Matter of Equity: Who Goes First?

In the international effort to negotiate a treaty to limit global warming, an equity issue has taken center stage: how industrialized countries can reduce their emissions of heat-trapping gases that are changing the climate, without letting developing nations get off scot free.

President Clinton is aiming to secure a climate agreement that sets emission limits for industrialized countries and also has an equitable mechanism for expanding those limits to include developing countries. This is the correct policy, but it has to be pursued very carefully.

It is true that emissions from developing countries are rising rapidly. Although the U.S. currently ranks No. 1 in carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for about 20% of the global total, China is No. 2 and closing in. Other quickly developing countries with large populations--Indonesia and Brazil, for example--also have swiftly climbing emissions and will assume an ever-greater share of worldwide emissions over time.

But a glimpse beyond the superficial national emissions total makes it clear why developed countries must go first in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On a per capita basis, developed country carbon dioxide emissions massively overwhelm those of any developing country. U.S. per capita emissions are seven times that of China, 14 times that of Brazil and a whopping 23 times that of Indonesia.

And because carbon dioxide stays for a long time in the atmosphere, from 50 to 100 years, one must consider that the cumulative contribution of these gases by developed countries since the advent of the industrial revolution also greatly exceeds that of developing countries, and will continue to do so for some time.

So it is easy to understand why developing countries make the case that developed countries must go first in demonstrating a commitment to greenhouse gas limits. As Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth often states so aptly, “We fouled the nest.”

Beyond these considerations is a “global bargain” acknowledged by all serious observers of the current talks. Once industrialized countries move decisively to reduce their emissions, the developing world should--and must--accept its responsibility and adopt emissions limits early in the 21st century. This kind of solution would follow the precedent of the Montreal Protocol that is now successfully protecting the ozone layer.

Most developed nations have failed to meet the modest commitments they agreed to in the original climate treaty signed at the 1992 Earth Summit. The U.S. will miss stabilizing its heat-trapping gas emissions in 2000 at 1990 levels by as much as 13%. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair pointedly said recently, industrialized countries’ climate targets “will not be taken seriously by the poorer countries until the richer countries are meeting them.”

There is a way to find common ground. At the third Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, scheduled to begin Dec. 1 in Kyoto, Japan, a protocol should set binding goals and timetables for developed countries to reduce their heat-trapping gas emissions below 1990 levels. 2005 should be the first milestone; by then, significant reductions must be underway.

A side agreement should initiate follow-up negotiations with developing countries. Those negotiations should specify a time frame within which limits on developing country emissions must enter into force, subject to clear evidence of demonstrable progress by the developed countries. A clear path of their targets and timetables can provide assurance to the U.S. and other developed countries that a truly global regime will take force.

Some elements of the coal and oil industries have been publicizing the faulty premise that accepting limits on U.S. emissions would put this country at a competitive disadvantage with developing countries. This is simply wrong.

A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other independent organizations showed that the U.S. can cut its heat-trapping gas emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2010 and still reduce annual energy costs by $530 per household and create nearly 800,000 new jobs. Even greater reductions are achievable and justified given the substantial risks associated with global warming.

We must not allow the climate negotiations to be torpedoed by the fossil fuel lobby’s scare tactics. We should acknowledge our own responsibilities and work to assure a reasonable degree of equity in the commitments of all nations to guard against harmful alterations of our climate.