A second, arguably more important reality concerns the rapid growth of emissions. Rapidly expanding energy demands associated with urban industrialization and population growth has meant that energy-related GHG emissions are growing dramatically from certain developing countries. Across the developing world as a whole, energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 86 percent between 1990 and 2005, far outpacing the 16 percent growth in developed economies. Looking ahead, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that energy-related CO2 emissions from all developing countries will overtake those of developed economies by 2012. What is more, under its “reference” (business-as-usual) scenario, the IEA estimates that approximately three-quarters of the increase in global CO2 emissions up to 2030 will take place in developing countries. Importantly, the predicted rapid growth of greenhouse gases from developing countries means that, even if developed countries were to make deep emission cuts (60 to 80 percent by 2050), the goal of avoiding dangerous climate may still elude the international community.

What this assessment suggests is that the energy-related choices of developing countries are likely to become a matter of growing concern for the global community in the 21st century. It will be increasingly difficult to exclude emissions originating in developing countries from international political negotiations. Already, rapidly industrializing developing countries, and particularly India and China, are coming under growing pressure to commit to binding mitigation targets. Originally, these pressures largely came from the United States, but various EU states are also starting to turn up the diplomatic heat on the largest developing countries. These pressures are only likely to intensify as discussions for a post-Kyoto (2012) global agreement gather pace.

Engaging Developing Countries

Given the growing importance of developing countries in global climate change discussions, how can developing countries be brought on board as participants in a deal that would help to avoid dangerous climate change? First, there is a need for developed economies to demonstrate their willingness to take action in making deep cuts in domestic emissions. Quite appropriately, developing countries have viewed rich countries’ rhetorical outpourings about the importance of climate mitigation with a degree of suspicion. For example, 7 of the 15 pre-2004 EU member states look set to miss their Kyoto targets, a record which is hardly consistent with the EU’s often self-righteous leadership role in international debates over climate change. As well as missing their targets, a handful of developed economies, including the United States, have also refused outright to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Developed economies can and should do more. Without meaningful commitment and action on their part, it is hardly surprising that developing economies prove reluctant to seriously enter discussions about reducing their own emissions.

Action by developed economies will also prove important in other ways. It will provide much-needed impetus for the innovation of mitigation technologies, accelerate learning investments which reduce costs and improve performance, and increase the willingness of investors to adopt new innovations. Although developing countries have an important role to play in innovating GHG-efficient technologies, especially where there is a need for locally appropriate solutions, technological efforts in developed economies will be pivotal in expanding the portfolio of commercially viable mitigation technologies. From a policy perspective, action by developed economies will also help to demonstrate the feasibility of mitigating emissions and provide policy templates, innovations, and experiences from which developing countries can learn. Action by developed economies to make deep cuts in domestic emissions is also likely to expand the volume of finance available for low-carbon investments in developing countries via international carbon markets.

Second, there is an urgent need to overcome some of the financial constraints which currently hinder developing countries from “leapfrogging” straight to GHG-efficient technology. Achieving climate-friendly development will require large amounts of additional capital to bridge the investment gap between conventional and low-carbon technologies, demonstrate new technologies in the domestic setting, and provide incentives for technological uptake. Along similar lines, incentives need to be put in place to ensure that developing countries are rewarded for maintaining forests and other carbon sinks. Inevitably, much of this funding will have to come from developed economies in the short-term. The most likely source of funding will be the private sector through expanded and restructured carbon markets. Nevertheless, greatly expanded flows of public funds from developed economies (channeled through, for example, the Global Environmental Facility) will also be necessary.

Third, there is a need to link mitigation with broader development goals, such that low-GHG development generates “win-win” outcomes. Among others, this could mean using new sources of finance to expand provision of modern services to low income communities (e.g., electricity), but in ways which are climate-neutral. Win-win outcomes might also be realized by creating synergies between mitigation and goals of upgrading domestic technological capabilities. One way to create this cooperative atmosphere might be through research and development partnerships for low-carbon technologies between industrialized and industrializing countries. Through such partnerships, developing countries should be better placed to develop their own industries that supply and export a range of GHG-efficient technologies, providing them with a direct economic interest in international efforts to mitigate emissions.

Finally, any attempt to involve developing countries in a future global agreement to stabilize emissions must also take account of differences in states’ contributions and relative capacities. High-emitting countries should be expected to make more ambitious mitigation commitments than low-emitting ones, while the same goes for more capable, middle-income economies versus less capable, least developed economies. Indeed, without the participation of high-emitting countries, international efforts toward climate stabilization are unlikely to succeed. Similarly, international assistance for adaptation should be greater for more vulnerable countries, many of whom are likely to suffer from climate change with or without future mitigation on account of past emissions of greenhouse gases.

North-South Relations in the Warming World

Climate change has the potential to both unite and divide the international community. On the one hand, it is an issue which brings into sharp focus global interdependence and diverse countries’ reliance on a single, finite ecosphere. As such, climate change might play a role in accelerating the transition to a post-sovereign order, whereby the interests of individual states are increasingly defined in terms of the common interests of humanity. On the other hand, climate change can divide sovereign states, exposing differences, inequities, and uneven responsibilities, thereby fueling interstate tensions.