Comparing climate strategies: Economic optimization versus equitable burden-sharing

The research evaluates whether economic efficiency and international equity lead to different conclusions regarding who should pay for climate mitigation. By calibrating the Climate and Regional Economics of Development (CRED) model to match the scenarios of the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs) framework, the authors find that both approaches converge on a similar result: high-income countries should bear approximately 60% of the global mitigation responsibility by 2030. The paper argues that the two perspectives are consistent because both imply significant resource transfers from wealthy to poor nations—GDRs based on responsibility and capacity, and CRED based on the diminishing marginal utility of income.

• The economic optimization approach (CRED) and the equity-based burden-sharing approach (GDRs) yield similar results for the share of global mitigation effort assigned to high-income countries, converging to approximately 60% by 2030.
• The GDRs reference (business-as-usual) scenario is considered optimal by the CRED model if specific assumptions are met: a moderately high discount rate (pure time preference of 2.2%), conventional climate sensitivity (3.0°C), moderate climate damages, and no resource transfers between regions.
• A mitigation pathway comparable to the GDRs emergency reduction scenario (aiming to stay below 2°C) is optimal in the CRED model under precautionary assumptions, including a low discount rate (0.1%), high climate sensitivity (4.5°C), higher-than-conventional climate damages, and resource transfers up to 5% of the donor region's output.
• The consistency between the two models is driven by the requirement for large resource transfers from wealthy to poor countries; in CRED, this is justified by the diminishing marginal utility of income, while in GDRs, it is based on the responsibility and capacity of wealthy nations.
• Economic growth and climate stabilization are not rival objectives for the world as a whole, but they are rival objectives within high-income countries, as these nations must sacrifice growth to fund the global transition.

APA

Ackerman, F., Bueno, R., Kartha, S., & Kemp-Benedict, E. (2011). Comparing climate strategies: Economic optimization versus equitable burden-sharing. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1104.pdf

Chicago

Ackerman, Frank, Ramón Bueno, Sivan Kartha, and Eric Kemp-Benedict. Comparing climate strategies: Economic optimization versus equitable burden-sharing. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2011. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1104.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Ackerman |first1=Frank |last2=Bueno |first2=Ramón |last3=Kartha |first3=Sivan |last4=Kemp-Benedict |first4=Eric |title=Comparing climate strategies: Economic optimization versus equitable burden-sharing |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=February 2011 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1104.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{ackerman2011comparing, author = {Ackerman, Frank and Bueno, Ramón and Kartha, Sivan and Kemp-Benedict, Eric}, title = {{Comparing climate strategies: Economic optimization versus equitable burden-sharing}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2011}, month = feb, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1104.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }