The Long and the Short of It - The Changing Arctic Environment: The Arctic Messenger - page 352

to undertake any actions that will threaten to inhibit their economic growth. At the same
time, most developed economies find it very difficult to contemplate any actions that risk a
short-term contraction of their economies.
To have hope of success, any proposed plan of action must recognize some highly in-
convenient global economic and political realities.
First, the biggest proportion of the cumulative GHG emissions since the Industrial Re-
volution has come from developed nations representing less than 20% of the global popu-
lation. The world population is rapidly growing, mainly in countries with developing eco-
nomies. They have every right to expect their own fair share of Earth's energy resources
and to anticipate a lifestyle similar to that which I enjoy.
Second, a global GDP growth of 2% or more means that the global economies will
double in about 35 years with a concomitant growth in the demand for energy, water and
food. It is simply unsustainable to expect that global society can fairly and indefinitely
power its economic future on fossil fuels regardless of whatever we do to our environment.
It was against this background that the Kyoto Protocol emission targets slumped to cover
only 15% of global emissions by 2013.
The Kyoto Protocol is fading and the 196 parties to the UNFCCC have set 2015 as
the year in which they hope to have developed a new “replacement” global agreement. At
the time of writing in late 2013, this date seems to be very close, and for a good short
overview of how things stand at this time, I recommend the paper by Elliot Diringer (see
the bibliography ). Diringer points out that another “top-down” approach (such as Kyoto)
based on negotiated legally binding emission targets is unlikely to emerge in 2015. The
prospects are poor for a model based on obligations that are restricted to countries with
developed economies. In other words, a modification of the Kyoto design is not expected.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is a “bottom-up” approach, which grew from the 2009
UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen and which led to the Cancun Agreements a year later.
Basically, what happened here is that countries have set their own voluntary pledges for
emission targets to be realized by 2020. The trouble with this approach is that some of the
Cancun pledges will not even take us to 50% of the emission reductions needed to keep