al contributions. For example, while China has indicated a peaking date of 2030, the United States and the European Union have not indicated any date for rapidly reaching the zero-emission level.Studies show that the current pledges of developing countries go far beyond their “fair share” of responsibilities for addressing climate change.
The Decision accompanying the Agreement introduces the notion of concentration of emissions in the atmosphere and sharing the global carbon budget. It notes, in para 17 that for a 2°C pathway 2030 emissions would need to be reduced from 55 giga tonnes so far pledged by countries down to 40 giga tonnes. Intense deliberations can be expected onwhether emissions should be defined as current emissions and percentage reductions, in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, or emissions over a period of time, in accordance with the definition of Emissions in the Convention and the Objective of the Convention, which is recognised in the Agreement, whichconsiders concentration of emissions and not absolute or current emissions. All these elements should be mandatory elements in each of the national contributions.
There is also a distinction between mitigation pledges and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature, and it is the latter that concerns the stocktake and the dialogue in 2018. Initially, the trajectory of emissions since 1990, which have already been verified by the secretariat, should be provided to the ‘facilitative dialogue’ and to the stocktaking under Article 11, and later extended to 1950, to cover two-third of total global emissions since the Industrial Revolution. We also know that contributions to current global emissions differ widely - China (27 per cent), the United States (15 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent), and India (7 per cent). Two-third of global emissions occurred after 1950, one-third after 1990 and, for example, at the time of peaking in 2005, US emissions were about 15 percent above their 1990 level. In the absence of allocation criteria the stocktaking should consider how the carbon budget is being used to operationalise fairness.
Per-capita emissions also need to be considered as they best reflect the requirement of comparing different national circumstances and capacities or stages and type of development. In 2014 the world emitted 4.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person and staying below 2°C means reducing that to 4.5 tonnes by 2020, and then to 0.5 tonnes by 2050. It is possible to reduce emissions by modifying some trends without affecting wellbeing in general. Weknow that countries with similar standards of living assessed in terms of income, life expectancy, education and health care have very different levels of per-capita emissions. In the United States each person was responsible, on average, for 17 tonnes of carbon dioxide; Japan emitted fewer than 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person; and, the European Union 6.6 tonnes.Consequently, the Agreement provides for emissions decreasing sharply after peaking as these countries have a greater capacity than countries which have yet to eradicate poverty.
Aggregate stocktaking for enhanced international cooperation
Beginning in 2023, and every five years afterwards, the COP is to “take stock of the implementation of this Agreement to assess the collective progress towards achieving” it’s Purpose and the long term goals, in the “light of equity and the best available science” (Art 14). Therefore, equity should be integrated in the science itself rather than treat it as an add-on later.
The criteria to adopt for considering ‘equity’ will be one of the most contentious. This should be related to national circumstances. One indicator is transport emissions, which are the fastest growing emissions worldwide, and directly related to national circumstances. For example, the United States has eight times the number of automobiles than India with one-third the population. A similar ratio is found in terms of per-capita emissions (eight times) and per-capit