New climate model puts equity at the forefront

Researchers propose new framework for climate action that considers development levels, energy thresholds, and fair carbon budget allocation.

A sit-in protest during COP21, UN Climate Change Conference in Le Bourget, north of Paris, on December 9, 2015. | Photo Credit: Francois Mori/AP

In a study published on June 17 in the journal Climate and Development, researchers with the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru, and the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, presented a new framework they designed for modelling climate action that foregrounds equity. The results showed that while limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius—as is required under the Paris Agreement, which was adopted at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015—would need all countries to undertake far greater emission reductions than they have so far, the manner in which such efforts are shared among countries varies significantly depending on whether equity is factored in or not.

The authors of the paper modelled climate mitigation action on the basis of the developmental levels of countries rather than the standard geographical classification used by the most dominant form of modelling: integrated assessment models (IAMs). The reasoning is that the historical responsibility for climate change and the capability to undertake climate action depend on levels of development, not on the geographical location of countries.

“The Global South has a fourfold challenge,” said Tejal Kanitkar, one of the authors of the paper and an associate professor in the Energy, Environment, and Climate Change Programme at the NIAS. The fourfold challenge is to address developmental needs, adapt to climate change, deal with loss and damage due to the warming that has already occurred, and contribute to climate change mitigation. “Modelling frameworks that do not at least attempt to address this fourfold challenge are not very useful for policy,” she added. The framework, she said, presented in the paper is “the first step” towards concretely addressing concerns that have repeatedly been raised by developing countries about the existing framework that violates the principles of equity enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses modelled pathways drawn using IAMs to assess how much mitigation action will be necessary to limit warming of the earth’s surface. The paper says that mitigation can be modelled without using IAMs, which it characterises as “complicated and inaccessible”.

The authors place countries in four developmental categories: G1, G2, G3, and G4 where G1 is the highest level of development and G4 the lowest. G1 includes countries such the US, the UK, Switzerland, Germany, France, the UAE, Qatar, and Australia. G2 includes China, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. G3 includes India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Namibia, South Africa, and Sri Lanka. G4 includes Nepal, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Ghana, and Zimbabwe. For context, G4 countries face multidimensional poverty where the per capita GDP is 17 times less than those in G1. The per capita GDP of G2 countries is around three times less than those in G1, while that of G3 is almost six times less than those of G1.

Foregrounding equity

The researchers used developmental indicators to estimate energy thresholds, which is the point beyond which higher energy consumption may not necessarily lead to higher development. It is important to note here that these thresholds are dependent on factors such as health, education, and infrastructure and go beyond poverty alleviation thresholds that tend to assume people’s aspirations are limited to just crossing the poverty line.

The authors then constructed scenarios in which development groups that are above these energy thresholds reduce energy consumption to this level and those below this threshold increase energy consumption to reach this level by 2050. Then, they imposed carbon budget constraints where countries across development groups can access their fair share of the remaining carbon budget to limit warming to either 1.5°C or 2°C.

The results showed that the mitigation efforts required by G1 countries are six times higher if equity is considered compared with scenarios where equity is compromised. And the climate effort by G4 countries is doubled if equity is not considered.

“The bulk of current modelling studies typically project existing economic trends into the future and then superimpose mitigation constraints on these trends. Discussions of the feasibility of achieving mitigation outcomes at low levels of income are typically carried out outside the scope of the models. In contrast, we invert the process by modelling the world we wish to see (in terms of development as well as climate), and then discuss the question of attaining this goal,” the paper states.

In essence, the current framework offers no scope to foreground equity. When equity is indeed considered, it is an afterthought and manifests as a post-modelling consideration. In contrast, the new paper places equity front and centre in terms of both energy and climate justice.

The new regional classification presented in this research throws into stark relief the countries that have been left behind in global development and the importance of considering equitable levels of energy consumption in allocations of the limited global carbon budget, said Kate Dooley, a research fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Dooley has previously studied how effort-sharing under the Paris Agreement often lacks an ethical framework that takes equity into account. “This work presents new and up-to-date equity indicators for sustainable development in the energy sector, which should provide a benchmark for climate scenario development going forward,” she added.

Perpetuating injustice

An earlier study led by Kanitkar (published on March 4, 2024, in the journal Climate Policy) found that scenarios assessed by the IPCC perpetuate injustice by neither considering the developmental necessities of the Global South nor the historical responsibility of the Global North.

The present study deals only with carbon dioxide and assesses action by countries as a whole, not specific sectors such as industry, transport, and buildings. The authors are now working towards expanding this new framework to include gases other than carbon dioxide and across sectors. The objective, Kanitkar said, is to produce a series of scenarios that operationalise equity. “The oft-cited excuse [for not considering equity in modelling] that there is very little literature on equity-based scenarios needs to be remedied.”

“The paper is a good starting point for recognising fairness and equity in terms of energy needs and a just transition in developing countries,” said Shivika Mittal, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research, Norway. But one important aspect that the framework misses is the impact of climate change on the economy, she added. At present, a few IAM-based scenarios assessed by the IPCC include such impacts of climate change. But more broadly, this aspect has not been dealt with enough in modelling literature. The world will face severe climate impacts in the coming years. “The feedback effect of climate change should be included in the framework as it influences a country’s ability to allocate public finance to mitigation efforts, especially for the vulnerable developing countries,” Mittal explained.

Rishika Pardikar is an environment reporter based in Bengaluru who covers science, law, and policy.