Mr. Geir Orderud

Senior Researcher, OsloMet, Oslo Metropolitan University, Institute for Urban and Regional Research

In achieving carbon neutrality, we must confront the issue of equity. The equity of carbon emission rights is always the core of tackling climate change and promoting sustainable development, be it the allocation practice of carbon emission rights within a country or the international emission reduction negotiation. It is imperative to consider the issue of equity in the context of carbon neutrality from different dimensions.

Procedural Justice and Effect Distribution

The priority is procedural justice and effect distribution. On the premise of ensuring appropriate decision-making process, the results should be fully predicted to achieve the established goals. From decision making to action and implementation, we should take all aspects into systematic consideration, enhance smooth integration of steps, and practice the principle of consistency and coherence throughout the process. For different emitters, emission quotas should be rationally allocated on a relatively equitable basis to accelerate the flow of carbon emission rights between regions and achieve the optimal emission reduction effect.

Wide Adaptability and Targeted Scenarios

The wide adaptability and targeted scenarios of the equity principle should be taken into account when building the realization path of carbon neutrality. While continuing to promote carbon neutrality and equity as a universal standard, policies should be implemented in a cultural context. We should formulate a specific framework for carbon neutrality that is culturally appropriate, give full play to the role of culture in boosting carbon neutrality, translate policy commitments into concrete actions, and ensure the development needs of different emitters are met to the greatest extent possible.

Intragenerational and Intergenerational Equity

In order to promote carbon neutrality and vigorously respond to climate change, we should strike a balance between horizontal intragenerational equity and vertical intergenerational equity. Sustainable development advocates meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The carbon neutral goal has drawn more attention to intragenerational carbon emission reduction and offsetting mechanisms. We should optimize the allocation of carbon emission rights among countries, improve energy efficiency, and build a carbon emission reduction system of win-win cooperation at the global level. Responding to and adapting to climate change requires us to focus more on intergenerational factors and incorporate the well-being of future generations into the decision-making process.

Human-Centered VS Biocentric

The implementation of the equity principle requires us to accelerate the transition from a human-centered public opinion environment to a biocentric cultural system that focuses on global species diversity. Most of today's policies are human-centered, but we need to bring biodiversity center stage and protect the foundations on which we live and thrive. We need to switch to a biocentric mindset that fully respects the right of other species to life and avoids human-centered intolerance.

Social Consensus and Moral Constraints

Due to differences in cultural background, historical customs and values, different groups have varying definitions of equity. Members of some cultural groups have reached a consensus on the need for equity as a common social norm for group differences. Other cultural groups may regard equity as a value orientation, a philosophy of life based on moral principles and intrinsic values. These different factors determine that the carbon emission reduction paths of different social groups will not be uniform.

Theoretical Background Defines the Concept of Equity

The understanding of the concept of equity is largely determined by our theoretical background, knowledge levels and thinking modes. Pragmatists, contractarians, communitarians, and Confucian scholars will understand what equity means from different perspectives. In recent decades, neoliberalism has become the mainstream. Despite differences across the world, economies are becoming more market-oriented with a prevalent focus on personal interests. However, current neoliberalism has not effectively helped us deal with climate change and the challenges it poses.

The "Polluter Pays" Principle

Flexible adherence to the "polluter pays" principle is crucial for the equitable and appropriate promotion of carbon neutrality at the economic level. We should balance the willingness to pay and the capacity to pay from the perspective of practice, especially the willingness to pay of the poor. While the "polluter pays" principle is not new to environmental movements, many of them initiated by the middle class lack practical foundations to elicit extensive response and support. We need to, based on the "polluter pays" principle, ensure that differences in the capacity to pay are at the center of economic planning and policy making, in order to support a truly equitable global recovery from the pandemic.

Carbon Emission Rules Based on Historical Perspectives

In terms of carbon emission quota allocation and carbon trading policy formulation, we have gone through a controversial stage. Decisions were made based too much on the historical emission scale of emitters, and those with large historical emission scale were given relatively more carbon emission allowances. However, focusing merely on historical equity will result in placing unmatched responsibilities on contemporary people. Any carbon emission quota allocated according to a single rule may lead to the inconsistency of the allocation standards, and ultimately inequitable distribution as an objective outcome.

Discount Rate for Environmental Effects

Climate change features long-term and slow evolution, and carbon emission reduction is more likely to benefit us in the distant future, while immediate costs will be incurred. This involves two intertemporal issues, namely, environmental discount rate and intergenerational equity. We often make policies and assessments based on the assumption that current consumption is more important than future consumption, and social time preference theory reduces the effectiveness of action, in part leading to much of today's work being stuck in a groove. We should look at the benefits of the whole society from the perspective of sustainable development, in order to determine a reasonable environmental discount rate and achieve the optimal effect of carbon emission reduction.

Mechanism of Action for Circular Economy

The understanding of circular economy has continuously evolved over the past 20 years, from a concept originally intended to reduce environmental pollution to a development model that, at least in Europe, can sustain economic growth. In the context of circular economy, we should note how to promote resource conservation at the social and individual level, and pay attention to the income and substitution effect. Consumer behavior will change with cost and other factors, which may eventually lead to deviation from the expected results of circular economy. We need to exercise flexible intervention to avoid adverse effects on global climate and the process of achieving carbon neutrality.