Читайте также:
|
Not only are developing countries such as China unlikely to assume binding obligations
until industrialized countries have actually met some initial targets, but their potential
assumption of obligations would raise the difficult question of equity. With per capita CO2
emissions from fossil fuels in the US about four times those of China and 20 times those
of India, questions of equity loom large when long-term limits are considered. That said,
Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC expressly states that:
The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations
of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should
take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.2
This clearly means that all countries share responsibilities, although at different levels.
Nevertheless, limited progress on this issue has occurred. Starting with the COP-13 in Bali in
2007 and culminating at the 2010 COP-16 in Cancún, developing countries enthusiastically
embraced a plan for voluntary accession to limits and reduction crediting in the forest sector
(reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD)
program), predicated, however, on financial support from developed countries. On the financial
aspect, the UNFCCC reminds us that “[p]olicies and measures to deal with climate change
should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.”3
At the same time, the BRICS are watching this environmental negotiation process to
ensure that it helps them cope with climate change without threatening their hopes of
economic growth, which is a right that every country has, albeit the hope is green economic
growth. If a given climate policy means the reduction of economic growth, that policy will
most likely have no future. Officials are beginning to consider the possibility that a world
climate change agreement might not be merely a crude attempt to cut off their economic
growth, but rather a possible source of help in dealing with the air pollution that is emerging
as a major threat to public health. For instance, the health costs of air and water pollution in
China account for an estimated 4.3% of the nation’s GDP (World Bank and State
Environmental Protection Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2007).
Moreover, 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China (OECD, 2010).
Pollution in Beijing is six times higher than in New York City (Economy, 2007). The
ideal situation would be to have both developing nations on board and the US Senate ratify
the Kyoto Protocol. This is currently unrealistic. We need to find a compromise.
Rich countries generally favor the idea of placing more responsibility on key developing
country emitters such as China and India, whereas developing countries (and the EU, but for
other reasons) continue to favor an approach that would implement a second phase of the
Kyoto Protocol, which allows them to opt out of GHG emissions reductions if these pose a
threat to development. In fact, authorities from the BRICS have emphasized that the key to
success in climate negotiations lies in commitments by rich countries to slash GHG emissions
and boost funding to developing countries in the form of aid and the promotion of clean
technology. The BRICS have concerns over emissions commitments because they expect
GHG emissions levels to continue rising for some time. In fact, over the past decade, China’s
GHG emissions have more than doubled. This means that the EU’s proposal to raise the
bloc’s target for cuttingCO2 emissions would have a limited impact on global warming, given
that any benefit would be easily offset by the BRICS’ rise in GHG emissions.
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 126 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |