Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T12:22:47.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - A “shared vision”? Why inequality should worry us

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

J. Timmons Roberts
Affiliation:
Brown University in Rhode Island, USA
Bradley C. Parks
Affiliation:
College of William and Mary's Institute for Theory and Practice of International Relations, Virginia, USA.
Karen O'Brien
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Asunción Lera St. Clair
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
Berit Kristoffersen
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Tromsø, Norway
Get access

Summary

Introduction: a “shared vision”?

In late 2007, the world sighed in relief after two grueling weeks of international climate negotiations that resulted in an upbeat-sounding ‘Bali Roadmap.’ The Roadmap identified a series of steps that might be taken to break the North–South impasse and solve the global climate crisis. In particular, a process under an Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was tasked with breaking the deadlock over who should act in cleaning up the atmosphere, and how. The answer, according to the Roadmap, was that developed and developing countries would move forward with “a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention [avoiding dangerous climate change].”

However, as negotiations moved on to Bonn, Accra, and Poznan in 2008, nearly every word of the Bali Action Plan was contested. In the run-up to the 14th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP14) in Poznan, Poland, in December, 2008, 76 Parties submitted “Ideas and Proposals” to the Working Group. China asserted that developed countries would need to “tak[e] the lead in reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases, while ensuring development rights and spaces for developing countries.” Only with such a mid-term target being clearly determined, they argued, is it meaningful to talk about any long-term goals for emission reductions (UNFCCC, 2008b).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agarwal, A., Narain, S., Shama, S. and Imchen, A. 2001. Poles apart: global environmental negotiation-2. New Delhi, India: Centre for Science and Environment.Google Scholar
Athanasiou, T. and Baer, P. 2002. Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S. and Benedict, E. K. 2008. The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework: The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World. Publication Series on Ecology. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. Berlin: Heinrich BoÅNII Foundation, Christian Aid, Eco Equity and the Stockholm Environment Institute. Available online: gdrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/the gdrsframework.pdf.Google Scholar
Bartsch, U. and Müller, B. 2000. Fossil Fuels in a Changing Climate: Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol and Developing Country Participation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baumert, K. A. and Kete, N. 2002. An architecture for climate protection. In Baumert, Kevin, eds., Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Birdsall, N., Rodrik, D. and Subramanian, A. 2005. If Rich Governments Really Cared About Development. Working Paper, Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Chasek, P., Downie, D. and Brown, J., W. 2006. Global Environmental Politics, 4th edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Claussen, E. and McNeilly, L. 1998. Equity and Global Climate Change: The Complex Elements of Fairness. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Depledge, J. 2002. Continuing Kyoto: extending absolute emission caps to developing countries. In Baumert, K., ed., Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
DeSombre, E. R. and Kaufman, J. 1996. The Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund: Partial Success Story. In Keohane, R. O. and Levy, M. A., eds., Institutions for Environmental Aid: Pitfalls And Promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–126.Google Scholar
Dessai, S. 2001. Why did The Hague climate conference fail?Environmental Politics, 10(3), 139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Economic Times 2008. China tells developed world to go on climate change “diet”. Economic Times, March 12, 2008.
,European Union. 2008. Climate Change and International Security. Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, Brussels, March 14. Available online: www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/reports/99387.pdf.
,Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2008. Global temperature anomalies in. 01ºC. Available online: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt, accessed July 10, 2008.
Graham, E. M. 1996. Direct investment and the future agenda of the World Trade Organization. In Schott, J. J., eds., The World Trading System: Challenges Ahead. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, pp. 205–17.Google Scholar
Groenenberg, H., Phylipsen, D. and Blok, K. 2001. Differentiating commitments worldwide: global differentiation of GHG emissions reductions based on the Triptych approach. A preliminary assessment. Energy Policy, 29(12), 1007–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, L. 2000. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, J. 2000. On Behalf of my Delegation: A Survival Guide for Developing Country Climate Negotiators. Washington, DC: Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas.Google Scholar
Gupta, S. and Bhandari, P. M. 1999. An effective allocation criterion for CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 27(12), 727–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, P., Keohane, R. and Keohane, M., eds. 1993. Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heil, M. T. and Selden, T. M. 2001. International trade intensity and carbon emissions: a cross-country econometric analysis. Journal of Environment and Development, 10(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
Hicks, R. L., Parks, B. C., Roberts, J. T. and Tierney, M. J. 2008. Greening Aid? Understanding the Environmental Impact of Development Assistance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. and Stern, M. 1999. Defining global public goods. In Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. and Stern, M., eds., Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. and Levy, M. A., eds. 1996. Institutions for Environmental Aid: Pitfalls and Promise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krasner, S. 1978. United States commercial and monetary policy: unraveling the paradox of external strength and internal weakness. In Katzenstein, P. J., eds., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 51–87.Google Scholar
Kydd, A. 2000. Trust, reassurance, and cooperation. International Organization, 54(2), 325–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, G., Schaeffer, R. and Worrell, E. 2001. Energy and carbon embodied in the international trade of Brazil: an input-output approach. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 409–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathur, A., Burton, I. and Aalst, M., eds. 2004. An Adaptation Mosaic: A Sample of the Emerging World Bank Work in Climate Change Adaptation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Müller, B. 1999. Justice in Global Warming Negotiations: How to Obtain a Procedurally Fair Compromise. Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.Google Scholar
Müller, B. 2001. Fair Compromise in a Morally Complex World. Paper presented at Pew Equity Conference, Washington, DC, April 17–18, 2001.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., O'Connor, M. and Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the “environmental load displacement” of industrialized countries. Ecological Economics, 41(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najam, A. 1995. International environmental negotiations: a strategy for the South. International Environmental Affairs, 7(2), 249–87.Google Scholar
Najam, A. 2002. Financing sustainable development: crises of legitimacy. Progress in Development Studies, 2(2), 153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najam, A. 2003. The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9(3), 367–84.Google Scholar
Najam, A. 2004. The view from the South: developing countries in global environmental politics. In Axelrod, R., Downie, D. and Vig, N., eds., The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 225–43.Google Scholar
Ott, H. 2004. Global climate. In Ulfstein, G. and Werksman, J., eds., Yearbook of International Environmental Law 12. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 261–70.Google Scholar
Porter, G. and Brown, J. W. 1991. Global Environmental Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. 1997. Domestic institutions and regulatory cooperation: comparative responses to the Global Biodiversity Regime. World Politics, 49(4), 482–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringius, L., Torvanger, A. and Underdal, A. 2002. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. T. and Parks, B. C. 2007. A Climate Of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South Politics, and Climate Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, N. A., ed. 1992. Agenda 21 and UNCED Proceedings, Volumes 1 and 2. New York: Oceana Publications.
Rossi, C. 1997. Controle da emissão de gases divide FHC e Clinton. Folha de Sao Paulo, October 10, A-15.
Sandbrook, R. 1997. UNGASS has run out of steam. International Affairs, 73, 641–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebenius, J. K. 1991. Designing negotiations towards a new regime: the case of global warming. International Security, 15(4), 110–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, S. 1996. North–South environmental bargaining: ozone, climate change, and biodiversity. Global Governance, 2(1), 97–118.Google Scholar
Shadlen, K. 2004. Patents and pills, power and procedure: the North–South politics of public health in the WTO. Studies in Comparative International Development, 39(3), 76–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijm, J. P. M., Jansen, J. C., Battjes, J. J., Volkers, C. H. and Ybema, J. R. 2000. The Multi-sector Convergence Approach of Burden Sharing: An Analysis of its Cost Implications. Oslo: Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.Google Scholar
Sprinz, D. and Vaahtoranta, T. 1994. The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. and Olmstead, S. M. 2006. An international policy architecture for the post-Kyoto era. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 96(2), 35–8.Google Scholar
Torvanger, A. and Ringius, L. 2002. Criteria for evaluation of burden-sharing rules in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2(3), 221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torvanger, A. and Godal, O. 2004. An evaluation of pre-Kyoto differentiation proposals for national greenhouse gas abatement targets. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 4(1), 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 2008a. Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). Submissions by Parties (Brazil, China, G-77). August 25, 2008.
,UNFCCC 2008b. China's Views On Enabling The Full, Effective And Sustained Implementation Of The Convention Through Long-Term Cooperative Action Now, Up To And Beyond 2012. September 28, 2008. Available online: http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/china_bap_280908.pdf.
Victor, D. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wade, R. 2003. What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of development space. Review of International Political Economy, 10(4), 627–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapner, P. 1995. Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics, 47(3), 311–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, D. and Ummel, K. 2007. Another Inconvenient Truth: A Carbon-Intensive South Faces Environmental Disaster No Matter What the North Does. Working Paper Number 134, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Woods, N. 1999. Good governance in international organizations. Global Governance, 5(1), 36–61.Google Scholar
Ybema, J. R., Battjes, J. J., Jansen, J. C. and Ormel, F. 2000. Burden Differentiation: GHG Emissions, Undercurrents and Mitigation Costs. Oslo, Norway: Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. 1994. International Governance: Protecting The Environment In A Stateless Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×