{"word_count": 234, "character_count": 1730}
Can no-lose targets contribute to a 2° C target? / Vicki Duscha (Fraunhofer ISI) and Joachim Schleich (Fraunhofer ISI/ Grenoble Ecole de Management), Climate Policy (available online 18 Feb. 2013)http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2013.763529Working paper version: http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-en/x/publikationen/workingpapers_sustainability_innovation.phpAbstract (© Taylor &#38; Francis) :The contribution that no-lose target schemes for non-Annex I (NAI) countries could make to achieve the 2°C target is explored by accounting for the incentives of 18 NAI countries’ participation in no-lose target schemes. Using various scenarios, it is shown that implementing uniform no-lose targets as part of the burden-sharing will not lead to global emissions levels compatible with the 2°C target, because uniform no-lose targets will only be beneficial to a few NAI countries. Employing more lenient uniform no-lose targets or individual no-lose targets for large emitters could increase participation by NAI countries and decrease global emissions, global compliance costs, rents by NAI countries, and compliance costs for Annex I (AI) countries. However, the resulting global emissions levels will not be compatible with attaining the 2°C target. Achieving this target will require more stringent emissions targets for AI countries and more lenient no-lose targets for NAI countries. As such, no-lose targets should account for 20% to 47% of global emissions reductions, while due to emissions trading around two-thirds of global emissions reductions should be realized in NAI countries. Indeed, an effective solution may only require no-lose targets for five to seven of the largest NAI countries.&#160;&#160;