A World-wide Climate Agreement by the End of 2015

Nations around the world are filing notice of their proposed contributions for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the next 10-15 years, or more.  This is being done ahead of the next (21^st) United Nations “Conference of the Parties” (COP) that convenes starting the end of November 2015.  Since the 2009 COP in Copenhagen nations have struggled unsuccessfully to agree to a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) of 1997, which expired in 2012.  Recently the negotiators have moved toward a proposed agreement based on voluntary, but verifiable, contributions toward emissions abatement, instead of the top-down imposition of limits as was done in the KP.  In addition, the agreement, which should be finalized in the 21^st COP, will apply to all nations, without excluding the developing nations as the KP did. This affords the best chance for agreeing to worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

 

The consequences of man-made global warming are widespread , affecting our social and economic wellbeing at a personal level of experience, as well as regionally and nationally.  Various regions have been struck by high tide flooding, drought leading to sociopolitical instability or to reduced agricultural yields, loss of agricultural lands and extreme forest wildfires , by way of example.  President Obama has identified global warming as a serious threat to U.S. national security .

Global warming arises largely from burning fossil fuels for energy, producing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a waste product.  The fraction remaining in the atmosphere, about two-thirds, retains excess heat from sunlight (the greenhouse effect), leading to the examples of harms cited above.

The current outlook for CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels has been analyzed up to 2035 and beyond by the International Energy Agency (IEA).  It finds that in the absence of worldwide action to abate emissions the world will not succeed in restricting the increase in global average temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less above the levels from before the industrial revolution (see Details at the end of this post).  This result, and others like it, is an urgent call to action.

The 21^st COP, meeting in Paris starting late November 2015, is considering a draft agreement which calls on all United Nations (U. N.) members voluntarily to commit to emission reductions of their own formulation, subject to reporting and verification.  The commitment of the U. S., for example, calls for quantitative reductions in emissions from the American energy economy (see Details).  Examples of commitments from two developing countries, China and India, however, are only to lower the rate of increase of their emissions over the next decade or more, rather than to reduce numerically their GHG emissions (see Details). 

Analysis.  The IEA has shown that without embarking on a rigorous plan to reduce GHG emissions the world will not succeed in keeping the overall long-term global average temperature increase to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less from the start of the industrial revolution.  Many other analyses by independent research organizations reach a similar conclusion.  These findings represent a critical call to action by the nations of the world to undertake meaningful emission reductions.

The 21^st COP will consider a draft agreement when it meets at the end of 2015 to achieve such reductions (see Details).  In distinction to the terms of the KP and later proposals to extend its terms, the current draft treaty does not distinguish between developed and developing countries, nor does it assign defined reductions in emissions to every nation.  Rather, each nation is to submit voluntary commitments generated internally for the furtherance of the overall objective, in a verifiable fashion.

Commitments by all nations that have submitted them are available here.  This post considers commitments by the U. S., China and India (see Details).  The U. S. provided sound numerical objectives for actual reductions in emissions.  In contrast, China and India have long been fundamentally committed to expanding their economies, using primarily fossil fuel-derived energy, without serious regard for the environmental consequences of their actions (see Details).  China began initiatives in recent years to lower its energy intensity (i.e., increase the efficiency of energy use by using less energy per unit of gross domestic product).  India has subscribed to similar objectives only within the past year or so (see Details). 

China and India pledge only to reduce the rate of increase of their emissions, seeking to reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 or sooner.  These commitments may be disappointing for policymakers seeking more aggressive reductions in emissions, but in each case they represent a significant change from the earlier policies of these nations of unrestrained growth based on fossil fuels.  These commitments by two major developing countries constitute a significant departure from the structure of the KP, and may lead to more aggressive commitments for reduction of emissions in later years.

It is the intention at the 21^st COP to finalize the draft agreement and issue it for ratification by each member nation of the U. N.  In the U. S. this will likely trigger a major political struggle involving the current and next Presidents, and Congress.  The U. S. rejected ratifying the KP at least partly because opponents felt that exclusion of developing countries from its terms while the U. S. would have been subjected to emission limits would have put the U. S. at a competitive disadvantage in world trade.  If the final agreement produced by the 21^st COP incorporates the universal voluntary commitment framework of the draft agreement, the argument that the U. S. would be at a disadvantage would no longer be valid.  It is hoped that the U. S. will preserve its leadership role in the world’s global warming policymaking and ratify the final agreement as specified here.

Details

 The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) for 2013 analyzed the contributions to CO₂ emissions from the mature industrialized countries of North America, Europe and Asia (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; OECD) and the developing countries (non-OECD), historically since 1900, and projecting by models from 2013 to 2035.  The results are shown in the graphic below, in the left panel.

 

Historical and future projected total accumulated CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.  LEFT: Breakdown of contributions to the total emitted CO₂ from industrialized (OECD) countries (blue) and developing (non-OECD) countries (orange) for four historical time periods up to 2012, and projected emissions, assuming no actions are taken to limit them, for 2013-2035.  Gt, gigatonnes (billion tonnes).  RIGHT: A circle representing the maximum permissible worldwide emissions of CO₂ that keeps the global average temperature increase from the industrial revolution below 2ºC (3.6ºF).  Historical accumulation 1750-2011 (orange), amount projected for 2012-2035 (gold), and projected emission portion remaining (gray) in the limited CO₂ budget permitted.

Source: Adapted from International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2013  

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/pressmedia/recentpresentations/LondonNovember12.pdf  (Slide 5).

 

In the graphic, left panel, the first three bars are for 30 years, the fourth bar is for 23 years and the fifth bar, for projected emissions, is for 22 years.  Historical and projected emissions, assuming no actions are taken to limit them, increase dramatically as time passes.  Emissions from the industrialized world (OECD) level off after 1959, however, whereas those from developing countries (non-OECD), including major contributions from China and India, have surged and are projected to continue rising dramatically to 2035.

Climate scientists have calculated the maximum total accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere that would limit the increase in the global average temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less since the industrial revolution began.  This amount is represented as the circle in the right panel of the graphic above.  The sectors show that if no constraints are put on the world’s emissions most of the emissions budgeted to preserve the temperature limit will have been committed by 2035 (combining the orange and gold sectors).  That leaves a presumably unattainably narrow sector (gray) of emissions in the years after 2035 to stay below the established temperature limit.  The graphic concludes “emissions [are] off track [i.e., historical and projected emissions are too high] in the run-up to the 2015 climate summit in [Paris,] France”, taking place at the end of the year, to limit the temperature rise.

It is critical that the nations of the world reach agreement on limiting emissions at the Paris conference.  The annual COP conferences, involving all member states of the United Nations (U. N.), have so far failed to reach agreement on limiting emissions (and other related issues).  This is at least partly because the Convention governing the U. N. meetings enshrines the opposing points of view that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  

The Kyoto Protocol incorporated this distinction: it applied only to industrialized countries, while excusing developing countries from being held to any emissions limits.  Developing countries point to the large historical contributions to emissions from industrialized countries (see the graphic, left panel), and feel they should be allowed to industrialize in the same way.  In contrast, industrialized countries recognize that industrialization in the developing countries will add significant new CO₂ contributions to the atmosphere (see the graphic, left panel, projection to 2035), to the world’s detriment. 

COP21 will consider finalizing a new draft treaty for approval.  The most important new departure is that, in contrast to KP, which imposed numerical emissions limits for each covered nation in the treaty, the new agreement invites voluntary yet verifiable commitments from every nation for its reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  

Three Examples of Voluntary Commitments.  The U.S. is a major contributor to the emissions from industrialized countries.  China, a developing country, is currently the nation with the highest GHG emissions in the world; it is responsible for a major portion of the historical 1990-2012 and projected 2013-2035 emissions shown in the graphic.  India, also a developing country, is increasing its fossil fuel-driven energy production at similar (high) annual rates as China, although its absolute numerical production is much lower.  The voluntary commitments of these three nations are summarized here.

U. S.  The U. S. is committing to reduce its emissions from the level of 2005 by 26-28% by 2025, with best efforts made to achieve 28% reduction .  President Obama has already put in place several policies that will contribute to meeting this goal.  This program places the U. S. on a longer-term path to achieve an economy-wide reduction in GHG emissions of 80% by 2050.

China had been a strong proponent of the arguments presented by developing countries summarized above.  Its reconsidered goals were outlined in the summit meeting between Presidents Xi Jinping and Obama in 2014.  China’s emission rates continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy.  Its goal, confirmed for the U. N.’s 21^st COP, is that the annual rate of GHG emissions will reach a maximum by 2030 and possibly sooner, and then decline.  China’s commitment to slow the growth of its emissions was not specified in numerical terms.  As part of this initiative China expects to use fossil fuel-derived energy more efficiently, including increasing the share of energy derived from renewable sources to 20% by 2030, and to expand its forested lands.  It is to be emphasized that China’s numerical rate of emissions will not begin declining until about 2030.

India has been rapidly expanding its energy production from fossil fuels, especially coal.  As recently as 2014, Prakash Javadekar, India’s minister of environment, forests and climate change, rejected constraining its growth and reducing its emission rate .  India’s first responsibility, he stated, is to reduce poverty and expand the country’s economy, rather than reduce GHG emissions.  In this regard India’s approach resembles the earlier Chinese goals.  In a change from this policy, India’s commitment for the 21^st COP intends to increase its energy efficiency by 33 to 35% from its 2005 level by 2030.  This program includes a goal of expanding non-fossil fuel-derived energy (currently at a very low level) by 40% by 2030, relying on foreign assistance.  In addition it will add new forest lands to help remove CO₂ from the air.  It is noteworthy that India, like China, does not state a numerical amount of actual reduction in its rate of emissions, only a slowdown in the rate of increase of its emissions.

© 2015 Henry Auer

India Disdains a Global Approach to Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Before the Industrial Revolution the lives of people all around the globe were more or less similar.  The economic basis was largely agrarian; a large fraction of people lived off the land or close to it.  Importantly, the main sources of energy to help power farming, much other economic activity and transportation were living beasts, and movement of people, goods and information was no faster than animals or ships could carry them.  Candles and oil lamps helped push back the shadow of darkness.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that.  Harnessing the energy contained in fossil fuels vastly multiplied the work that could be done.  Economic activity and lifestyles grew accordingly.  These effects have been felt primarily in the industrialized, or “developed”, countries, and radically changed our expectations and habits over the past 150 or so years.  The rest of the world, commonly called “developing countries”, largely remained unchanged agrarian societies, and did not benefit from the new-found energy.

Global Warming.  By the time global warming drew worldwide attention in the last decades of the 20^th century, developing countries were beginning intensive energy-dependent expansions of their economies, seeking to move from agrarian to industrialized societies.  They rely primarily on fossil fuels to drive that growth.  These countries coalesced around a policy that no matter what harms global warming brought about, they were not to blame, and furthermore, that they had the right to surge forward using those energy sources in order to attain economic growth for their own citizens. 

India and China are prime examples of this growth surge.  Here we focus on India.  In contrast to China since the Communist Revolution, India has faced not only an economic challenge to development, it also has an expanding population.  India’s development must not only improve standards of living for its people, it must do so for more people as time passes.  (China’s one-child policy has held its population growth lower over this time.)

An impression of the economic growth of India and China in recent years can be seen in the following comparison of selected data. 
 

Entry	India	China
Population, million	1,198	1,346
Average population growth, 2010-2015 projected	1.43%	0.51%
Gross Domestic Product, billion US$	1,377	4,986
Avg. annual growth in GDP, 2004-9	8.3%	11.4%
Per capita GDP in purchasing power parity, US$	7.2	14.9
Per capita energy consumption, kg of oil equivalent	545	1,598

Source: The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures, 2012 Ed.

 

The disparity in GDP growth rates between the two countries is also shown in the graphic below.

Source: http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/Per_Capita_Gross_Domestic_Product_for_China_and_India,_1980-2008.JPG
 

As may be supposed from the introductory paragraphs above, the growth in India’s GDP and energy use track each other quite closely.  This is seen in the graphic below.

Growth in India’s economy from 2003 to 2011.  BROWN, total energy consumption (right side axis; 1 quadrillion = 1 billion million; Btu is British thermal unit); AQUA, gross domestic product (left side axis).

Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10611

 

India’s energy consumption doubled between 1990 and 2011; it is the fourth largest consumer of energy in the world.  Almost half of its energy is obtained by its expanding numbers of coal-fired generating plants .   Unfortunately, coal produces almost twice as much CO₂ per unit of energy yielded as natural gas.  The actual annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission rates produced by India are compared with data for China and the U. S. in the following graphic.

Annual rates of CO₂ emission attributed to the burning of fossil fuels from 1980-2011, for China, India and the U. S.  The numbers on the left of each panel show the lowest and highest values on the vertical axis, enlarged for legibility.  Note that the vertical axes are not comparable across the panels.

Source: Adapted from the U. S. Energy Information Administration; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=CH#cde; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=IN&trk=m#cde; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=m#cde.

 

Global climate treaties have distinguished between developed and developing countries since the time that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1994.  The Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto), negotiated in 1997, adopted the same wording as appears in the Convention, namely, that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns of developing countries that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” because they contributed the most to atmospheric CO₂ from their industrialization, and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  As a result, the final terms of Kyoto applied only to developed (i.e., already industrialized) countries such as the U. S. (the U. S. did not ratify Kyoto, however), nations of Western Europe, Japan and Australia; developing countries were excused from coverage.

India still harbors this distinction in global warming objectives even though the global greenhouse gas environment has changed radically.  The energy use and economies of many developing countries, including India, have grown dramatically in the 20 years since the UNFCCC was established.  India’s energy policy strongly emphasizes its need to promote economic growth at a rapid pace. 

In 2013 coal provided 54.5% of India’s energy .  About 35% of India’s population, mostly in rural areas, lacks access to electricity.  Evidently India intends to produce the energy it needs primarily from fossil fuels, thus adding to the world’s burden of atmospheric CO₂.  It currently derives very small percentages of its energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric resources.

At the United Nations Climate Summit in New York in September 2014 the Indian representative forcefully expressed his nation’s policy, appearing to rely strongly on the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]”.  India rejected the notion of constraining its growth and reducing its emission rate, according to Prakash Javadekar, its minister of environment, forests and climate change.  India’s first responsibility, he stated, is to reduce poverty and expand the country’s economy, rather than reduce GHG emissions.  In his view, a principal culprit of emissions is the U. S.

The U. S. and China agreed to a bilateral commitment on reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a meeting in Beijing in November, 2014.  China’s emission rates, which continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy, are to reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 and possibly sooner, according to its commitment.  As part of this initiative China expects to increase the share of energy derived from renewable sources (solar power, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric) to 20% by the target date of 2030.

According to India Climate Dialogue a negotiator for India, remaining anonymous, stated in response to the U. S.-China pronouncement “We cannot make the same commitment, or even a similar one. India and China are not in the same stage of economic development. If developed countries are willing to listen to us in the matter of providing finance and … technology transfer to help us transition to a greener economy, we may be able to peak sometime in the 2030s, perhaps by 2040”, i.e. about ten years later than China.  Additionally, Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment, concluded that the terms of the bilateral pronouncement were sufficiently lax that India “need not do anything till 2040 and beyond.”

It is clear from these official pronouncements that India does not feel compelled to limit the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions in the near future.

 

Analysis

 

India is the nation with the fourth highest use of energy in the world.  As the table above shows, even though its population is almost as large as that of China its per capita energy use and GDP are far lower than its neighbor, indicating that a large fraction of India’s people do not benefit significantly from industrialization.  The country is seeking to correct this imbalance by aggressively providing more energy, primarily derived from fossil fuels, and developing its economy.  Judging from the attitudes expressed by some of its government officials, India is justifying in its own “collective mind”, i.e., in policy-making circles, continuation of “business-as-usual”, the expansion of fossil fuel-driven energy.

Such policies ignore the role that each nation of our planet plays today in protecting our atmospheric “commons”.  By acting in this way India rejects responsibility for contributing to future worsening of global warming and its consequences, even though it may suffer from those consequences. 

A UNFCCC-sponsored meeting of climate representatives from all U. N. member states is currently convened (first two weeks of December 2014) in Lima, Peru. They are to lay the groundwork for a global climate treaty to be signed in December 2015.  It is generally agreed among climate scientists that major reductions in the annual rate of emission of greenhouse gases by 2050 have to be a critical feature of such an agreement.  (Many developed countries have already embarked on programs to meet that goal.)  Attitudes of countries such as India that repudiate the need for aggressive reductions in rates of emission constitute a serious threat to a successful outcome to those negotiations.  It must be hoped that such intransigence can be overcome.

© 2014 Henry Auer

The U. S. and China Announce Joint Emissions Reductions

People in China and the U. S. feel the effects of global warming in their daily lives.  Smog in Beijing and other cities, driven in part by burning coal for electric generation, severely impacts the lives of Chinese citizens.  During the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit Nov. 11-14, 2014, China closed factories and gave workers time off in Beijing to reduce emissions while foreign officials were there.   While the average global temperature has risen worldwide since the industrial revolution began, the average temperature in China has risen even more.  The frequency of extreme weather and exceptional natural disasters such as droughts, dust storms, heavy rains, flooding and mudslides in China has risen in recent decades.  Urbanization has increased in China’s coastal cities, such as Shanghai, Tianjin and Hong Kong, making them more vulnerable to inundations from rising sea levels.

American coastal cities such as Miami Beach and Norfolk, Virginia routinely suffer high tide flooding.  According to the U. S. National Climate Assessment (May 2014),

warming has already had adverse effects across the U. S., including heat waves, droughts, wildfires, changes in availability of water, floods, ocean storm surges, extreme weather and climate events and socioeconomic effects.  Worsening of these trends is foreseen during this century.

Global warming from man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), is clearly a problem confronting all humanity, requiring the cooperation of all nations of the world to address it.  Once emitted into the atmosphere, GHGs disperse across the entire globe.  Multinational efforts to conclude a new global warming treaty are currently under way.  Nevertheless, some experts have suggested that agreements between two or a small set of nations could play an important role as well.  Along these lines the U. S. and China announced a joint agreement to address GHG emissions on Nov. 12, 2014, during the APEC summit.

President Obama and President Xi pledged that their countries would significantly reduce emissions of GHGs over the next 15 years, each in their own way.  They agreed that

• the U. S. would lower its GHG emission rates by 26-28% from the levels emitted in 2005, by 2025.  (The U. S. has already pledged to reduce emissions by 17% from the levels of 2005 by 2020.)  This requires an increasing the intended annual rate of reduction of GHG emissions from 1.2% per year up to 2020 to 2.3-2.8% per year between 2020 and 2025.

 

• China’s emission rates, which continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy, will reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 and possibly sooner.  China’s commitment to slow the growth of its emissions was not specified in numerical terms.  As part of this initiative China expects to increase the share of energy derived from renewable sources (solar power, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric) to 20% by the target date of 2030.

 

• The two nations agreed to extend and expand their cooperation in reducing emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, used in refrigeration, originally announced in 2013.  These substances are far more potent GHGs than CO₂.

These commitments are being made by the two countries that are the two highest-emitting nations of the world, accounting for over one-third of annual global emission rates of GHGs.  The importance of these pledges cannot be exaggerated.

• The commitments pledge major reductions in GHG emission rates by each of the two nations.

 

• The agreement was reached outside the framework of the worldwide United Nations sponsored negotiations for a universal treaty.  Those negotiations, occurring annually for many years, have been fraught with contention and disagreements.

 

• The commitments made by the two largest emitters of GHGs in the world to reduce emission rates should serve as a powerful incentive for other nations to reduce their emissions, whether individually or within the U. N. framework, to reach a meaningful agreement.

There is need for caution as well as enthusiasm in evaluating this agreement.  The U. S. White House put out a press release concerning this bilateral agreement on behalf of Presidents Obama and Xi.  This writer sought and could not find a corresponding English-language announcement on the web site of People’s Daily, the Chinese government’s newspaper, for Nov. 12, nor for Nov. 13, 2014.  However, China Daily, a non-governmental English language newspaper, did report the announcements.  If accurate, this leaves an impression that the Chinese government preferred to downplay or dissociate itself from the agreement even as President Obama embraced it.

This is not a binding agreement between parties.  As the White House wrote, the two parties separately announced goals or commitments to attain their respective targets by their respective dates.  President Obama has only two years left in office, so that most of the target conditions will have to be fulfilled by his successor(s).  A future president could just as well decide against following through on the present commitments.  He also faces a hostile Congress which may interfere with his intentions. 

President Xi heads a central government, so it may be easier for him to follow through on his commitments (see below, discussion on Five Year Plans).

The agreement imposes very different constraints on the two governments.  The American commitment is for numerically stated, and verifiable, reductions in emission rates.  The Chinese commitment, however, fails to specify a numerical standard for the extent of its reduction in emission rates.  The announcement states only that China will reduce the growth rate of its annual emissions until a maximum rate is achieved by 2030, or perhaps earlier.  Presumably China’s emission rate will actually begin falling after 2030, but this also is not stated.  (A common objective among climate scientists and policymakers, in order to keep the world’s global average temperature rise below 2ºC (3.6ºF), is that global emission rates have to be cut by 80% or more by 2050 below early 21^st century levels.)

China’s Five Year Plans (FYPs) have already programmed in significant changes.  China’s national development is set forth in successive FYPs, which are assembled by China’s central government.  According to the report “Delivering Low Carbon Growth – A Guide to the 12th Five Year Plan”,  the proportion of energy provided by non-fossil fuel sources is to be 11.4% in the 12^th FYP (2011-2015) and 15.0% in the 13^th FYP (2016-2020).  So it is seen that much of the goal in November’s bilateral agreement is already planned, leaving an additional 5% of total energy to be provided by non-fossil fuel sources in the ten years leading to 2030 in order to reach the specified 20% objective.

China Daily reported that the bilateral agreement used earlier language that has always distinguished between developing and developed countries.  The wording was first presented in the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change twenty years ago, namely, that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  

China Daily reported that in the bilateral agreement "the two countries are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”  In other words, developing countries such as China continue to stress equity in insisting that they be given the same opportunity to develop, using fossil fuels for energy, that industrialized countries have benefited from for more than a century.  At the same time they point to the responsibility of those developed countries now to limit their emissions because of their advanced economic status.  These attitudes stress hindsight or past history.

Developed countries such as the U. S., on the other hand, presumably consider equity as supporting a policy that, since developing countries are now the ones expanding the world’s burden of atmospheric GHGs, they should bear the “differentiated responsibility” of constraining their emissions. Whereas China was an impoverished developing country in the early 1990s, it is now the world’s largest emitter of GHGs and a powerful economic force.  One can legitimately question whether developed countries still have to acknowledge “differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” of flourishing countries such as China.

Conclusion

U. S. President Obama and China’s President Xi announced bilateral objectives of differing scope and timing to place their nations on paths toward significant reductions in GHG emission rates.  The joint objectives mark the first time the two nations of the world with the highest emission rates agree on the importance of mitigating emission rates; the result will be highly significant for the climatic health of our planet.  Citizens of both countries, indeed of all the world’s nations, will benefit from this undertaking.  It creates an important incentive for achieving agreement on mitigating emissions worldwide, resulting from U. N.-sponsored negotiations over the coming year.

© 2014 Henry Auer