Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
By way of comparison, developing countries are in a state of carbon
credit, without having derived equal economic benefi ts from the burning
of fossil fuels, as has been the case in richer nations (Roberts and Parks
2007b). Despite this gap in carbon emissions, the developing world is
coming under increasing pressure to reduce its emissions. And, to date,
global climate change negotiations have led to little success in addressing
inequities between Northern and Southern nations. In fact, because
social understandings of fairness are contingent on a country's position
in the global hierarchy, opposing perceptions of ''climate justice'' pose a
serious threat to a political resolution of climate change (Roberts and
Parks 2007b; Parks and Roberts 2006; Roberts and Parks 2007a). Devel-
oping countries are politically weak due to their economic dependence
vis-à-vis richer nations. More often than not, developing countries are
unable to have meaningful participation and constructive input in global
policy dialogs (Adger et al. 2006; Roberts and Parks 2007a), let alone
infl uence outcomes (Anand 2004). The result is that many of their
concerns tend to be marginalized in fi nal decisions (Adger et al. 2006).
Nowhere is this more evident than in the participation of the so-called
BASIC countries (i.e., Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) in the
development of the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009.
Prior to COP 15, it would have been unthinkable that a country such
as South Africa would compromise on its demands for a legally binding
emission reduction agreement for the sake of what has been referred to
in some circles as “climate structural adjustment.” However, instead
of the deep emission cuts required of the developed world, the divide-
and-coerce tactics of Copenhagen saw the richest of the poor countries
(i.e., the BASIC countries) complicit in instituting a new form of inequal-
ity, and sacrifi cing effective action for fi nancial resources. Ironically, these
countries were also the ones that made the most signifi cant commitments
to emission reductions—in South Africa's case, a deviation below the
current emission baseline of 34 percent by 2020 and 42 percent by 2025.
As noted by the Sudanese negotiator in the G77 Lumumba Di-Aping on
the last day of the Copenhagen meeting, “This deal will defi nitely result
in massive devastation in Africa and small island nations. . . . The archi-
tecture of this deal is extraordinarily fl awed. What has happened today
has confi rmed what we have been suspicious of—that a deal will be
superimposed by the United States . . . on all nations of the world.” As
this quote suggests, is not surprising that developing countries perceive
that they have to forgo economic growth to help address a complex
problem that they did not create in the fi rst place (Pearce 2007).
