Here at the UN climate summit is Paris, negotiators are hashing out the new meaning of an old term: common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). CBDR has been a bedrock principle of climate negotiations since 1992. It was the basis for dividing the world into two camps: 37 developed nations that had binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, and the rest of the world. There are many definitions for CBDR, but the best one I’ve heard was given by former Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth before a skeptical Senate committee. Defending the fairness of CBDR, he said that it means all nations are in the same boat, but some nations like the United States have to do more work than others to pull the oars.
The Paris agreement is based on voluntary climate commitments by every party, so if everyone is pulling an oar, to use Wirth’s metaphor, is there any continuing role for CBDR? The U.S. position in Paris is pretty clear: CBDR is old news. As lead U.S. negotiator Todd Stern put it, “What is expected from countries should be differentiated to capture their varying circumstances and capabilities today and in the future, not based on outdated categories created in 1992.”
Other countries, led by India, are just as adamant that the Paris agreement must continue to be based on CDBR as understood in the 1990s. According to Indian negotiator Ajay Mathur, “the differentiation was done for a very specific purpose. It was to make differentiation between those who are responsible for historic emissions and those who are not. That calculus and those numbers haven’t really changed. We don’t see why that concept should be swept under the carpet.”
What can we expect out of Paris talks, which wrap up Friday? The term CBDR is mentioned eight times in the draft treaty text released last weekend, but it is usually located in brackets, meaning it could be withdrawn from the final version.
Because countries are no longer divided into two groups with respect to their greenhouse gas reduction commitments, the natural place where countries might differentiate their responsibilities is on financing. The financing section, Article 6, is a tangle of brackets, however, with no clear indication of who is supposed to step up to provide billions in climate assistance. Some bracketed language indicates that the donors should be the developed nations as defined in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, but other language refers to all “parties in a position to do so.” The Unites States argues that the pool of potential donor nations is much larger now than in 1992.
CBDR is getting contentious because the club of rich nations has evolved over the past 25 years. China, a developing country and the world’s largest emitter, now holds $3.6 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and is the largest lender to the United States. Per capita income in some European countries, like Romania and Bulgaria, is now below that of nations considered to be developing, like Chile and Malaysia. The old divisions regarding who has responsibility and who needs assistance are getting blurred.
I suspect that the language of CBDR will be all over the final treaty text, but the meaning of CBDR after Paris is still up for grabs.
Showing 2,887 results
| December 9, 2015
Here at the UN climate summit is Paris, negotiators are hashing out the new meaning of an old term: common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). CBDR has been a bedrock principle of climate negotiations since 1992. It was the basis for dividing the world into two camps: 37 developed nations that had binding greenhouse gas emissions […]
Mollie Rosenzweig | December 7, 2015
If you’ve come across one of the ads, newspaper stories, or opinion pieces from Chuck Norris in the past week warning you about frankenfish, you can thank the FDA. In mid-November, the FDA made history by approving the first genetically engineered (GE) animal for human consumption, Atlantic salmon from the company AquaBounty. Not only has the approval process […]
| December 4, 2015
Politicians are famous for reneging on, or conveniently ignoring, campaign pledges and other promises. In some cases, politicians put themselves in untenable positions, such as when they offer conflicting promises to different interest groups. This is when it becomes easy to see what an elected official’s true priorities are. Governor Hogan proclaimed that he would […]
Rena Steinzor | December 3, 2015
Justice was done today by a hard-working jury in West Virginia that convicted Don Blankenship of conspiracy to obstruct federal mine safety rules. This conspiracy was the primary cause of an enormous explosion that killed 29 men in the worst mine disaster in 40 years. Although the jury was not presented with the question of […]
James Goodwin | December 2, 2015
In a post last week, I noted that, over the last year, the Obama Administration has finalized all or part of several of the 13 regulatory actions highlighted in a 2014 Center for Progressive Reform report challenging the President to focus renewed energy during the remainder of his term on securing critical new protections for people and the […]
Robert Verchick | December 1, 2015
In August I commemorated the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by pedaling along the self-guided “Levee Disaster Bike Tour.” I began beneath the muscular oaks along New Orleans’ Bayou St. John and threaded my way around potholes and waterfowl to pay my respects at three prominent levee-breach sites. The ride gave me a chance to reflect […]
James Goodwin | November 24, 2015
From the moment they secured majorities in both chambers, congressional Republicans have made no secret of their intention to launch an all-out, guerilla warfare-style campaign against the federal government — and even the very notion of governance itself. Accordingly, they have pursued a strategy of salt-the-earth sabotage designed to spread like a communicable disease the […]
Katie Tracy | November 23, 2015
Late last week, the White House released its fall 2015 Unified Agenda—the semi-annual report on regulations under development or review by each federal agency. As usual, and therefore of little surprise, this latest agenda spells delay for a laundry list of critical safeguards at several agencies. According to CPR senior analyst James Goodwin’s review of the regulatory […]
James Goodwin | November 20, 2015
Opponents of safeguards are fond of decrying what they claim is a regulatory system out of control, churning out rules at a break-neck pace. It’s not difficult to refute this claim when the president releases the twice-annual regulatory agenda, which spells out all the active rulemakings that are currently pending and the expected timetables for […]