ABSTRACT
This chapter argues for the need to rethink the limitations of top-down proposals as well as their potential. Top-down proposals for effort-sharing represent a visionary yet contentious understanding of how to achieve integrity in global climate policy. Despite their ability to translate vital principles of distributive equity into specific policy recommendations, top-down proposals for sharing mitigation efforts face a significant uphill battle to overcome concerns of institutional feasibility. The analysis has also highlighted a broader concern about the lack of symmetry in the way that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) recent assessment reports articulate criteria of distributive and procedural equity. The arguments presented here counter the view that ensuring integrity is a simple linear process of achieving consistency-integrity by translating a Public Institutional Justification (PIJ) directly into commitments made by individual countries.
