Hermwille L, Obergassel W, Ott HE, Beuermann C (2017) UNFCCC before and after Paris – what is needed for an effective climate regime? Clim Policy 17:150–170 From a technological perspective, economists Francesco Vona and Fabrizio Patriarca have shown how high inequality hinders the development and adoption of new green technologies, as these innovations are accessible to fewer people. Similarly, Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty proposed a consumption-based emissions inequality index to measure differences in income deciities within each country – shifting attention from the national to the individual level. They argue that in a globalized economy, it makes more sense to consider the amount of emissions „consumed“ (through the products we buy and the services we use) than to talk about „produced“ emissions. First, should future NDCs include information on the provision of financial support, capacity building and technology transfer? It can be argued that climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building increase global ambitions to combat climate change and thus contribute to the achievement of the UNFCCC objective (Pickering et al. 2015; Rai et al., 2015). However, developed countries have long maintained the position that NDCs should not contain information on the provision of financing (IISD, 2014, 2018), and the NDC formulation guidelines adopted at the Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland, in 2018, do not require countries to do so (UNFCCC, 2018). Indeed, it can be argued that there are alternative reporting formats for communicating the provision of support, including the new ex-ante communication on climate finance introduced in Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement and the biennial transparency reports (the first of which are expected by the end of 2024) under Articles 9.7 and 13.10. However, while ex-ante information may serve a similar function to the one we are proposing here, the ex-post information reported in the transparency framework of the Paris Agreement serves a different purpose, namely to show whether donor countries are providing the support they have committed to. If countries indicate their planned support at about the same time as developing countries are considering increasing their own ambitions, they can give developing countries important assurances that support for them in the implementation of their NDCs is imminent. Finally, the inclusion of information on the provision of support for 5 years – and not for every 2 years – is also likely to increase the medium-term predictability of funding. Emerging markets make different types of commitments, with the main target (3% of emerging markets) arguably the second purest type of engagement. The majority of emerging markets (55%) and LDCs+SIDS (58%) set business-as-usual targets, meaning they want to reduce their emissions below their projected emissions under a business-as-usual scenario. Among DDPs and SIDS, the second most important type of objective is „policies and measures“ (33%).
This is one of the least stringent types of commitments, although the targets themselves can be ambitious for each country (Hof et al. 2017). However, the nature of the target can be seen as an expression of the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement (see Article 4.6 and Table 1), which states that least developed countries and SIDS may develop and communicate strategies, plans and measures for the development of low greenhouse gas emissions, taking into account their particular situation. .