Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2012
At the United Nations climate change conference in 2011, parties decided to launch the “Durban Platform” to work towards a new long-term climate agreement. The decision was notable for the absence of any reference to “equity,” a prominent principle in all previous major climate agreements. Wealthy countries resisted the inclusion of equity on the grounds that the term had become too closely yoked to developing countries' favored conception of equity. This conception, according to wealthy countries, exempts developing countries from making commitments that are stringent enough for the collective effort needed to avoid dangerous climate change. In circumstances where even mentioning the term equity has become problematic, a critical question is whether the possibility for a fair agreement is being squeezed out of negotiations. To address this question we set out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, accompanied by a set of minimal standards of fairness and plausible feasibility constraints for sharing the global climate change mitigation effort. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement may be reached by (1) reforming the current binary approach to differentiating developed and developing country groups, in tandem with (2) introducing a more principled approach to differentiating the mitigation commitments of individual countries. These two priorities may provide the basis for a principled bargain between developed and developing countries that safeguards the opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change without sacrificing widely acceptable conceptions of equity.
1 United States Department of State, “United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, Special Briefing: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change” (Department of State, December 13, 2011); www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178699.htm. In response to a question about the wording of his quotation, Stern stated, “Whether I said those exact words, I have no idea. I might have, but . . . that's certainly the idea.”
2 UNFCCC, “Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” (2011); unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php.
3 Lavanya, Rajamani, “The Changing Fortunes of Differential Treatment in the Evolution of International Environmental Law,” International Affairs 88, no. 3 (2012), p. 618Google Scholar.
5 This article builds on an earlier working paper: Jonathan Pickering, Steve Vanderheiden, and Seumas Miller, “Ethical Issues in the United Nations Climate Negotiations: A Preliminary Analysis of Parties' Positions,” (Canberra: Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics [CAPPE], 2009).
6 Gupta, S. et al. , “Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements,” in Metz, B. 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: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 751Google Scholar.
7 Copenhagen Accord (2009), para. 1.
9 Gupta et al., “Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements,” p. 776.
13 Rawls, Compare John, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 5Google Scholar.
17 Light, Andrew, “Climate Ethics for Climate Action,” in Schmidtz, David and Willott, Elizabeth, eds., Environmental Ethics: What Really Matters? What Really Works? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 557–66Google Scholar.
18 Gilabert and Lawford-Smith, “Political Feasibility,” pp. 11–12.
23 Compare Christian Reus-Smit and Snidal, Duncan, “Reuniting Ethics and Social Science: The Oxford Handbook of International Relations,” Ethics & International Affairs 22, no. 3 (2008), pp. 261–71Google Scholar.
24 Compare Albin, Cecilia, Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.
27 Rajamani, “The Changing Fortunes of Differential Treatment,” pp. 605–606.
29 Rajamani, “The Changing Fortunes of Differential Treatment,” p. 616.
31 BASIC Experts, “Equitable Access to Sustainable Development: Contribution to the Body of Scientific Knowledge” (Beijing, Brasilia, Cape Town, and Mumbai: BASIC Expert group, 2011), pp. 9–11.
34 See, e.g., Singer, Peter, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (Melbourne: Text, 2002)Google Scholar.
40 United States Department of State, “United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa.”
41 Depledge, “The Opposite of Learning,” p. 9.
43 Rajamani, Lavanya, “The Making and Unmaking of the Copenhagen Accord,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 59, no. 3 (2010), pp. 831–32Google Scholar.
44 Australian government, “Mitigation: Submission to the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP (24 November 2008)” (Bonn: UNFCCC, 2008).
46 Depledge, “The Road Less Travelled,” p. 273.
47 These views were evident in a recent UNFCCC workshop; see UNFCCC, “Workshop on Equitable Access to Sustainable Development (AWG-LCA 15)” (2012); unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_may_2012/workshop/6658.php.
48 Frank Jotzo, “Comparing the Copenhagen Emissions Targets,” Crawford School Centre for Climate Economics & Policy Paper No. 1.10 (2010).
49 See Barrett, Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stephenson, Paule and Boston, Jonathan, “Climate Change, Equity and the Relevance of European ‘Effort-sharing’ for Global Mitigation Efforts,” Climate Policy 10, no. 1 (2010), pp. 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
50 See United Nations Peacekeeping: www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml (United Nations, 2011) Assessment of Member States' Contributions to the United Nations Regular Budget for 2012, ST/ADM/SER.B/853 (December 27, 2011); and Olbrisch, Susanne et al. , “Estimates of Incremental Investment for and Cost of Mitigation Measures in Developing Countries,” Climate Policy 11, no. 3 (2011), pp. 970–86, at p. 974CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 See, e.g., BASIC Experts, “Equitable Access to Sustainable Development.”
53 Vanderheiden, Atmospheric Justice.
54 Shue, “Global Environment and International Inequality”; contrast Schüssler, Rudolf, “Climate Justice: A Question of Historic Responsibility?” Journal of Global Ethics 7, no. 3 (2011), pp. 261–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Miller, Seumas, “Collective Responsibility, Epistemic Action and Climate Change,” in Vincent, Nicole A., van de Poel, Ibo, and van den Hoven, Jeroen, eds., Moral Responsibility: Beyond Free Will and Determinism (Heidelberg: Springer, 2011), pp. 219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 See Vanderheiden, Atmospheric Justice, p. 190.
56 Höhne, Niklas et al. , “Contributions of Individual Countries' Emissions to Climate Change and Their Uncertainty,” Climatic Change 106, no. 3 (2011), pp. 359–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Botzen, W. J. W., Gowdy, J. M., and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., “Cumulative CO2 Emissions: Shifting International Responsibilities for Climate Debt,” Climate Policy 8, no. 6 (2008), pp. 569–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Grubb, “Cancún: The Art of the Possible,” p. 847.
62 UNFCCC, “Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention,” Decision 2/CP.17, 17th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, Durban, 2011 (2012), paras. 5 and 34.
64 Tavoni, Massimo, Chakravarty, Shoibal, and Socolow, Robert, “Safe vs. Fair: A Formidable Trade-off in Tackling Climate Change,” Sustainability 4, no. 2 (2012), pp. 210–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Clarke, Leon et al. , “International Climate Policy Architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios,” Energy Economics 31, supp. 2 (2009), pp. 864–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66 Winkler, Brouns, and Kartha, “Future Mitigation Commitments”; and den Elzen, Michel et al. , “Multi-Stage: A Rule-Based Evolution of Future Commitments under the Climate Change Convention,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 6, no. 1 (2006), pp. 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.