Comments on: South Korea, a ‘developing’ country, embraces 2020 emissions cap, with important implications for a global deal in Copenhagen http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/04/south-korea-a-developing-country-embraces-2020-emissions-cap-with-important-implications-for-a-global-deal-in-copenhagen/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:01:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Tao http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/04/south-korea-a-developing-country-embraces-2020-emissions-cap-with-important-implications-for-a-global-deal-in-copenhagen/#comment-101497 Tao Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:56:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9785#comment-101497 This is not a new idea Julian. Agentina, "with encouragement by the US administration under President Clinton, proposed that it take on a ‘voluntary target’ linked to future GDP growth", and submit it as a proposal during its host of COP 4 in Buenos Aires in 1998. It was then withdrawn from the table, due to both domestic and international pressures, not only from G77 and China alone. It served as a good case study of flexibile target for non annex-1 country in various researches afterwards. The situation of course has changed since then, but I think some of the lessons learnt are still applicable: "Need for thorough technical assessment, carefully considering country-specific emissions conditions, being conservative in economic projections, leaving room for growth, realistic assessment of technology and emission-related markets, domestic policy relevance and buy-in, long-term view, realistic understanding of international order." I do not oppose the differentiation among countries or even among developing countries in targets, but I doubt that is an acceptable strategy in developing countries' view in climate negotiation. For more details of the Argentina case study, see Daniel Bouille and Osvaldo Girardin, ‘Learning from the Argentine Voluntary Commitment’, in Kevin A. Baumert, O. Blanchard, S. Llosa, J. F. Perkaus (eds), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for protecting the climate, (Washington: World Resources Institute, 2002). This is not a new idea Julian. Agentina, “with encouragement by the US administration under President Clinton, proposed that it take on a ‘voluntary target’ linked to future GDP growth”, and submit it as a proposal during its host of COP 4 in Buenos Aires in 1998. It was then withdrawn from the table, due to both domestic and international pressures, not only from G77 and China alone. It served as a good case study of flexibile target for non annex-1 country in various researches afterwards.

The situation of course has changed since then, but I think some of the lessons learnt are still applicable: “Need for thorough technical assessment, carefully considering country-specific emissions conditions, being conservative in economic projections, leaving room for growth, realistic assessment of technology and emission-related markets, domestic policy relevance and buy-in, long-term view, realistic understanding of international order.”

I do not oppose the differentiation among countries or even among developing countries in targets, but I doubt that is an acceptable strategy in developing countries’ view in climate negotiation.

For more details of the Argentina case study, see Daniel Bouille and Osvaldo Girardin, ‘Learning from the Argentine Voluntary Commitment’, in Kevin A. Baumert, O. Blanchard, S. Llosa, J. F. Perkaus (eds), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for protecting the climate, (Washington: World Resources Institute, 2002).

]]>