In light of the upcoming COP24, we thought it would be a good idea to revisit Beyond Ratings' CLAIM© (Climate Liabilities Assessment Integrated Methodology) methodology which we presented at COP23 last year. As we saw in the recently published IPCC report, there is a need to assess the alignment of NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) with global climate scenarios. Beyond Ratings has developed an innovative methodology that offers a consistency analytical framework to hold countries accountable to their pledges to global climate strategy, namely carbon and GHG emissions budgets. We invite you to read the Abstract of the Working Paper below.
How could the burden of GHG emissions reductions be shared among countries? We address this arguably basic question by purely statistical methods that do not rely on any normative judgment about the criteria according to which it should be answered. The sum of current Nationally Determined Contributions to reducing GHG emissions would result in an average temperature rise by 2100 of the order of 3°C to 3.2°C. Implementing policies that enable to achieve the objective of a worldwide average temperature rise below 2°C obviously requires setting a more consistent and efficient set of national emissions targets. While a scientific consensus has been reached about the global carbon budget that we are facing, given the 2°C target of the Paris Agreement, no such consensus prevails on how this budget is to be divided among countries. This paper proposes a Climate Liabilities Assessment Integrated Methodology (CLAIM) which allows for the determination of national GHG budgets compliant with any average temperature target and time horizon. Our methodology does not resort to any scenario- or any simulation-based model. Rather, it computes the allocation of 2°C compatible national carbon budgets which have a priori the highest probability of emerging from international discussions, whatever being the criteria on which the latter might be based. As such, it provides a framework ensuring the highest probability of reaching a consensus. In particular, it avoids the pitfall of arbitrarily assigning weights according to, for example, to “capacity” or “responsibility” criteria, and simultaneously unifies the different methodologies that have been proposed in the literature aiming at setting national GHG budgets. Sensitivity tests confirm the robustness of our methodology.
Read the full Working Paper by clicking on the link below.
Hadrien Lantremange, Natural Capital Analyst
Olivier Rech, Head of Energy & Climate Research
Emeric Nicolas, Head of Data Science
Gaël Giraud, CNRS, Agence Française de Développement, Chair Energy & Prosperity