Global Warming and the Global South

Should Global Warming be addressed by an International Regime?

If So, what (if any) is the appropriate role for the countries of the ‘Global South’ in an international climate change regime?

Differently situated individuals answer these questions differently.  This is how I assume the issue looks from each perspective.

 

North-Realist

Generally, a realist would oppose an international regime, but I think there may be more moderate realist position that would support international action.  Reliance on voluntary unilateral emission reductions will lead to a collective-action problem.  An international regime reduces the realist’s concerns about comparative advantage.  No matter how the realist answers the first question, I think the realist answer to the second is no.  The realist sees the participation of the global south as unnecessary (their emissions are dwarfed by the North’s), and as a weakening factor in an international regime.  From the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC-1992), Article 4 paragraph 7:

“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

This language clearly describes the South’s motivation.  The realist would likely oppose Southern participation citing that an international climate change regime should be targeted only at the global warming problem, not at eradicating poverty or promoting development.

North-Liberal

A liberal will generally perceive the potential for effective cooperation and support an international regime.  I think a liberal would stress the importance of Southern participation, arguing that failure to include developing countries would create ‘pollution havens’ where industries could move to avoid regulation.

South-Realist

My assumption is that a realist viewing these questions from the Southern perspective would support an international regime, but would not want developing countries to be involved.  I assume this because global warming is a threat to all nations, especially small island and less-developed states; but global warming has been almost entirely caused by the Global North.  Responsibility for solving the problem should rest with those who created it.

South-Liberal

The liberal position from the Southern perspective would probably be supportive of an international regime, and would advocate developing country participation.  The argument might be something like: the Global South does not want to follow the North’s “path of polluted development”, so developing countries should receive development-funding and technology-transfer to allow them to develop in a sustainable way.