How do major emitters' national interests contribute to ongoing emissions growth?

Major emitters' national interests significantly contribute to ongoing emissions growth primarily because these national priorities—often rooted in economic development, fossil fuel dependence, and the principle of state sovereignty—clash with the need for ambitious, binding international emission reduction commitments.

The core framework of international climate negotiations, which is state-centric and based on national sovereignty, is argued to be central to the failure in developing agreements required to arrest climate change.

Prioritizing National Sovereignty and Development

The state-centric negotiating framework allows major emitters to prioritize their domestic economic goals and sovereign rights over global climate action, leading to increased emissions:

1. Sovereignty and Economic Interests: BASIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have consistently maintained their sovereign right to development and their economic interests. The primary cause of the Copenhagen debacle in 2009 was the state-centric national interest in the guise of sovereignty.
2. Freedom of Development: China, India, and Brazil, in particular, have asserted their freedom of development regardless of environmental impacts. This focus on economic and developmental interests often overtakes any potential climate commitments, resulting in the rapid increase in carbon emissions from these emerging economies.
3. Continued Fossil Fuel Reliance: The cooperation of the BASIC countries in negotiations is driven in part by their high dependence on fossil fuels' energy and their specific interests. China and the rest of the developing world have continued to burn fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner, contributing to the unachievability of the 2°C limit. Since 1997, China and India have consistently relied on fossil fuels, seriously increasing their emissions.

Refusal to Accept Binding Commitments

Major emitters from both the developed and developing worlds refuse to accept comprehensive, legally binding commitments unless their specific national interests or principles are addressed, resulting in a persistent gridlock:

• The "You First" Attitude: Negotiations are hampered by a perennial "you first attitude". Developing countries refuse to make commitments until industrialized nations cut emissions, and industrialized nations refuse to commit unless emerging economies bind themselves.
• Developed Country Positions:
  • The USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, deeming it ineffective and unfair because it did not require developing countries to limit their emissions.
  • Canada, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand renounced the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, arguing it was meaningless to accept new targets when emerging economies from developing countries had none. New Zealand explicitly chose to move away from the Protocol because it was in its "best interests" to pursue commitments under the Convention alongside the largest economies.
  • The Umbrella Group, including the USA, Canada, Japan, and Russia, has indicated that any future legally binding instrument must include symmetrical climate mitigation commitments for all significant emitters.
• Developing Country Positions (BASIC):
  • China and India refused to make any binding commitments related to the extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
  • Developing countries, particularly India and China, insist that negotiations must keep the principles of the Convention intact, including Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), historical responsibility, and equity. These countries view climate change as having resulted from the unrestricted emissions of developed countries during their industrialization process.
  • India's national interest dictates framing "equity" in per capita terms, while Brazil and China emphasize historical responsibility. China has remained unwilling to discuss the prospect of mandatory reductions.
  • Developing countries argue that they need to continue economic growth to lift millions out of poverty, and therefore mitigation should not come at their economic cost.

Consequence: Continued Emissions Trajectory

The culmination of these competing national interests means that voluntary measures have proven inadequate, and no globally binding agreement is seen to be forthcoming. The current emission pledges and commitments made by countries would most likely result in a global temperature increase of 3.5°C to 4°C, far surpassing the goal of limiting warming below 2°C. Under current policies, carbon dioxide emissions are predicted to continue rising, leading to a longer-term global temperature increase of more than 3.5°C by 2035.

If the current state-centric impasse continues, where developing countries (headed by China) refuse long-term reduction obligations and industrialized countries demand reciprocal commitments from emerging economies, another gridlock is inevitable.