F. Patterns of international cooperation and the explanatory power of relative gains: An analysis of cooperation on global climate change, ozone depletion, and international trade. Int. Stud. Q. 50, 781–801 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vezirgiannidou, S. E. The Kyoto agreement and the pursuit of relative gains. Environ. Polit. 17, 40–57 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brenton, A. 'Great Powers' in climate politics. Clim. Policy 13, 541–546 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bäckstrand, K. & Elgström, O. The EU's role in climate change negotiations: from leader to 'leadiator'. J. Eur. Public Policy 20, 1369–1386 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eckersley, R. Moving forward in the climate negotiations: Multilateralism or minilateralism? Global Environ. Polit. 12, 24–42 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nelsen, A. US considers shifting climate negotiations away from UN track. The Guardian, Guardian Environment Network, 16 November 2012; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/16/us-considers-climate-negotiations-un

    Google Scholar 

  28. Victor D. G. A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309, 1820–1821 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stiglitz, J. A new agenda for global warming. Econ. Voice 3, Article 3 (2006).

  30. Barrett, S. Rethinking climate change governance and its relationship to the world trading system. World Econ. 34, 1862–1882 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leal-Arcas, R. Climate change mitigation from the bottom up: using preferential trade agreements to promote climate change mitigation, Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 7, 34–42 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Leal-Arcas, R. Working together: How to make trade contribute to climate action. Information Note, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva (2013).

  33. Pan, J., Phillips, J. & Chen, Y. China's balance of emissions embodied in trade: approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 24, 354–376 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Asselt, H. & Brewer, T. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: An analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energ. Policy 38, 42–51 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Steinberger, J. K., Roberts, J. T., Peters, G. P. & Baiocchi, G. Pathways of human development and carbon emissions embodied in trade. Nature Clim. Change 2, 81–85 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Eckersley, R. The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures. Ethics Int. Aff. 20, 367–393 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kanemoto, K., Moran, D. Lenzen, M. & Geschke, A. International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: New evidence from air pollution. Global Environ. Change 24, 52–59 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Davis, S., Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5687–5682 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Peters, G. P. Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L., Edenhofer, O. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8903–8908 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Peters, G. P. & Hertwich, E. G. Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption. Clim. Change 86, 51–66 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Steininger, K. et al. Justice and cost effectiveness of consumption-based versus production-based approaches in the case of unilateral climate policies. Global Environ. Change 24, 75–87 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bows, A. & Barret, J. Cumulative emission scenarios using a consumption-based approach: a glimmer of hope? Carbon Manag. 1, 161–175 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Peters, G. P. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol. Econ. 65, 13–23 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Peters, G. P., Davis, S. J. & Andrew, R. A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences 9, 3247–3276 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Le Quéré, C. et al. The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 5, 1107–1157 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shue, H. in International Politics of the Environment (eds Hurrell, A. & Kingsbury, B.) 373–397 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Brunnée, J. & Streck, C. The UNFCCC as a negotiation forum: towards common but more differentiated responsibilities. Clim. Policy 13, 589–607 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Grasso, M. Sharing the emission budget. Polit. Stud. 60, 668–686 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Winkler, H. & Rajamani, L. CBDR&RC in a regime applicable to all. Clim. Policy 14, 102–121 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Caney, S. Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. J. Glob. Ethics 5, 125–146 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jamieson, D. in Perspectives on Climate Change: Science, Economics, Politics, Ethics (eds Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Howarth, R. B.) 217–248 (Elsevier, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Miller, D. Global justice and climate change: how should responsibilities be distributed? The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. The International Spectator, Part I and II, 28, 119–156 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shue, H. Global environment and international inequality. Int. Aff. 75, 531–545 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Meyer, L. H. Why historical emissions should count. Chi. J. Int. Law 13, 597–685 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Neumayer, E. In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol. Econ. 33, 185–192 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. den Elzen, M. G. J., Olivier, J. G. J., Höhne, N. & Janssens-Maenhout, G. Countries' contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress. Clim. Change 121, 397–412 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Friman, M. & Strandberg, G. Historical responsibility for climate change: Science and the science-policy interface. WIREs Clim. Change 5, 297–316 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Page, E. A. Distributing the burden of climate change. Environ. Polit. 17(4), 556–575 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Baer, P. The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing: reflection on principles and prospects. WIREs Clim. Change 4, 61–71 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pauw, P. Bauer, S. Richerzhagen, C. Brandi, C Schmole, H. Different perspectives on differentiated responsibilities: A state-of-the-art review of the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities in international negotiations. DIE Discussion Paper 6/2014, Bonn (2014).

  61. Bodansky, D. in The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (eds Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Hey, E.) 704–723 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. & McGee, J. Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: the case of global climate governance. Global Environ. Polit. 13, 56–78 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Shue, H. in The Ethics of Global Climate Change (ed. Arnold, D. G.) 292–314 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Shue, H. Climate hope: Implementing the exit strategy, Chi. J. Intl Law 13, 381–401 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  66. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  67. Baer, P., Athanasiou, T. & Kartha, S. The Three Salient Global Mitigation Pathways Assessed in Light of the IPCC Carbon Budgets (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Grasso, M. & Roberts, J. T. A fair compromise to break the climate impasse (Brookings Institution Global Economy and Development Program, 2013) http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/04-climate-emissions-grasso-roberts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Calgaro, D. Roser and G. Vittucci Marzetti. This version remains our own responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Social Research, Università Milano-Bicocca, Milan, 20126, Italy

    Marco Grasso

  2. Institute for the Study of Environment and Society, Brown University, 89 Waterman Street, Providence, 02912, Rhode Island, USA

    J. Timmons Roberts

Authors
  1. Marco Grasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Timmons Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.G. conceived the study. M.G. and J.T.R carried out the study and contributed to writing the article.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marco Grasso or J. Timmons Roberts.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods (PDF 398 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grasso, M., Roberts, J. A compromise to break the climate impasse. Nature Clim Change 4, 543–549 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2259

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2259

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing