BRICs in the Global Climate Regime: Rapidly Industrializing Countries and International Climate Negotiations

  • Deborah Davenport
Chapter
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment series book series (ECE)

Abstract

The BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — were first denoted by Goldman Sachs economists in 2001 as economies with very high growth potential for investment (O’Neill 2001). This provides a first indication that, aside from the steep upward trajectories of their economies, there is relatively little binding the BRICs together as a group, generally or in respect of the global climate regime. The BRICs have certainly never acted as a concerted force in international climate change negotiations; instead, their behaviour reveals marked and intriguing differences between four countries with a broadly similar status in the global economy (the 2011 addition to the BRICs ranks, South Africa, will not be discussed in detail but is considered below in the context of climate change negotiations in 2009 and 2010).

Keywords

Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Emission Trading International Climate Clean Development Mechanism Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akanle, T., A. Appleton, K. Kulovesi, E. Recio, A. Schulz, M. Sommerville and C. Spence (2010), ‘Summary of the Cancún Climate Change Conference, 29 November-11 December 2010’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (498), 1–30.Google Scholar
  2. Akanle, T., A. Appleton, K. Kulovesi, A. Schulz, M. Sommerville, C. Spence and Y. Yamineva (2009), ‘Summary of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, 7–19 December 2009’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (459), 1–30.Google Scholar
  3. Andresen, S. and E. Hey (2005), ‘The effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental institutions’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 5, 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) (2009), ¿Confabulación en Copenhague? BBC Mundo Redaccion, http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/ciencia_tecnologia/2009/12/091222_1500_clima_india_china_wbm.shtml.Google Scholar
  5. Bettelli, P., C. Carpenter, D. Davenport, P. Doran and S. Wise (1997), ‘Report of the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1–11 December 1997’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (76), 1–16.Google Scholar
  6. Bodansky, D. (2010), The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, E., J. Hanks, L. Schipper, M. Sell, C. Spence and J. Voinov (2001), ‘Summary of the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 29 October-10 November 2001’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12 (189), 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. Brunnée, J. (2010), ‘From Bali to Copenhagen: Towards a shared vision for a post-2012 climate regime?’ Maryland Journal of International Law 25, 86–108.Google Scholar
  9. Bührs, T. (2010), ‘Emissions trading, equity, and sustainability: The case for allocating entitlements to “individuals-in-community”’, Local Environment 15, 817–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, B. (2007), Brazil’s Plan to Save the Amazon Rainforest, http://unfcccbali.org/unfccc/news-unfccc/news-unfccc/brazils-plan-to-save-the-amazon-rainforest.html [27 November 2010].Google Scholar
  11. China Daily (2004), Russia Ratifies Kyoto, Starts in 90 Days’ Time, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004–11/19/content_393135.htm [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  12. Churie, A., J. Hanks, L. Schipper, M. Sell, C. Spence and J. Voinov (2000), ‘Summary of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change: 13–25 November 2000’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12 (163), 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Davenport, D. (2006), Global Environmental Negotiations and US Interests, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport, D., P. Hardcastle, E. Lokshall, G. Hodes, Z. Dunn, E. Tyler and P. Abbot (2009), The Potential to Help Increase Sub-Saharan Access to the Clean Development Mechanism, http://www.ltsi.co.uk/content/view/72/96/ [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  15. Davenport, D., L. Wagner and C. Spence (2012), ‘Earth negotiations on a comfy couch: Building rust through innovative negotiation processes’, In Chasek, P. and L. Wagner (eds) The Roads from Rio: Lessons Learned from Twenty years of Multilateral Environmental Negotiations, pp. 39–58, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Dimitrov, R. (2010), ‘Inside Copenhagen: The state of climate governance’, Global Environmental Politics 10 (2), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downie, D. (1995), ‘Road map or false trail? evaluating the “precedence” of the ozone regime as a model and strategy for global climate change’, International Environmental Affairs 7, 321–45.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, B., M. Ford, G. Jakeman, A. Gurney, J. Penm, A. Matysek and D. Gunasekera (2006), Technological Development and Economic Growth, ABARE Research Report 06.1, Inaugural Ministerial Meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Sydney, 11–13 January, ABARE, Canberra.Google Scholar
  19. Fletcher, S. (1997), Global Climate Change Treaty: Negotiations and Related Issues. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 97–1000 ENR.Google Scholar
  20. Goldenberg, S. (2010), Cancún Climate Change Conference: Russia will not Renew Kyoto Protocol, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/10/Cancún-climate-change-conference-kyoto [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  21. Grubb, M. and M. Patterson (1992), ‘The international politics of climate change’, International Affairs 68, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halpin, T. (2009), Brazil, Russia, India and China form Bloc to Challenge US Dominance, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6514737.ece [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  23. Henry, L. and L. Sundstrom (2007), ‘Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Seeking an alignment of interests and image’, Global Environmental Politics 7 (4), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honkonen, T. (2009), ‘The principle of common but differentiated responsibility in post-2012 climate negotiations’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 18, 257–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Houser, T. (2010), Policy Brief Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb10–05.pdf [4 February 2011].Google Scholar
  26. Kerry, J. (1997), Interview with US Sen. John Kerry, http://www.iisd.ca/climate/kyoto/coverage.html [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  27. Kütting, G. (2000), Environment, Society and International Relations: Towards More Effective International Environmental Agreements. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, K. and R. Bradley (2010), Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/comparability_of_annexl_emission_reduction_pledges_2010–02–01.pdf [20 February 2011].Google Scholar
  29. Levin, K., S. Bernstein, B. Cashore and G. Auld (2007), ‘Playing it forward: Path dependency, progressive incrementalism, and the “super wicked” problem of global climate change’, International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, 28 February–3 March 2007, USA: Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. MEF (2011), Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change, http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/ [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  31. Medvedev, D. (2010), Opening Remarks at Meeting on Climate Change, http://eng.kremlin.ru/text/speeches/2010/02/18/1841_type82913_224384.shtml [10 March 2010].Google Scholar
  32. Morgan, J. (2010), Reflections on the Cancun Agreements, http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/12/reflections-cancun-agreements [26 Febmary 2011].Google Scholar
  33. Oberthür, S. and H. Ott (1999), The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Centwy, Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okereke, C. (2008), Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance: Ethics, Sustainable Development and International Cooperation, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Olsen, K. (2007), ‘The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: A review of the literature’, Climate Change 84, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neill, J. (2001), Building better Global Economic BRICs, http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/building-better-doc.pdf [14 March 2011].Google Scholar
  37. Parks, B.C. and J.T. Roberts (2008), ‘Inequality and the global climate regime: breaking the north-south impasse’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21, 621–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramesh, J. (2010), Letter to Indian Parliament, http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-ramesh-reveals-how-india-pleaded-at-cancun/20110104.htm [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  39. Rasmussen, L. (2009), Prime Minister’s Speech at the opening of Intergovernmental Parliamentary Conference, 24 October 2009, http://copenhagen.globeinternational.org/includes/documents/cm_docs/2009/p/prime_minister_lars_lkke_rasmussen_mp_speech.pdf [5 April 2011].Google Scholar
  40. Rosales, J. (2008), ‘Economic growth, climate change, biodiversity loss: Distributive justice for the global north and south’, Conservation Biology 22, 1409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sachs, W. (2008), ‘Climate change and human rights’, Development 51, 332–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taplin, R. and J. McGee (2010), ‘The Asia-Pacific partnership: Implementation challenges and interplay with Kyoto’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 16–22.Google Scholar
  43. UNFCCC (1992), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [4 March 2011].Google Scholar
  44. UNFCCC (2007), Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Draft decision -/CP.16, 10–12, http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf [23 January 2011].Google Scholar
  45. UNFCCC (2009), Ideas and Proposals on the elements contained in Paragraph 1 of the Bali Action Plan: Submissions from Parties, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca5/eng/misc01.pdf [26 February 2011].Google Scholar
  46. UNFCCC (2010), Copenhagen Accord, http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5262.php [1 March 2011].Google Scholar
  47. Williams, M. (2005), ‘The third world and global environmental negotiations: Interests, institutions and ideas’, Global Environmental Politics 5 (3), 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deborah Davenport 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Davenport

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations