Countries representing over 80 percent of global emissions have submitted pledges under the Copenhagen Accord, which aims to limit global temperature rise to 2C on pre-industrial levels. But how can we assess these different pledges — do we know what each means?

In particular, how can we measure the emissions intensity reduction target proposed by China against absolute carbon reduction targets of the US and EU? Furthermore, how can we compare and judge what is fair and equal, considering different countries’ level of economic development, historical responsibilities, projected population growth, emissions intensity of key export industries, domestic efforts versus international offsets, etc?

These are tough questions with no simple answers.

Comparability of targets

Critics say China’s targets are not ambitious enough given its booming economy. They point out China managed to reduce energy intensity by 47 percent between 1990 and 2005 and that emissions intensity can fall faster than energy intensity if clean energy sources are brought into the mix.

Yet proponents of China’s targets have stated that their target is ambitious and would require significant policy-driven action. In an article in Nature magazine, Zou Ji, an environmental economist at Beijing’s Renmin University, said that “to get extra mileage and reach the 40–45 percent target, China will have to instigate substantial social and economic reforms across the board.”

The same article quoted Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, as saying that  China has so far reduced emissions by picking low-hanging fruit by closing energy-inefficient factories and power plants. “The further we go, the more challenging and costly it will get,” he told Nature.

A report by Chandler & Wang demonstrates that the energy-GDP elasticity (ratio of growth in energy to growth in the economy) of developing countries typically averages 1.0-1.5 whilst China’s target assumes an aggressive 0.33-0.5 elasticity. The report also states that the scenarios in IEA’s World Energy Outlook report are misleading as business as usual as based on “current policies” – it assumes that China will extend its recent policy measures on carbon reductions (in its five-year plan) but does not account for the yet-to-be-legislated commitment in the US.

With this in mind, Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the IEA, told Nature News wire that China’s pledge “is a very welcome decision… it would have significant implications for China and the rest of the world.”

A couple of weeks ago, Dr Frank Jotzo and Dr David Stern of the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University (ANU) released a study titled “How Ambitious are China and India’s Emissions Intensity Targets?” They model emissions projections for the two countries under scenarios of varying degrees of technological change and changes in share of non-fossil energy. Dr Stern stated in an ANU press release that “the business as usual trend in emissions intensity is well above the target that China has proposed.”

The report found that the most likely business as usual scenario implied a 24 percent reduction in emissions intensity for 2005-2020. This correlates to a convergence to US in underlying energy efficiency. Therefore, China will need to adopt ambitious policies to reduce emissions in order to meet its target.

China’s goal of 15 percent non-fossil energy by 2020 is calculated to equate to only an additional 2 percent in emissions intensity reduction (5 percent for a 20 percent target; 8 percent for a 25 percent target).  In order to reach a 40-45 percent target, it must rely on much faster improvements in underlying energy efficiency across all parts of the economy. The report also found that China’s target is on par with the implicit US and EU emissions intensity targets, assuming economic growth rates of about 2.5 percent a year and 2 percent per year respectively.

The World Resources Institute also issued a working paper titled “Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges,” which reached similar conclusions as the ANU report. The paper and accompanying interactive chart is particularly interesting in comparing Annex I country pledges across different base years, percent change in absolute and per capita reductions as well as emissions intensity.

The per capita analysis clearly shows how growing populations in Australia, Canada, US and New Zealand need to be considered in comparison to the more stable populations of the EU and Japan.

What is fair and equitable?

The ANU report suggests that emissions intensity reduction ambitions are similar between China, the US and EU.

However, developed countries’ targets are considerably more efficient than the Chinese, which makes it more difficult to achieve the same rate of emissions intensity reductions than fast-growing economies.

On the other hand, developed economies should respect historical responsibility and acknowledge their greater ability to pay for emissions cuts. During the UN Conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, developed countries agreed to put in greater effort than developing countries in climate change actions.

Other questions of equity have been raised around perspectives on a global carbon economy. Should China be penalised for supplying emissions-intensive goods across the world? How should importing countries account for this?

For instance, the UK government claimed that its emissions fell by 4.6 percent over the period 1992 to 2004. However, a recent audit carried out by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that emissions actually increased by 13.5 percent over the period if emissions from imported goods was included.

Likewise, a March 2010 Carnegie Institute of Washington report found that the UK imports 253 million tonnes of CO2 per year, or 4.3 tonnes per person, which is almost half of the average Briton’s carbon footprint of 9.7 tonnes (not including emissions from goods). This emphasises the issue of global responsibility as, ultimately, it is global emissions that counts.