The world has reached a critical stage in its efforts to exercise responsible

environmental stewardship.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Climate change is arguably the most important and certainly the most complex
global, transboundary, environmental issue to date. All across the world, in every
kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather
patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running
debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and
its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-
made natural disaster.
The challenge of tackling climate change has emerged over the past two
decades to become one of the most important, yet divisive, issues on the agenda
of the international political community.
Climate Change is caused by emissions of pollutants which increase the so
called ‘greenhouse effect’, by which gases in the atmosphere create a “blanket” or
warming effect by limiting the ability of heat to be radiated out in to space. Gases
responsible for the greenhouse effect include water vapour, carbon dioxide,
methane, ozone and halocarbons, the latter four of which have been affected by
human activities over the last 300 years and have increased greatly over this
period.
NASA reports that 2006 was the fifth warmest year on record and coming
years are likely to be even warmer - possibly the warmest years in the history of
instrumental measurements. Over the past 30 years Earth has warmed by about
0.6 degrees Centigrade or 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit.i
One major consequence of climate change will be continuing sea-level rise,
and accompanying increase in the occurrence of extreme storm surges. Many
millions of people live in areas at risk from inundation. Changing rainfall patterns
are likely to increase soil erosion and subsidence, and profoundly affect water
availability and quality. Drier soils will change the type and yield of crops,
increasing the risk of famine in some areas. Health is likely to be affected, both
directly (more summer heat stress but fewer cold deaths in winter) and indirectly
(through changes in diseases such as increased food poisoning). Infectious
diseases such as malaria are expected to spread. Global precipitation is likely to
increase by about 2% per degree of warming, but the regional patterns are
complicated and not well-understood – many areas will see significant drying
while others will get substantially wetter.ii
In the backdrop of the above, the statement of Sir David King, the Chief
Scientific Advisor to the UK Government, stands true. He stated in January 2004

1
that climate change is the single most important issue facing the global
community, a threat worst than international terrorism.iii
It is reasoned that in the 21st century, the equation between the North and the
South will dominate the global scene. Further, what is in store for humanity will
very much depend on how the North and South deal with national and global
issues of preserving the environment? This paper endeavours to mobilize
historical and contemporary reasons for the origin and widening of the North–
South divide. The following section discusses the initiatives undertaken at the
global level and India’s role in the process of bridging this gap. The subsequent
part puts forth suggestions with the aim to ensure consensus amongst all the
nations on issues of climate change and their responsibility.

The North-South Asymmetry

It is certainly true that global warming is a complex problem both in terms of
science and the economic impacts of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The issue
is further complicated by the apparent asymmetry between developed and
developing countries on various levels:

Vulnerability
While climate change will affect everyone, it is expected to have a
disproportionate effect on those living in poverty in developing countries. The
majority of developing countries are in tropical and sub-tropical regions, areas
predicted to be seriously affected by the impacts of climate change: Africa, Asia,
Latin America and the Small Island States (for example Mauritius) have all been
identified as regions of concern.

Risk Management
The developing countries are often less able to cope with adverse climate
impacts, which is due to the following reasons:
Firstly, in the developing countries, poverty exacerbates, and is exacerbated
by, the impacts of environmental change, Secondly, a greater dependence on
natural systems and climate sensitive resources(such as agriculture), which could
be affected by climate change, Thirdly, they have a low adaptive capacity.iv Due
to their limited resources, developing countries are less capable to address the
climate change problems and its effects such as storms, floods and drought.v

Emission Rate
The industrialised countries are historically and currently the largest emitters of
greenhouse gases. In general, developed countries lead in total carbon emissions
and carbon emissions per capita.vi According to a report of United Nations
Development Programme, OECD countries consisting only of 18.6 per cent of
world’s population cause 49.6 per cent of world’s carbon dioxide emissions. vii

2
Emissions from developing countries are also growing rapidly and are estimated
to overtake emissions from industrialised countries around 2020-2030.viii
Against this background it comes as no surprise that the international
community has been experiencing difficulties in agreeing on equitable measures
to restrain global warming and to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.ix

The Initiatives for Bridging the Gap

Defining (or divining) an internationally equitable distribution of the burdens
of reducing climate change risks has been a core concern for as long as
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions policies have been debated. Countries clearly
differ greatly in their vulnerability to climate change, their historical and projected
contributions to global GHG emissions, and their ability to bear the costs of
mitigating GHG emissions. And neither history nor philosophy provides a
definitive guide to what would constitute a fair distribution of burden, though
some attempts have been made. One such step taken was the adoption of U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The UNFCCC – one of the major Multilateral Environmental Agreements
(MEAs) – provides the basis for concerted international action to mitigate climate
change and to adapt to its impacts. The Convention enjoys near universal
membership, with 192 countries having ratified it.x Article 3 of the 1992 UNFCC
contains the following language: “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 effect thereof.” The phrase
“common but differentiated responsibilities” has become a touchstone for the
international climate equity debate. During the first Conference of Partiesxi to the
UNFCCC (COP-1; held in 1995 in Berlin, Germany), negotiators debated whether
developing countries, in addition to developed countries, would commit to
binding reductions for GHG emissions. The developing countries ultimately
rejected binding commitments, asserting that the historical responsibility for
climate change was not theirs, that they had less financial ability to pay for
reductions, and that they had more urgent priorities for their limited resources.
COP 3 adopted the Kyoto Protocol in December, 1997 in Tokoyo. The Kyoto
Protocol sets individual, legally binding targets for industrialized countries
prepared to take positive steps to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from sources within their remit.xii The Annex I
developed countries (referred to as Annex B countries in the protocol document)
agreed to legally binding commitments to reduce their collective GHG emissions
by an average of 5% compared with 1990 levels during the first commitment
period (2008–12). Consistent with the Berlin Mandate at COP-1, developing
countries did not agree to any targets at Kyoto. Developing countries share with
developed countries some common obligations for emissions monitoring and

3
reporting, and under the UNFCCC, all countries are generally exhorted to take
steps to enhance sustainable development that would limit the growth of GHG
emissions.xiii
COP 6 resumed in Bonn in 2001 and reached an outline agreement – the so-
called Bonn Agreements – on an emissions trading system, on a Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM), on rules for accounting for emissions
reductions from carbon “sinks” and on a compliance regime. It also outlined a
package of financial and technological support to help developing countries
contribute to global action on climate change and address its adverse effects.
These were adopted at COP 7 and were termed as the so-called Marrakech
Accords.
During the COP 13 held at Bali in 2007, the international community took
crucial decisions on counteracting climate change and adaptation to this change
beyond 2012. The Bali Action Plan includes also recognition of the outcomes of
the IPCC Report and related long-term vision of the global emission reduction
and the four thematic blocks for the future negotiations: delaying climate change,
adaptation to the change, technology transfer, and financing action aimed at
delaying of climate change and the adaptation processes.xiv

The North-South Equation: Status quo Still Persists

Historic interactions between South and North have had a lasting impact on the
society and economy of nations, to greater benefit of the North than the South.
According to Parks and Roberts, colonialism left the South predisposed to “higher
levels of social, economic, environmental and institutional vulnerability.” xv In the
South, pressing human development challenges, including the provision for
adequate food, water, shelter and education, confront many states. xvi Therefore,
continued economic growth is of critical economic concern to Southern nations,
who view this growth as a ‘sovereign right’.xvii Equity issues associated with this
right of development are the crux of many international environmental
negotiations.
Most of the world’s global environmental problems are caused by
“unsustainable production and consumption in the North, and the adoption of
inappropriate, similarly unsustainable development paths in the South.” xviii To
many Southern countries, environmental problems are a Northern responsibility,
because the industrial activities of the North were the historic cause, and the
North initially brought the problems, including climate change, to the
international policy arena. xix From the 1972 UN Conference on the Human
Environment in Stockholm onward, many developing states have expressed their
concern that the environment was being used to divert attention away from their
development needs. xx
On the issue of “shared vision” the developing countries called for an inclusive
approach to the shared vision encompassing the issues of adaptation, transfer of
technologies, and finance from the North to the South. In the midst of all these

4
discussions, the developing countries have heavily criticized the EU for not
pressing hard enough with their agenda and not putting up any concrete plans for
the future directions. This was a result of their backtracking on various issues.
While they proposed at different points on the future targets on financing and
technology transfers, but their current delegation is yet to commit to any financing
on adaptation and mitigation in the South. Again the European parliament which
earlier voted to set aside substantial revenues for adaptation and mitigation
purposes in the developing countries, many EU member states are yet to commit a
single cent to those revenues.xxi
The global economic crisis has made already delicate negotiations more
difficult. Developing and poorer nations -- including major carbon polluters such
as China and India -- say the industrialised world should lead by example, and
must help them pay for clean-energy technology and the inevitable impacts of
global warming. The developed world needs to start with implementation of their
commitments, giving leadership and paving the way for the progress of the
Convention.
Development also proves inseparable from the environment when considering
international policy regimes, and this relationship manifests in the concept of
sustainable development. In order for sustainable development to occur, the South
continues to assert that the co-operation of the North is necessary. Part of their
expectation includes the need for common but differentiated responsibilities. In
the context of climate change, this means that the North must lead in climate
change mitigation, and bear bulk of the costs for adaptation, due to their historic
contribution to global warming and greater ability to pay. xxii
But, more recently, the special status of developing countries has come under
growing scrutiny. Against a backdrop of rapid urban industrialization in a number
of the largest developing countries, the developing world will soon overtake the
developed one as the leading source of GHG emissions. Emissions from
developing countries are estimated to overtake emissions from industrialised
countries around 2020-2030. These shifts in the dominant sources of emissions
are forcing the domestic GHG-related choices of developing countries into the
spotlight of the international community, and they are creating pressures for high-
emitting industrializing countries to commit to mitigation targets.xxiii
Therefore, the northern countries, the United States in particular, argue that
differentiated responsibilities are an unfair burden on their economies. Developed
countries accept the concept of differentiated responsibilities but want greater
assurance on when and how developing countries would start assuming greater
responsibilities, because developing countries are likely to be the primary
industrial emitters in the future. The developed countries like the EU and Japan
argued for setting a long term global goal for emissions cuts so that it will set the
directions for future actions.
As Walden Bello, executive director of the group Focus on the Global South,
has written: “When the Bush administration says it will not respect the Kyoto
Protocol because it does not bind China and India, and the Chinese and Indian

5
governments say they will not tolerate curbs on their greenhouse gas emissions
because the US has not ratified Kyoto, they are in fact playing out an unholy
alliance to allow their economic elites to continue to evade their environmental
responsibilities and free-ride on the rest of the world.”
xxiv
The conflict has resulted in stalemate in many policy negotiations. During the
UN climate conference in 2008, the delegates observed that the debate looked
more like trench warfare, and is reminiscent of the old north-south divide that
once animated debate over international relations. xxv

India’s Role
Since 1991, Indian policy makers have been actively engaged in navigating the
transition to an economically liberalized state where the perceived primary
determinant of success is economic growth. In national and state planning, the
overwhelming focus is on rapid industrialization, and in sporadic bursts, on the
development of infrastructure (such as power and telecommunications) necessary
to support an increasing industrial production.xxvi India’s response to Rio and
beyond has to be seen in this context.
Climate change arrived on the international scene at a time when India was
undergoing these monumental shifts in economic structures. The resulting
intellectual ferment and political turmoil has left climate change at the trailing end
of international issues visible on the Indian horizon.xxvii While there are occasional
media reports on the work of Indian scientists, and the Indian parliament has been
reported to have discussed the issue once, there is little indication that climate
change carries with it the public interest or political debate that biodiversity issues
(and to some extent the Montreal Protocol) generated. Although India is a
signatory to UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, but little has been for their actual
implementation. While a number of NGOs are continuing their focus on the
environment, their activities often target local and regional environmental issues
which seem to have gained a measure of prominence in urban public life.xxviii
To be sure, the importance of climate for its economy and the well being of its
people is well understood by most in India. Agriculture which accounts for 30%
of India’s GDP and close to two-thirds of its labor force is critically dependent on
the monsoons. Failures in Monsoons can have severe effects on other economic
sectors as well, and are a matter of great political concern. The past several years
have seen better than average monsoons and good harvests, contributing perhaps
to the reduced level of attention paid to climate issues.

How to Strike a Balance?

The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country
will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge, but all

6
 economies know that the only sensible long term way of developing is to
do it on a sustainable basis.

Tony Blair

The problem of achieving effective and lasting international agreements can be

stated simply: Nations have a common interest in responding to the risk of climate
change, yet many are reluctant to reduce GHG emissions voluntarily or
unilaterally. They hesitate because climate change is a global public good—all
nations can enjoy protection against the risks of climate change, regardless of
whether they participate in a treaty intended to mitigate those risks. Each nation’s
incentive to reduce emissions is thus limited because it cannot be prevented from
enjoying the fruits of other nations’ efforts. This incentive to free ride reflects the
divergence between national actions and global interests. As such, an agreement
must be voluntary and self-enforcing— all sovereign parties must have no
incentive to deviate unilaterally from the terms of the agreement. Also an
effective executory and judicial mechanism is required to keep a check on non-
compliance by the member states.

Equitable Burden Sharing

In the midst of this debate, one set of observations is widely accepted:
Developed countries are responsible for the largest share of cumulative past GHG
emissions by far. Moreover, current emissions intensities vary dramatically
between rich and poor countries. In addition, developing countries will be
increasing their emissions over some period in the future as a necessary
consequence of critically needed economic growth and improved living standards.
The potential for climate hazards can be reduced by mitigating their
anthropogenic causes that is by mitigating net-greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. Emission reductions in the developed countries should be deep and
equivalent to the historical responsibilities. Many developed nations have shown
signs of wavering on earlier promises to slash carbon emissions. A Saudi Arabia
Representative highlights that “while in Australia the greenhouse gas emissions
have increased by 18.2 per cent, in Canada it has gone up by 19.6 per cent and
Japan 11.2 per cent. Therefore, the need is to stick to implementation of the
various provisions of the Convention’’.xxix To keep the impacts of global warming
manageable, highly industrialised nations -- especially the United States, Japan
and the EU -- should cut their own greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent
before 2020, compared to 1990 levels, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in a report in 2007.xxx At the UNFCCC talks in
Bali last December, developing economies that are also major carbon polluters
were invited to slash emissions in a “significant” manner. The IPCC has

7
suggested how that might translate into hard numbers: slowing CO2 output by 15
to 30 percent by 2020.xxxi
The above figures show the increased emission of GHG by both the developed
and developing nations. It is the need of the hour to indulge in participatory
responsibility, where both the North and the South, take steps to mitigate the
emissions. For this to take effect, “proportionate liability” should be the moto, i.e.,
the liability of developing should be comparatively less than that of developing
nations. The combines efforts of both will go a long way in determing the world’s
future.

Re-defining the Role of Developed and Developing Nations

Debate over a long-term equitable sharing of the burden has continued since
the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol. Also, 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?
The participation of developing countries was one of the reasons for the
success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer. Their participation was primarily due to the protocol’s inclusion of
developing country concerns about equity, economic constraints, and
flexibility.xxxii On the same lines, The IPCC Second Assessment Report also cites
the following elements as important in encouraging developing country
participation:
• differentiated standards for developed and developing country parties,
• additional financial assistance to developing country parties,
• technology transfer facilitated by protocol financial resources if
necessary, and
• acknowledgement that developing country compliance was contingent
on effective implementation of financial assistance and technology
transfer obligations.xxxiii

Therefore, the ability and willingness of developing countries to contribute to

global efforts in mitigating emissions will depend profoundly on leadership from,
cooperation with, and assistance from developed countries. xxxiv
Another relative platform where participation of developing countries can be
ensured is CDM. It is the only mechanism under Kyoto, in which developing
countries can participate to reduce atmospheric concentrations of GHG at safe
levels. The CDM methodology is clearly based on proposals for new coal fired
power plants in India and China, the very countries that need to make the crucial
shift from coal to cleaner technologies to fight climate change. But the CDM
grants legitimacy to dubious technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage
(CCS), which does nothing to prevent generation of CO2, merely capturing it in
one place, and moving it to another location. This is waste storage, not a solution

8
to the climate crisis. The need of the moment is to not only expand the CDM
project but also its complete revamp to make it meaningful – to make it seriously
address the issue of mitigating climate change which is best addressed by
sustained investments in clean production technologies such as renewable energy
and the aggressive promotion of energy efficiency as a means of saving electricity
rather than making more efficient coal plants. Therefore, when the countries meet
next in Copenhagen any new policy to be adopted should include revamped of
CDM. This will go a long way in ensuring participation of developing countries.
Ultimately, however, the sources of climate change risk (GHG emissions and
land use changes) are globally distributed, so the responsibility for resolving the
problem also must ultimately be widely shared.

Technology Transfer
Poorer countries tend to have less efficient technology and more rapid growth
rates for population and per capita income than richer countries do. Consequently,
poorer countries are likely to have a comparative advantage in carrying out
mitigation, and richer countries are likely to have a comparative advantage in
developing and supplying the necessary technical opportunities, at least over the
short to medium term. Therefore, there is a need for meaningful commitment on
part of developed nations. Without meaningful commitment and action by the
North, it is hardly surprising that developing economies prove reluctant to
seriously enter discussions about reducing their own emissions.
Action by developed economies will 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.xxxv
The transfer of technology involves not just the North-South flow of
technology hardware, but also flow of experience, know-how among
stakeholders, including government and private sector entities, research
institutions, universities as well as NGOs. But both mitigation and adaptation
technology and know-how are not freely available. Technology need assessments
have been conducted by many developing countries, but no funding is available
for them. Also, the negotiations for a future body to oversee the implementation
of technology transfer under the Convention are stalled.
Several barriers have been identified to effective technology transfer. These
include “insufficient human and institutional capacities, lack of knowledge and
awareness of emerging technologies, reluctance in accepting energy efficiency as

9
energy tariffs remains low, a poor enabling environment and a lack of support
from local financial institutions”. Other barriers are the protection of intellectual
property rights, lack of assessment of technology needs, poor support from
governments on innovation and R&D and poor market for the technology.xxxvi
Therefore, a new body or approach for technology transfer is required.
Technology for addressing climate change should be in the public domain and no
patent rights should be provided to such technologies. There is a need for
technology cooperation, joint research and development and access to know-how,
as well as for support for the endogenous development of technology by
developing countries.

Financial Assistance
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.xxxvii
The FCCC negotiations to date have seen the creation of several funds
designed to encourage and bring about medium- to long-term changes in order to
reduce future impacts by reducing the vulnerability of the people and societies
involved. In assessing the progress so far in relation to financial resources made
available under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, it can be observed that
many developing countries have identified their technology needs and put forward
their adaptation programmes, but there have been no resources to support these.
Several pledges were made on the Special Climate Fund but little real money was
made available. The Adaptation Fund is not operational because it is bogged
down by negotiations on which countries are entitled to it and how much they
should get. There has also been a “deactivation” of the financial mechanism of the
UNFCCC through the Resource Allocation Framework. xxxviii
Expressing similar concern, the Dutch Minister puts forward that the
developed countries must not only provide political leadership, but also contribute
funds in exploring opportunities to reduce climate change. As public funds are not
sufficient to reach development goals, private funding must be additional to
public financing rather than replacing it.xxxix
Another solution is to create a Climate Impact Relief (CIR) Fund – based on
the tried and tested models of the OCHA Trust Fund for Disaster Relief and the

10
Disaster Relief Emergency Fund of the International Federation of Red Cross/Red
Crescent Societies – under the Framework Convention to cover the expenditures
for international weather-related disaster relief and preparedness. To resolve some
of the key problems in the current system, such a Fund would have to be
replenished regularly on an up-front basis, and rely on existing institutional
infrastructures. The latter could, for example, be achieved by having the fund
administered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) under the guidance of the FCCC COP and the UN Under-Secretary-
General for Humanitarian Affairs in collaboration with IASC agencies. Assuming
the international community intends to continue providing an international
disaster relief system, the envisaged significant improvement that could be
achieved by creating the proposed CIR-Fund is a realistic option, both politically
and economically, for its key characteristics are: • No new money. • No new
institutions. • Merely more efficient funding.xl
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.

Conclusion
Climate change has the potential to both unite and divide the international
community. In often politically-charged international negotiations, developing
countries have constructed themselves in contradistinction to developed countries,
a divide which has become institutionalized in international climate change
politics and policy.
On the international plane, states from the “South” have argued that a
combination of low emissions, widespread poverty, and limited capabilities means
that they should be exempted from quantified mitigation (i.e. emission reduction)
targets. Yet the reality is that developing countries, and especially the larger,
rapidly industrializing ones, will need to participate in mitigation efforts in order
to realize the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.
To bridge North-South divisions, which have made developing countries
reticent to take more aggressive steps in curbing GHG emissions, two conditions
need to be met. First, developed countries must avoid defaulting to short-term,
domestic economic interests and instead demonstrate a willingness to act as
genuine leaders by committing resources to take radical action at home and assist

11
developing countries abroad. Second, high-emitting developing countries must
admit that they are not simply hapless victims of climate change and face up to
the fact that they must take urgent action to avoid becoming carbon copies of
today’s rich, industrialized economies. Only if these conditions are met will
climate change mitigation become a sovereignty-transgressing issue behind which
the entire global community can mobilize.

12
13
i
Geology News, Climate Change Animation and Graph, February 12, 2007, available at geology.com/.../02/climate-
change-animation.html
ii
How serious is the threat? http://www.britishcouncil.org/zerocarboncity-threat.htm
iii
See BBC NEWS: Global warming ‘biggest threat’, 9 January 2004, available at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm (15 November 2004).
iv
Adapting to Climate Change in Developing Countries, UK Parliamentary Office on Science and Technology,
PostNote October 2006 number 269, available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn269.pdf
v
Human Development Report 2002
vi
Marland, G., T.A. Boden, R. J. Andres. 2004. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A
Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., available online at
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.htm
vii
United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Environmental Programme Annual Report 2003
viii
Luiz Pinguelli Rosa & Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, The Present, Past, and Future Contributions to Global Warming of
CO2 Emissions from Fuels, Climatic Change, Springer Netherlands, Volume 48, Numbers 2-3 / February, 2001
ix
John Ashton and Xueman Wang, Equity and Climate: In Principle and Practice, in Beyond Kyoto:
Advancing the international effort against climate change (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington D.C.,
2003) at 61-83 and in generally on international environmental justice relating to climate change, Ruchi Anand,
International Environmental Justice: A North-South Dimension (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Hampshire 2004) at 21-57.
x
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, available at
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php
xi
The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the “supreme body” of the Convention; it is the highest decision-making
authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention. The COP meets every year, unless
the Parties decide otherwise.
xii
Kyoto protocol, available at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
xiii
Marina Cazorla and Michael Toman, International Equity and Climate Change Policy, Resources for the Future’s
Climate Economics and Policy Program, Climate Issue Brief No. 27, December 2000.
xiv
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Handbook. Bonn, Germany: Climate Change
Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2006;available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/handbook.pdf
xv
B. Parks & J. T. Roberts, Globalization, Vulnerability to Climate Change and Perceived Injustice (2006) 19(4) Societ
y and Natural Resources 337, 342.
xvi
M. Taylor, Paying for the Implementation of Agenda 21,Darren Gladman, David Mowbray and John Dugman (eds),
From Rio to Rai: Environment and Development in Papua New Guinea up to 2000 and Beyond (vol 6, 1996) 209, 210.
xvii
Parks and Roberts, Supra note 14, 338
xviii
C. Thomas, The Environment in International Relations (1992) Royal Institute of International Affairs 6.
xix
M. Paterson and M. Grubb, The International Politics of Climate Change (1992) 68(2) International Affairs 293, 297.
xx
L. Engfeldt, The Road from Stockholm to Johannesburg (2002) 39(3) United Nations Chronicle 14, 16.
xxi
North-South Differences Marked the Opening Days of Climate Talks, Centre for Trade and Development, December
5, 2008,available at http://www.centad.org/focus_69.asp
xxii
H. Shue, Global Environment and International Inequality (1999) 75(3) International Affairs 531, 533-537
xxiii
Perkins, Richard, Incentivizing climate mitigation: engaging developing countries, Harvard International Review ,
Summer 2008 available at http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/184710767.html
xxiv
Edward Boydell, A Different Divide? Pacific Island Countries and North-South Agendas in the evolution of Global
Climate Policy, Cross sections Volume IV 2008, available at http://epress.anu.edu.au/cross_sections/cs04/pdf/ch01.pdf
xxv
Old style ‘North-South’ rift opens at UN climate talks, Terradaily, Dec 5, 2008 available at
http://www.terradaily.com/2007/081205191207.ngkj7s21.html
xxvi
Climate change issues are really not on the agenda at all in decision-making about the power sector - except to the
extent that Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds might be utilized to fund some renewables programs. Lately,
international firms that have been entering India as potential IPPs (Independent Power Providers) are equally eager to
sell fossil-fuel-based energy technologies paying no thought to the global warming contribution of their commercial
transactions.
xxvii
India’s substantial intellectual and activist community has a history of critical analysis and action. Indian
intellectuals and activists have also been swept up in the aftermath of the sweeping socio-economic changes brought
about by liberalization. The efforts of the former have almost exclusively been focused on understanding the
implications of these changes for India’s future, and those of the latter on attempting to mitigate the negative social
impacts of drastic changes in government policy.
xxviii
Milind Kandlikar & Ambuj Sagar, Climate Change Science and Policy: Lessons from India, International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis, INTERIM REPORT, IR-97-035/September
xxix
Quoting from a document prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat, at the 8th COP to the UNFCCC
xxx
Gupta et al., “Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements,” in Metz et al., eds, Climate change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 776. Also available online
at http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html.
xxxi
See Conclusions Adopted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the
Kyoto Protocol at its resumed fourth session held in Bali, 3–11 December 2007: Review of work programme, methods
of work and schedule of future sessions, 5. Available online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/awg4/eng/05.pdf
xxxii
It is the best examples of successful implementation of equity principles in relation to international environmental
issue. Supra note 12.
xxxiii
Banuri, T. K. Goran-Maler, M. Grubb, H. K. Jacobson, and F. Yamin, 1996, Equity and Social Considerations. In
Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, edited by James P. Bruce, Horsang Lee,
and Erik F. Haites. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 83–124.
xxxiv
Supra note 12.
xxxv
Supra note 24.
xxxvi
Chow, former Chair of the UNFCCC's Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) from
1997 to 1999 while speaking at the South-east Asian regional conference on climate change, “Reducing the Threats and
Harnessing the Opportunities of Climate Change”, which was held in Kuala Lumpur on 29-30 October 2007.
xxxvii
Supra note 24.
xxxviii
Supra note 37.
xxxix
Honorable Bert Koenders, Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, speaking at a panel discussion entitled
“Climate Change and Development-Perspectives in View of the COP15,” hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the
United States (GMF)on October 10, 2008, available at http://www.gmfus.org/economics/event/detail.cfm?
id=516&parent_type=E
xl
Benito Muller, Equity in Climate Change: The Great Divide, Oxford: OIES (2002)