62
M. Conte Grand
of the 2° goal requires greenhouse gases (GHG) reductions of 40–70% by 2050, with
respect to 2010 (IPCC 2014).
There is a gap between mitigation policies and what is needed to attenuate the
consequences of climate change. The gap occurs because that even if the current
national commitments under the PA were fully implemented, the target is still far
from being reached. In fact, as shown by UNEP (2017), the carbon budget (i.e.,
carbon allowed emissions by 2100) would be 80% depleted by 2030 (the date of the
PA promises). By 2030, there would be a gap to get the world to the 2° trajectory.
This happens because greenhouse gases need to be 42 gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent
(GtCO 2 -e) per year by 2030, and with the PA Nationally Determined Contributions
(NDCs), they would be 11–13 GtCO 2 -e higher.
The only way to grow and fulfill the goal of the Paris agreement is by decoupling economic activities from carbon emissions. According to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, to decouple is “to eliminate the interrelationship of” or “separate.”
More specifically, OECD (2002) defines decoupling as “breaking the link between
environmental bads and economic goods.”
The relationship between emissions and GDP evolves differently for each country.
This link depends on what and how each of them produces (and consumes). A priori,
those economies with a high share of services in value added relative to that of
industry or agriculture would be more able to decrease their greenhouse gases to a
greater extent, and the opposite would occur for those countries that are major oil
producers. However, the profile of each economy is determined by factors that include
own initial endowments, technology innovation and changes in consumers’ attitude
toward the environment. And public policies influence all of them. Decoupling is
not automatically attained; it has to be driven by both market and government policy
forces (Stavins 2016). And, what is most important in terms of this chapter is that
not all types of decoupling are equally desirable.
Different Views About the Relationship Between Economic
Growth and the Environment
There are all kinds of difficulties in agreeing on stricter emissions’ reduction goals.
One of them is that developing countries argue that they are not historically responsible for carbon emissions (i.e., their argument is that concentration of GHG increased
substantially since the Industrial Revolution, which began in the developed—and not
in developing—nations). Another is that there is no single indicator on which countries can agree on. Per capita emissions and emissions intensity—Emissions/GDP—
would be simple metrics to agree on reductions, but that is not possible since they
differ substantially between countries: nations with low emissions per capita tend
to have high emissions’ intensity, but the indicators go the other way around for
advanced less populated nations. For example, in 2012 (last data available for total
GHG emissions per country at the moment this chapter was written), Paraguay and
M. Conte Grand
of the 2° goal requires greenhouse gases (GHG) reductions of 40–70% by 2050, with
respect to 2010 (IPCC 2014).
There is a gap between mitigation policies and what is needed to attenuate the
consequences of climate change. The gap occurs because that even if the current
national commitments under the PA were fully implemented, the target is still far
from being reached. In fact, as shown by UNEP (2017), the carbon budget (i.e.,
carbon allowed emissions by 2100) would be 80% depleted by 2030 (the date of the
PA promises). By 2030, there would be a gap to get the world to the 2° trajectory.
This happens because greenhouse gases need to be 42 gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent
(GtCO 2 -e) per year by 2030, and with the PA Nationally Determined Contributions
(NDCs), they would be 11–13 GtCO 2 -e higher.
The only way to grow and fulfill the goal of the Paris agreement is by decoupling economic activities from carbon emissions. According to the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, to decouple is “to eliminate the interrelationship of” or “separate.”
More specifically, OECD (2002) defines decoupling as “breaking the link between
environmental bads and economic goods.”
The relationship between emissions and GDP evolves differently for each country.
This link depends on what and how each of them produces (and consumes). A priori,
those economies with a high share of services in value added relative to that of
industry or agriculture would be more able to decrease their greenhouse gases to a
greater extent, and the opposite would occur for those countries that are major oil
producers. However, the profile of each economy is determined by factors that include
own initial endowments, technology innovation and changes in consumers’ attitude
toward the environment. And public policies influence all of them. Decoupling is
not automatically attained; it has to be driven by both market and government policy
forces (Stavins 2016). And, what is most important in terms of this chapter is that
not all types of decoupling are equally desirable.
Different Views About the Relationship Between Economic
Growth and the Environment
There are all kinds of difficulties in agreeing on stricter emissions’ reduction goals.
One of them is that developing countries argue that they are not historically responsible for carbon emissions (i.e., their argument is that concentration of GHG increased
substantially since the Industrial Revolution, which began in the developed—and not
in developing—nations). Another is that there is no single indicator on which countries can agree on. Per capita emissions and emissions intensity—Emissions/GDP—
would be simple metrics to agree on reductions, but that is not possible since they
differ substantially between countries: nations with low emissions per capita tend
to have high emissions’ intensity, but the indicators go the other way around for
advanced less populated nations. For example, in 2012 (last data available for total
GHG emissions per country at the moment this chapter was written), Paraguay and