Paradigm Shift in International Climate Governance: From Cost …
739
the United States, and the developing countries, represented by the Group of 77
and China. Although the interests and goals of the two camps were quite different,
their overall structure was basically fixed. Specifically, the United States was the
rule maker first, and then the rule-breaker after the Kyoto Protocol, whereas the EU
upheld international morality, always taking the lead in addressing global climate
change and abiding by the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Although the interests
and goals of the United States and the EU were not exactly the same, belonging
to the developed country group, they basically assumed the same stance towards
developing countries. By contrast, due to differences in development stages and
needs, developing countries or small groups of them had varied interests; however,
they adhered to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and
took nearly the same stance on requiring developed countries to reduce emissions
and take financial and technological obligations.
After the Durban Platform that launched a new round of negotiations was adopted
in 2011, the United States managed to reduce its total carbon emissions, thanks to the
financial crisis and the “Shale Revolution,” the combination of hydraulic fracturing
and horizontal drilling enabling the United States to greatly increase its production
of oil and natural gas. Therefore, the Obama administration endeavoured to be the
leader of global climate change and the maker of a new climate agreement. The
EU was relatively weak in the international climate pattern and difficult to take the
lead; however, it still hoped to actively work with others to advance the international
governance. By contrast, emerging economies represented by China had enhanced
national strength, with GDP per capita generally reaching or exceeding the level of
the middle and high income, and some of them even close to the EU in terms of
per capita carbon emissions—a situation that showed the “duality” of them and the
developed countries, as well as a widened gap between their stance and that of the
least developed and small island countries regarding emission reduction and capital
contribution. As such, a new group of developing countries with a similar stance was
emerging.
The basic pattern of today’s global climate change can be summarized as: north–
south interweaving, edging closer to the north in the south, division within the north,
and north–south spectrum—which can be roughly described as “two camps,” “three
major sectors,” and five categories of economies. The two camps of the “north and
south” that traditionally divide developing and developed countries faintly exist. The
three major sectors of developed, emerging and low-income countries are roughly
identifiable—developed economies can be classified into two types: the countries
with a rapid population growth, represented by the United States, and the ones with a
stable or declining population, represented by the EU and Japan; emerging economies
can also be classified into two types: the countries with a stable population growth,
represented by China and the ones with a rapid population growth, such as India; lowincome economies are mainly low-income countries. These countries may divide and
reorganize in the future, but as a whole, they will exist for a long time.
739
the United States, and the developing countries, represented by the Group of 77
and China. Although the interests and goals of the two camps were quite different,
their overall structure was basically fixed. Specifically, the United States was the
rule maker first, and then the rule-breaker after the Kyoto Protocol, whereas the EU
upheld international morality, always taking the lead in addressing global climate
change and abiding by the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Although the interests
and goals of the United States and the EU were not exactly the same, belonging
to the developed country group, they basically assumed the same stance towards
developing countries. By contrast, due to differences in development stages and
needs, developing countries or small groups of them had varied interests; however,
they adhered to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and
took nearly the same stance on requiring developed countries to reduce emissions
and take financial and technological obligations.
After the Durban Platform that launched a new round of negotiations was adopted
in 2011, the United States managed to reduce its total carbon emissions, thanks to the
financial crisis and the “Shale Revolution,” the combination of hydraulic fracturing
and horizontal drilling enabling the United States to greatly increase its production
of oil and natural gas. Therefore, the Obama administration endeavoured to be the
leader of global climate change and the maker of a new climate agreement. The
EU was relatively weak in the international climate pattern and difficult to take the
lead; however, it still hoped to actively work with others to advance the international
governance. By contrast, emerging economies represented by China had enhanced
national strength, with GDP per capita generally reaching or exceeding the level of
the middle and high income, and some of them even close to the EU in terms of
per capita carbon emissions—a situation that showed the “duality” of them and the
developed countries, as well as a widened gap between their stance and that of the
least developed and small island countries regarding emission reduction and capital
contribution. As such, a new group of developing countries with a similar stance was
emerging.
The basic pattern of today’s global climate change can be summarized as: north–
south interweaving, edging closer to the north in the south, division within the north,
and north–south spectrum—which can be roughly described as “two camps,” “three
major sectors,” and five categories of economies. The two camps of the “north and
south” that traditionally divide developing and developed countries faintly exist. The
three major sectors of developed, emerging and low-income countries are roughly
identifiable—developed economies can be classified into two types: the countries
with a rapid population growth, represented by the United States, and the ones with a
stable or declining population, represented by the EU and Japan; emerging economies
can also be classified into two types: the countries with a stable population growth,
represented by China and the ones with a rapid population growth, such as India; lowincome economies are mainly low-income countries. These countries may divide and
reorganize in the future, but as a whole, they will exist for a long time.