In a recent visit to Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies, Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute addressed the failings of the current international climate negotiations, and discussed ways for moving forward. Kartha focused on a keystone of the whole global deal: what will be the roles of the developed and developing world in solving the climate change crisis?
Kartha was a co-designer of the globally acclaimed “Greenhouse Development Rights Framework” (GDRs). The GDRs are based on words agreed by nearly all nations on Earth back in 1992: “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capability” to stop global warming. Kartha’s bombshell analysis showed how in fact many developing countries have pledged more action against climate change than their industrialized counterparts. Kartha’s talk sets up central questions for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa.
A summary of the interview with Sivan:
CDL:
Is the idea of “fair shares” of development and mitigation in the GDRF meant to appeal primarily to developing countries, or to a global audience?
Sivan:
“Developing countries are obviously supportive of GDRF principles because it recognizes their right to development and acknowledges the difficulty of climate constraints. Yet it is meant to appeal to a global audience in several ways. One way is how it responds to this concern…in the [global] North that there is this rising ‘consuming class’ in the [global] South, which does indeed have some responsibility and capacity to help”. The GDRF “recognizes this, yet does it in a way that is faithful to the facts…to treat in an honest way the levels of consumption, emissions, and wealth in these populations. Another way is the fairness framing…it is not a punitive demand that the North has been ‘bad’ in over-consuming and owes ‘reparations’, which is a tough political sell regardless of its accuracy”. GDRs “appeal to a more ethical, moral sensibility”.
CDL:
Will industrialized countries eventually follow the lead of developing country pledges? Will a plan like the GDRF be viable?
Sivan:
“It relies not so much on us suddenly having an epiphany and all deciding to act fairly, but more on enlightened self-interest. If we decide to solve the problem for our own sake and future generations, the only politically realistic way must be a globally fair way. The way to share the challenge must win the earnest engagement of poor countries…which can only happen in terms they can accept. This depends on recognizing their primary concern: overcoming poverty, and enabling them to continue prioritizing it.” For these reasons, GDRs may be viable, but “when will everyone decide that is a problem that we want to solve?…that’s a huge question.”
CDL:
What roles will the increased number of smaller, more regional alliances play in negotiations; will the voice of the G-77 countries become fragmented?
Sivan:
“There are different focuses to some degree…The BASIC countries are pretty concerned about being squeezed into an inequitable regime and in Copenhagen were willing to settle for a more environmentally lax regime because they didn’t have the protections of an equitable regime. The AOSIS countries are understandably more concerned about having an environmentally rigorous regime.” But given the diversity of the over 130 member countries, and prevalence of increasingly vocal regional coalitions, “there is a remarkable coherence to the G-77. They all acknowledge the need for emissions reductions to start happening in developing countries (who themselves have differentiated responsibilities) along with sufficient finance and technology transfer to enable this.”
CDL:
How should the global North’s responsibility be focused – more on direct technology transfer or general aid money and financing?
Sivan:
“Technology is a huge part of it, but a lot of what needs to happen…is based on today’s technology. Often, it will require doing expensive things, like retrofitting buildings to be more efficient, or replacing power plants with wind turbines. So technology, tech transfer, and IPR [intellectual property rights] are important, but a bigger fraction of the problem just becomes pure finance, when you take seriously the transition that has to happen on a very short time scale.”
CDL:
What is your vision for the role of equity and what is the outlook for renewing Kyoto?
Sivan:
“You can’t talk about [environmental] adequacy…integrity of the climate regime without in the very same breath talking about equity…”. “But in a ‘pledge and review’ world…[the system] is watered-down, handling environmental targets in a way that…appears weaker. The South only agreed to this [the Copenhagen Accord] because they saw no evidence that equity was on the table, and so they saw their only option as jettisoning adequacy”. “There is hope of going back to the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating a second commitment period. There are openings in the Cancun agreements…that keep it in discussion in Durban…and there are a lot of parties supporting it. To the extent there is still a discussion of a system of binding targets, there is room for talk about equity in the Framework Convention. Also, it is still very alive in the civil society sphere.”
