Predictability, equitability and adequacy of post-2012 international climate financing proposals

Publication year: 2011
Source: Environmental Science & Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 14 June 2011

Andries F., Hof , Michel G.J., den Elzen , Angelica, Mendoza Beltran

This study assesses four proposals to generate funds for international climate financing in developing countries according to three criteria: adequacy, predictability and equitability. The focus year is 2020, in which USD 100 billion should be available for climate financing according to the Copenhagen Accord. The four financing proposals assessed include auctioning emission allowances (Norwegian Proposal), a global carbon tax (Swiss Proposal), an emissions trading (IET) levy, and a tax on international aviation and shipping emissions (bunker fuel emissions tax). Adequacy and predictability are assessed by calculating the revenue of the financing proposals for three mitigation scenarios. Equitability is assessed by…

 Highlights: ► A levy on emissions trading is not equitable and revenues are neither adequate nor predictable. ► The Swiss proposal and a bunker fuel emission tax score best on equitability, predictability and adequacy. ► Financing proposals for which revenues depend on mitigation effort leads to unpredictable funding. ► Combining proposals for which revenues depend on carbon price will not increase predictability of revenues.