We're getting closer to the real number.
From The Nation (Thailand):
A proposal released at the UN Climate Summit in Bali on Monday offers a new approach to break the gridlock. Using what are called "Greenhouse Development Rights" (GDR), countries would be assigned specific targets for emissions reductions, but weighted so that wealthy nations cut more - and poorer nations less.
For example, the United States, though currently responsible for about 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, would be responsible for 34 percent of reductions, at a cost of about US$780 (Bt24,000) per year per taxpayer. Thailand, which is responsible for about 1 per cent of global emissions, would be responsible for just 0.5 percent of global reductions, with a cost per taxpayer of about US$50 a year.
The scheme outlined in "The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World" reiterates what climate scientists have been stating - emergency action must be taken to halt the rise in CO2 emissions.
However, the report emphasises that the global response, "must take care that it does not threaten to lock in today's vast disparities of wealth and income. Just the contrary: It must drive down emissions globally, even while the lives of the poor are improving and ambitious development goals are being met and surpassed.
"To this end, it must slash the emissions of the already wealthy and, at the same time, prevent the unbounded emissions growth of those rising out of poverty. And it must do so without stifling their development aspirations."
The report was produced by the US-based advocacy group EcoEquity and senior scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute, with support from Christian Aid based in the UK and the Green Party affiliated Heinrich Boell Foundation of Germany.
When evaluating a country's responsibility, it was suggested that only those taxpayers whose relative incomes are US$9,000 per year or more be included. US$8,500 per year is the current world average.
"More specifically, the GDRs framework quantifies national responsibility and capacity with the goal of providing a coherent, principle-based way to think about national obligations to pay for both mitigation and adaptation," the report stated.
Campaigners from developing countries welcomed the GDR concept, saying that while it includes them in the carbon reduction equation, it does not overburden the poor, as those with low incomes are not factored into the "responsibility" calculations....MOREHere's what the NGO Christian Aid is shooting for:
Industrialised nations must pay billions of pounds to help poorer countries tackle global warming if millions of people around the world are not to be consigned to endless poverty, international development agency Christian Aid says in a new report.
The annual bill for the UK alone could amount to at least £25 billion (€35.6 billion), with EU countries collectively paying €235 billion (£164 billion) and the US $414 billion (£198 billion) each year....
Here's the Powerpoint.
Here's EcoEquity's math:
If, for example, it turns out that the total costs of the emergency program are one percent of gross world product, then the implied annual obligations average $780 for the people above the development threshold in the United States, and, similarly, $372 in the EU, $142 in China, and $51 in India. (If the total costs turn out to be three percent of GWP, then triple these figures.)