{"id":416970,"date":"2025-12-11T11:10:47","date_gmt":"2025-12-11T10:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=416970"},"modified":"2025-12-11T11:10:50","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T10:10:50","slug":"the-west-vs-the-rest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=416970","title":{"rendered":"The West vs. the\u00a0Rest"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Robin Guenier<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How developing countries took control of climate negotiations and what that means for emission reduction.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main reason why, despite countless scientific warnings about dangerous consequences, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to increase is rarely mentioned. Yet it\u2019s been obvious for several years \u2013 at least to anyone willing to see it. It\u2019s this: most countries outside Western Europe, North America and Australasia are either unconcerned about the impact of GHGs on the climate or don\u2019t regard the issue as a priority, focusing instead for example on economic growth and energy security. Yet these countries, comprising about 84 percent of humanityi<\/sup><\/a>, are today the source of about 77 percent of emissions; 88 percent if the United States, which has now joined their ranks, is included.ii<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, unless they change their policies radically \u2013 and there\u2019s no serious evidence of their so doing \u2013 there\u2019s no realistic prospect of the implementation of the urgent and substantial cuts in GHG emissions called for by many Western scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand how this has happened, I believe it\u2019s useful to review the history of environmental negotiation by focusing in particular on six UN-sponsored conferences: Stockholm in 1972, Rio in 1992, Kyoto in 1997, Copenhagen in 2009, Paris in 2015 and Bel\u00e9m (Brazil) in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stockholm 1972<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s many Western environmentalists were seriously concerned that technological development, economic growth and resource depletion risked irreversible damage to humanity and to the environment.iii<\/sup><\/a> Clearly a global problem, it was agreed that it had to be tackled by international, i.e. UN-sponsored, action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result was the UN Conference on the Human Environment<\/em> held in Stockholm in 1972.iv<\/sup><\/a> From its outset it was recognised that, if the conference was to succeed, an immediate problem had to be solved: the perceived risk was almost exclusively a Western preoccupation, so how might poorer countries be persuaded to get involved?v<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all, technical and industrial development were essentially the basis of the West\u2019s economic success and that was something the rest of the world was understandably anxious to emulate \u2013 not least to alleviate the desperate poverty of many hundreds of millions of people.vi<\/sup><\/a> The diplomatic manoeuvrings needed to resolve this seemingly irreconcilable conflict set the scene for what I will refer to as \u2018the Stockholm Dilemma\u2019 \u2013 i.e. the conflict between Western fears for the environment and poorer countries\u2019 aspirations for economic growth. It was resolved, or more accurately deferred, at the time by the linguistic nightmare of the conference\u2019s concluding Declaration which asserted that, although environmental damage was caused by Western economic growth, it was also caused by the poorer world\u2019s lack of economic growth.vii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After 1972, Western environmental concerns were overshadowed by the struggle to deal with successive oil and economic crises.viii<\/sup><\/a> However two important European reports, the Brandt Report in 1980 and the Brundtland Report in 1987, dealt with the economic gulf between the West and the so-called Third World.ix<\/sup><\/a> In particular, Brundtland \u2013 echoing Stockholm \u2013 concluded that, because poverty causes environmental problems, the needs of the world\u2019s poor should be given overriding priority; a principle to be enshrined in the climate agreement signed in Rio. The solution was the now familiar \u2018sustainable development\u2019<\/em>.x<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rio 1992<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Western environmental concerns were hugely re-energised in the late 1980s when the doctrine of dangerous (possibly catastrophic) global warming caused by mankind\u2019s emissions of GHGs, especially carbon dioxide (CO2<\/sub>), burst onto the scene.xi<\/sup><\/a> As a result, the UN organised the landmark Conference on Environment and Development <\/em>(UNCED) \u2013 the \u2018Earth Summit\u2019 held in Rio in 1992.xii<\/sup><\/a> It was the first of a long series of climate-related international conferences that led for example to the so-called \u2018historic\u2019 Paris Agreement in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adopted in 1992 and commonly known as \u2018the Convention\u2019, it\u2019s an international treaty that came into force in 1994. It remains to this day the definitive legal authority regarding climate change.xiii<\/sup><\/a> Article 2 sets out its overall objective:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve \u2026 stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.<\/em>\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s an objective that\u2019s failed. Far from being stabilised, after 1992 emissions accelerated and, by 2025, emissions had grown by over 65 per cent.xiv<\/sup><\/a> This is essentially because the Convention attempted to solve the Stockholm Dilemma by dividing the world into two blocs: Annex I countries (essentially the West and ex-Soviet Union countries \u2013 the \u2018developed\u2019 countries) and non-Annex I countries (the rest of the world \u2013 the \u2018developing\u2019 countries). This distinction has had huge and lasting consequences \u2013 arising in particular from the Convention\u2019s Article 4.7:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively<\/em> implement their commitments under the Convention \u2026 will take fully<\/em> into account that economic and social development and poverty<\/em> eradication are the first and overriding priorities <\/strong>of the<\/em> developing country Parties.<\/em>\u2019xv<\/sup><\/a> [My emphasis]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, developing countries were, in accordance with Brundtland\u2019s conclusion, expressly authorised to give overriding priority to economic growth and poverty eradication \u2013 even if that meant increasing emissions. And that\u2019s why the Annex I\/non-Annex I bifurcation has plagued international climate negotiations ever since: for example, it\u2019s the main reason for the Copenhagen debacle in 2009 and for the Paris failure in 2015 (see below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Western countries had hoped \u2013 even expected \u2013 that the Rio bifurcation would in time be modified so that, in line with their development, major developing countries would eventually become members of the Annex I group.xvi<\/sup><\/a> But such hopes were dashed at the first post-Rio climate \u2018Conference Of the Parties\u2019 (COP) held in Berlin in 1995 (COP1) when it was agreed that there must be no new obligation imposed on any non-Annex I country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This principle, \u2018the Berlin Mandate\u2019, meant that the bifurcation and its associated \u2018common but differentiated responsibility<\/em>\u2019 principle were institutionalised as tenets of the Convention.xvii<\/sup><\/a> And, before the next climate conference in 1996 (COP2 in Geneva), G77+China made it clear that this should not be changed.xviii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kyoto 1997<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The impact of this was made harshly apparent at the next conference: COP3 in Kyoto in 1997. Kyoto was supposed to be critically important \u2013 the original hope had been that negotiations would result in all countries accepting commitments to reduce their GHG emissions. But, because the US decided that it wouldn\u2019t accept obligations that didn\u2019t apply to other major countriesxix<\/sup><\/a> and because of the Berlin Mandate, in the event the agreed Kyoto Protocol reduction obligations applied only to a few, largely Western, countries.xx<\/sup><\/a> As a result and because developing countries refused even to acknowledge that they might accept some future obligation, it was becoming obvious to some observers that the UN process was getting nowhere \u2013 somehow the developing countries had to be persuaded that emission reduction was in their best interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how? The passage of 25 years hadn\u2019t resolved the Stockholm Dilemma \u2013 difficult enough in 1972, the UNFCCC bifurcation and the Berlin Mandate had made it worse. Yet it was recognised that, without these, developing countries might simply refuse to be involved in climate negotiations, making the whole process meaningless \u2013 something the UN and Western countries were unwilling to contemplate. So, if Kyoto was a failure, it was arguably a necessary failure if there was to be any prospect of emission reduction in due course. And that was the story for the next twelve years: at successive COP conferences the major developing countries, ignoring increasingly dire climate warnings from Western scientists, refused to consider amending the UNFCCC bifurcation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A result of that refusal was that many developing countries\u2019 economies continued their spectacular growth, resulting in rising living standards and unprecedented poverty reduction.xxi<\/sup><\/a> But inevitably emissions also continued to grow: in just 12 years, from 1997 (Kyoto) to 2009 (Copenhagen) and despite 12 COPs, they increased by over 30%.xxii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copenhagen 2009<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2007 the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), a body that reports every seven years on the current physical scientific understanding of climate change, published its fourth report (AR4) \u2013 a report that intensified the West\u2019s insistence that urgent and substantial emission cuts were essential.xxiii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A result was an \u2018Action Plan\u2019 agreed at the 2007 climate conference (COP13) in Bali.xxiv<\/sup><\/a> It set out how it was hoped all countries would come together at Copenhagen in 2009 (COP15) to agree a comprehensive and binding deal to take the necessary global action. Many observers regarded this as hugely significant: Ban Ki-moon, then UN Secretary General, speaking at Copenhagen said, \u2018We have a chance \u2013 a real chance, here and now \u2013 to change the course of our history<\/em>\u2019\u2019.xxv<\/sup><\/a> And, as always, dire warnings were issued about the consequences of failure: UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown for example warned that, if the conference failed to achieve a deal, \u2018it will be irretrievably too late<\/em>\u2019.xxvi<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was one seemingly encouraging development at Bali: developing countries accepted for the first time that emission reduction by non-Annex I countries might at least be discussed \u2013 although they insisted that developed countries were not doing enough to meet their Kyoto obligations.xxvii<\/sup><\/a> But the key question of how far the developing countries might go at Copenhagen remained obscure \u2013 for example was it at least possible that the larger \u2018emerging economies\u2019 such as China and India and major OPEC countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia might cease to be classified as \u2018developing\u2019? The EU and US not unreasonably thought that should happen, especially as it was by then obvious that, unless all major emitting countries, including therefore big developing economies, were involved, an emission cutting agreement would be neither credible nor effective. Some Western negotiators hoped that the bifurcation issue might at last be settled at Copenhagen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it wasn\u2019t. In the event, developing countries refused to budge, insisting for example that developed countries\u2019 historic responsibility for emissions was what mattered. As a result, the West was humiliatingly defeated, with the EU not even involved in the final negotiations between the US and the so-called BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).xxviii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One commentator noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018There was a clear victor. Equally clearly, there was a side that lost more comprehensively than at any international conference in modern history where the outcome had not been decided beforehand by force of arms<\/em>.\u2019 xxix<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Copenhagen failure was a major setback for the West.xxx<\/sup><\/a> It was now established that, if the developing countries (including now powerful economies such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran) rejected a suggestion that their economic development be subject to emission control, that position would prevail. Yet by 2010 these countries were responsible for about 60% of global CO2 emissions xxxi<\/sup><\/a>; without them, major global emission cuts were clearly impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The years following Copenhagen, from Canc\u00fan (COP16) in 2010 to Lima (COP20) in 2014, reinforced the West\u2019s concerns as developing countries continued to insist they would not accept binding commitments to reduce their emissions.xxxii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paris 2015<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was becoming obvious that, if there was to be any prospect of emission reduction, there had to be some fresh thinking. So the UN proposed a new methodology for the summit scheduled for 2015 in Paris (COP21): instead of an overall global reduction requirement, a new approach should be implemented whereby countries would individually determine how they would reduce their emissions and that this would be coupled with a periodic review by which each country\u2019s reduction plans would be steadily scaled up by a \u2018ratcheting\u2019 mechanism \u2013 a critically important development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, when countries\u2019 plans (then described as \u2018Intended Nationally Determined Contributions\u2019 (INDCs)) were submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat prior to Paris, it was clear that little had been achieved: hardly any developing countries had indicated any intention of making absolute emission cuts. Instead their INDCs spoke merely for example of reducing CO2 emission intensity in relation to GDP or of reducing the percentage of emissions from business-as-usual projections.xxxiii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It had been hoped that NDCs (as they became known) would be the vehicle whereby major emerging (\u2018developing\u2019) economies would at last make emission reduction commitments. Yet they turned out to be a problem that undermined the Paris Agreement \u2013 see below. And, in any case, other provisions of the Agreement in effect exempted developing countries from any obligation, moral, legal or political, to reduce their emissions.xxxiv<\/sup><\/a> For example, the Agreement was described in its preamble as being pursuant to \u2018the objective of the Convention <\/em>[and] guided by its principles<\/em>\u2019 and further described in Article 2.1 as \u2018enhancing the implementation of the Convention<\/em>\u2019. In other words, the developed\/developing bifurcation remained intact and developing countries could continue to give overriding priority to economic development and poverty eradication. Moreover, under Article 4.4 of the Agreement, developing countries, in contrast to developed countries, were merely \u2018encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets<\/em>\u2019. Hardly an obligation to reduce their emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was not an outcome many wanted. For example, when ex UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was asked in early 2015 what he would expect to come out of the Paris summit, he replied:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Governments have to conclude a fair, universal and binding climate<\/em> agreement, by which every country commits to reducing emissions<\/em> of greenhouse gases.<\/em>\u2018 xxxv<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Western negotiators had intended that Paris should have a very different outcome from that achieved. Hence this 2014 statement by Ed Davey, then UK Secretary of State responsible for climate negotiations: \u2018Next year in Paris in December \u2026 the world will come together to forge a deal on climate change that should, for the first time ever, include binding commitments to reduce emissions from all countries.\u2019<\/em> xxxvi<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it didn\u2019t happen. Developing country negotiators, led by China and India, ignored the West\u2019s (in the event, feeble) demands. And Western negotiators, determined to avoid another Copenhagen-like debacle, didn\u2019t press the issue. Hence the Paris agreement\u2019s failure to achieve the West\u2019s most basic aim: that powerful \u2018emerging\u2019 economies should be obliged to share in emission reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Stockholm Dilemma was still unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Might that change in the near future? Events since 2015 indicate that that\u2019s most unlikely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A major post-Paris example was a climate \u2018action summit\u2019 convened by UN Secretary General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres for September 2019, calling for national plans to go carbon neutral by 2050 and new coal plants to be banned from 2020.xxxvii<\/sup><\/a> But, just before the summit, the environment ministers of the so-called \u2018BRICS\u2019 countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) effectively undermined it by reaffirming their commitment to \u2018the successful implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its Kyoto Protocol and its Paris Agreement\u2019. <\/em>In other words, these five countries (the source of about 45 percent of emissions) were indicating that they continued to regard themselves, under the UNFCCC and Paris framework, as exempt from any binding reduction obligation.xxxviii<\/sup><\/a> As a result the summit was a failure.xxxix<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it was not surprising that COP25<\/strong> (December 2019 in Madrid) made no real progress: it ended with no substantive agreement on emission reduction and was widely described as another failure.xl<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Might that change \u2013 for example might major developing countries enhance their NDCs as required by the \u2018ratchet\u2019 provision of the Paris Agreement? The test would be the next UN conference (COP26) to be held in Glasgow in November 2021 \u2013 postponed from 2020 because of the COVID 19 crisis.xli<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But COP26<\/strong> failed that test. And that was despite it being rated by the Guardian<\/em> in July 2021 as \u2018one of the most important climate summits ever staged<\/em>\u2019, despite Alok Sharma (COP26\u2019s president) stressing that leaving \u2018Glasgow with a clear plan to limit global warming to 1.5C<\/em>\u2019 would \u2018set<\/em> the course of this decisive decade for our planet and future generations\u2019 <\/em>and despite Prince Charles (as he then was) giving another of his familiar warnings: \u2018Quite literally, it is the last chance saloon. We must now translate fine words into still finer actions<\/em>.\u2019 xlii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That things were not looking good became apparent when several major emitters (e.g. Brazil, China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Indonesia and Mexico) either failed to submit a new NDC in 2021 or submitted an updated NDC that was judged to lack any real increase in ambition, thereby failing to comply with the key Paris \u2018ratchet\u2019 requirement.xliii<\/sup><\/a> Yet the countries referred to above were in 2019 the source of over 40% of global emissions.xliv<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

COP26 itself got off to a bad start when China\u2019s president Xi and Russia\u2019s president Putin didn\u2019t attend.xlv<\/sup><\/a> And the proceedings included various upsets \u2013 in particular a formal request made by a group of 22 nations known at the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), which included China, India and Saudi Arabia, made on 11 November 2021, that the entire section on the mitigation of climate change be removed from the draft COP26 text.xlvi<\/sup><\/a> It wasn\u2019t wholly successful as COP26\u2019s concluding text \u2013 the \u2018Glasgow Climate Pact\u2019 xlvii<\/sup><\/a> \u2013 did include an appeal for all countries to revisit and strengthen their 2030 emissions targets by the end of 2022. But that was essentially meaningless in practice as many major emitters had already failed to submit sufficiently strengthened NDCs (see above). In other words, COP26 ended with nothing of real importance being achieved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All this confirmed yet again that developing countries, determined to grow their economies and improve the lives of their people, had no serous intention of cutting back on fossil fuels. But nonetheless the can was once again kicked down the road; this time to COP27 to be held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt in 2022. And in the meantime events moved on much as before with most countries \u2013 even the US \u2013 increasing their reliance on fossil fuels (especially coal) and global CO2 emissions reaching their highest level ever.xlviii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it was hardly a surprise therefore when COP27<\/strong> turned out to be yet another conference that essentially achieved nothing, with one reviewer noting that key mitigation items \u2014 such as a 2025 global emissions peak or a phase-out of all fossil fuels \u2014 were dropped under pressure from \u2018Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and other petro-states\u2019.xlix<\/sup><\/a> Yet, far from giving up, the West now pinned its hopes on COP28 to be held in Dubai \u2013 the \u2018first global stocktake\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the UN hoped that a \u2018Climate Ambition Summit\u2019 called by General Secretary Ant\u00f3nio Guterres in September 2023 would boost the Conference\u2019s prospects. But the absence of big emitters such as the US, China and India meant that the Summit turned out to be of little value.l<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However the COP28<\/strong> \u2018stocktake\u2019 \u2013 otherwise unremarkable \u2013 did include what many commentators thought was an important breakthrough.li<\/sup><\/a> In its paragraph 28, it said this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018The Conference of the Parties \u2026 calls on<\/em> Parties to contribute to the following \u2026 Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, commentators said, there you have it: at long last we have an agreement (a \u2018pledge\u2019) to transition away from fossil fuels! But of course that wasn\u2019t true. The reality was that Paragraph 28 also said that parties must \u2018take account<\/em>\u2019 of the Paris Agreement and, as specifically confirmed further down in paragraph 38, the \u2018stocktake\u2019 reaffirmed Article 4.4 of that Agreement. In other words, developing countries, the source of 65% of global emissions, continued to be exempted from any obligation to cut their emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attention now moved to Baku, Azerbaijan \u2013 to COP29<\/strong> held in November 2024. But this conference was concerned almost entirely with finance and made no serious progress on emission reduction. And in any case proceedings were overshadowed by Donald Trump\u2019s re-election as US President \u2013 causing great uncertainty and concern about future global climate politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such concern was justified: it was over 50 years since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment and there was still no sign of a solution to the Stockholm Dilemma and now a resurgent Trump made one even less likely. Yet once again the circus moved on \u2013 this time to Bel\u00e9m in Brazil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bel\u00e9m 2025<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the months running up to COP30 its prospects already looked dismal, despite the conference being dubbed \u2018the implementation COP\u2019. This was because, despite the Paris Agreement requirement, hardly any significant countries submitted updated NDCs either by February 2025, or even by the extended date at the end of September.lii<\/sup><\/a> To make matters even worse, few leaders of major economies turned up for the scheduled pre-COP leaders\u2019 meeting: for example no one came from the United States, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, South Korea, T\u00fcrkiye or South Korea. Nonetheless Brazil\u2019s President Lula announced that \u2018COP30 will be the COP of truth<\/em>\u2019.liii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>However over 56,000 delegates did<\/em> turn up at the conference \u2013 the third largest number at any COP. And Brazil\u2019s environment minister Marina Silva urged countries to have the \u2018courage<\/em>\u2019 to address a fossil-fuel phaseout, and to work towards a roadmap for ending dependence on fossil fuels.liv<\/sup><\/a> It was a requirement echoed by about 80 countries which insisted via a letter to the COP President signed by 29 countries (including the UK, France, Spain and various small countries) that, unless the Conference outcome included a legally binding agreement to a \u2018roadmap\u2019 for a global transition away from fossil fuels, they would block the planned deal.lv<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly however negotiators from the majority of countries \u2013 not just the Arab oil producers as some commentators suggested, but also major countries such as India, China, Indonesia and other developing countries whose economies and peoples\u2019 welfare depend on fossil fuels \u2013 showed no interest in the idea and the COP President simply ignored it. Humiliatingly the objectors climbed down. And the words \u2018fossil fuels\u2019 were not even included in the finally agreed text.lvi<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This astute comment on the failure of COP30 was made by Li Shuo of the Asia Society (described as \u2018a long-time observer of climate politics<\/em>\u2019):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018This partly reflects the power shift in the real world, the emerging power of the BASIC and BRICs countries, and the decline of the European Union\u2019.<\/em>lvii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So once again a COP made no progress at all towards meeting the UNFCCC\u2019s 1992 call for the \u2018stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere<\/em>\u2019. It\u2019s therefore hardly surprising that many commentators have queried whether there\u2019s really any reason at all for continuing to hold all these huge and essentially pointless conferences.lviii<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it\u2019s not only the Bel\u00e9m debacle that illustrates this. Far from it: nothing that\u2019s happening today justifies any realistic hope that fossil fuels are on their way out. For example, major developing countries, especially India, China and in Southeast Asia, are focusing on coal to bolster economic growth and upgrade national security.lix<\/sup><\/a> And overall global emissions are still increasing. The early 2020 emission reductions caused by Covid 19 lockdowns were short-lived: as countries emerged from the pandemic determined to strengthen their economies, emission increases have continued.lx<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The harsh reality \u2013 confirmed time and time again \u2013 is that nothing has really changed since the West\u2019s comprehensive defeat at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. The truth is that most countries do not share the West\u2019s preoccupation with climate change. Nor is there any prospect of that view changing for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the West\u2019s emissions were 41 percent of the annual global total \u2013 today (without the US) they\u2019re only 9 percent. Thus it\u2019s clearly impossible for what\u2019s left of the West to satisfy many scientists\u2019 calls for an urgent and substantial (about 50%) global emission reduction. That can only happen if all the other major countries completely change their climate policies. And that\u2019s obviously not going to happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, despite that clear message from the past thirty or more years of climate negotiation history, it\u2019s a key reality that\u2019s still being overlooked by many in the West: in particular by net zero supporters; by the mainstream media; by many scientific publications; by all climate \u2018activists\u2019; by many respected academic and scientific organisations; by politicians, governmental and non-governmental organisations; and by celebrities and social media. And by the United Nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s quite remarkable that there are still so many Western observers who seem not to have noticed that, over the past fifty years, the nature of the climate debate has radically changed as a result of major global political and economic developments. What\u2019s happened is that what was once the so-called Third World has for a long time been powerful enough to ignore the West and take charge of environmental negotiation \u2013 a process that started with the \u2018Berlin Mandate\u2019 at COP1 in 1994 (see above). And the increasingly meaningless distinction between the \u2018developing\u2019 world and the \u2018developed\u2019 world, introduced by the UN in 1992 as a way of persuading poorer countries to get involved in climate negotiation, has paradoxically become the reason why progress on GHG reduction has become virtually impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s surely obvious by now that the Stockholm Dilemma will never be resolved. And that there\u2019s nothing the West (or more accurately the EU, the UK, Australia and a few smaller countries) can do about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notes and references<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

i<\/a><\/sup> See https:\/\/srv1.worldometers.info\/world-population\/population-by-region\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ii<\/a><\/sup> See https:\/\/edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu\/report_2025?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

iii<\/a> See for example Fairfield Osborn\u2019s book The Plundered Planet<\/em> (1948), William Vogt\u2019s Road to Survival<\/em> (1948), Rachel Carson\u2019s Silent Spring<\/em> (1962), the dire predictions in the Club of Rome report, Limits to Growth<\/em> (1968) and, in particular, Barbara Ward\u2019s report, Only One Earth<\/em> (1972). Several of today\u2019s environmentalists share the view that economic growth causes environmental degradation. See for example Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save The World <\/em>(2021) by Jason Hickel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

iv<\/a><\/sup> Maurice Strong, a Canadian businessman-turned-diplomat, organised the Conference and was its Secretary General, having first commissioned Limits to Growth<\/em> (see Note 3) that established much of its intellectual groundwork. He is widely seen as a pioneer of international environmental concern and of institutionalising it within the United Nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

v<\/a><\/sup> At the time these countries were commonly referred to as \u2018underdeveloped\u2019 or, preferably, as \u2018developing\u2019. The \u2018Third World\u2019 was a standard label used for countries outside the Western or Soviet blocs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

vi<\/a><\/sup> Franz Fanon\u2019s book The Wretched of the Earth<\/em> (1961) was very influential in intellectual circles in the West at this time. Indian PM Indira Gandhi\u2019s keynote speech at the Conference sets out the dilemma clearly: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/dl6lqz<\/a>. The speech is epitomised by this comment: \u2018The environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

vii<\/a><\/sup> See Part One, chapter I (especially \u2018proclamation\u2019 4) of this UN report on the conference: http:\/\/un-documents.net\/aconf48-14r1.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

viii<\/a><\/sup> See for example: https:\/\/www.federalreservehistory.org\/essays\/oil-shock-of-1978-79<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ix<\/a><\/sup> For Brundtland, see Our Common Future<\/em>: http:\/\/www.un-documents.net\/our-common-future.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

x<\/a><\/sup> ibid \u2013 see paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 which do little to clarify the meaning of this rather vague concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xi<\/a><\/sup> Heralded in particular by James Hansen\u2019s address the US Congress in 1988: https:\/\/www.sealevel.info\/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xii<\/a><\/sup> Described as the largest environmental conference ever held, the Summit\u2019s outcome is outlined here: https:\/\/www.sustainable-environment.org.uk\/Action\/Earth_Summit.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xiii<\/a><\/sup> For the full text of the UNFCCC see: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/resource\/docs\/convkp\/conveng.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xiv<\/a><\/sup> See Note 1 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xv<\/a><\/sup> The omitted words are concerned with a different, but arguably equally important, issue: finance and technology transfer from developed to developing countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xvi<\/a><\/sup> See Article 4.2 (f) of the UNFCCC, under which parties might review \u2018available information with a view to taking decisions regarding such amendments to the lists in Annexes I and II as may be appropriate, with the approval of the Party concerned<\/em>\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xvii<\/a><\/sup> See Article 2 (b) here: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/resource\/docs\/cop1\/07a01.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xviii<\/a><\/sup> This report provides some interesting background re non-Annex I parties\u2019 determination: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/resource\/docs\/1996\/agbm\/05.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xix<\/a><\/sup> See the Byrd-Hagel resolution adopted unanimously by the US Senate in June 1997: https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/105th-congress\/senate-resolution\/98\/text<\/a> It stated that the US would not sign a protocol putting limits on Annex I countries unless it imposed specific, timetabled commitments on non-Annex I countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xx<\/a><\/sup> For the text of the Kyoto Protocol see: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/resource\/docs\/convkp\/kpeng.pdf<\/a>. Note in particular how Article 10\u2019s provision that it did not introduce \u2018any new commitments for Parties not included in Annex I<\/em>\u2019 ensured that developing countries were not bound by the Protocol\u2019s emission reduction obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxi<\/a><\/sup> Note for example how China was responsible for an astonishing reduction in poverty from the 1980s to the early 2000s: https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/data-insights\/extreme-poverty-in-china-has-been-almost-eliminated-first-in-urban-then-in-rural-regions?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxii<\/a><\/sup> See Note 1 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxiii<\/a><\/sup> See for example: https:\/\/www.ipcc.ch\/report\/ar4\/syr\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxiv<\/a><\/sup> The Bali Action Plan can be seen here: https:\/\/www.preventionweb.net\/files\/8376_BaliE.pdf?startDownload=true<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxv<\/a> See the UN Secretary-General\u2019s extraordinary speech in Copenhagen just before COP15: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/files\/meetings\/cop_15\/statements\/application\/pdf\/speech_opening_hls_cop15_ban_ki_moon.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxvi<\/a><\/sup> The full extract: \u2018If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late<\/em>.\u2019 See https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2009\/oct\/19\/gordon-brown-copenhagen-climate-talks<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxvii<\/a><\/sup> In particular those confirmed by section 1(b)(i) of the Bali Action Plan \u2013 see Note 24 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxviii<\/a><\/sup> See this overall review of the outcome: http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/1\/hi\/8426835.stm<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxix<\/a><\/sup> Rupert Darwall: The Age of Global Warming<\/em>, 310<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxx<\/a><\/sup> The \u2018Copenhagen Accord\u2019 was an attempt by some countries to rescue something from this debacle: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/resource\/docs\/2009\/cop15\/eng\/l07.pdf<\/a>. A non-binding document (the Conference only \u2018took note<\/em>\u2019 of it) it stated for example that global temperature should not rise more than 2\u00baC above pre-industrial levels \u2013 although it didn\u2019t specify a date for this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxi<\/a><\/sup> See Note 1 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxii<\/a><\/sup> See for example this report on the 2014 conference in Lima: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/w4zv001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxiii<\/a><\/sup> For example, China\u2019s INDC said only that it planned to \u2018achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030<\/em>\u2019 (no mention of the level of such \u2018peak\u2019 or of what will happen thereafter) and to \u2018lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level<\/em>\u2019. And South Korea merely said that it \u2018plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37% from the business-as-usual (BAU,850.6 MtCO2eq) level by 2030 across all economic sectors<\/em>\u2019, i.e. emissions will continue to increase but not by as much as they might have done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note that \u2018Intended Nationally Determined Contributions\u2019 (INDCs) are referred to as \u2018Nationally Determined Contributions\u2019 (NDCs) in Articles 3 and 4 of in the Paris Agreement \u2013 see Note 34 below. All NDCs submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat can be found here: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/NDCREG<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxiv<\/a><\/sup> The full text of the Paris Agreement can be found here: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/files\/meetings\/paris_nov_2015\/application\/pdf\/paris_agreement_english_.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxv<\/a><\/sup> From an interview with the Observer<\/em> in May 2025. Annan\u2019s other comments are also interesting: https:\/\/www.kofiannanfoundation.org\/publication\/we-must-challenge-climate-change-sceptics\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxvi<\/a><\/sup> See the Ministerial Forward here: https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/360596\/hmg_paris_2015.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxvii<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/climateaction.unfccc.int\/Events\/ClimateActionSummit<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxviii<\/a> My note was an extract from a press release by the PRC\u2019s Ministry of Ecology and Environment: https:\/\/english.mee.gov.cn\/News_service\/news_release\/201908\/t20190829_730517.shtml?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xxxix<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/populationmatters.org\/news\/2019\/09\/un-climate-action-summit-fails-to-deliver-climate-action\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xl<\/a> http:\/\/tiny.cc\/zg0w001<\/a> The official summary noted how countries such as China \u2014 speaking for the bloc including Brazil, India, South Africa \u2014 repeatedly called for developed countries to meet financial commitments: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/3h0w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xli<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-health-coronavirus-climatechange-idUSKBN21J6QC\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlii<\/a><\/sup> http:\/\/tiny.cc\/js1w001<\/a>, http:\/\/tiny.cc\/dv1w001<\/a> and http:\/\/tiny.cc\/zs1w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xliii<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/ca1-clm.edcdn.com\/assets\/brief_-_countries_with_no_or_insignificant_ndc_updates_2.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xliv<\/a><\/sup> See Note 1 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlv<\/a><\/sup> http:\/\/tiny.cc\/w22w001<\/a> and http:\/\/tiny.cc\/w22w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlvi<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/kyma.com\/cnn-world\/2021\/11\/11\/china-and-india-among-22-nations-calling-for-key-section-on-emissions-be-ditched-from-cop26-agreement\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlvii<\/a><\/sup> The Glasgow Climate Pact can be found here: https:\/\/unfccc.int\/sites\/default\/files\/resource\/cop26_auv_2f_cover_decision.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlviii<\/a><\/sup> See Note 1 above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

xlix<\/a><\/sup> See observations here: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/q52w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

l<\/a><\/sup> The Guardian\u2019s<\/em> view: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/872w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

li<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/unfccc.int\/sites\/default\/files\/resource\/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lii<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/unfccc.int\/NDCREG<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

liii<\/a><\/sup> President Lula\u2019s comment can be found here: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/ja2w001<\/a> A prescient observation \u2013 although not perhaps in the way he intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

liv<\/a><\/sup> http:\/\/tiny.cc\/za2w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lv<\/a><\/sup> This Guardian<\/em> article notes how the 29 objectors\u2019 demands were ignored: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/ei2w001<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

lvi<\/a><\/sup> https:\/\/unfccc.int\/sites\/default\/files\/resource\/cma2025_L24_adv.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lvii<\/a><\/sup> Under \u2018EU had a bad COP\u2019 here: https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/articles\/cp84m16mdm1o<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lviii<\/a><\/sup> For example the Guardian<\/em> is unhappy: http:\/\/tiny.cc\/ux2w001<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

lix<\/a><\/sup> See this https:\/\/www.cfact.org\/2025\/11\/20\/coal-is-still-a-fuel-of-choice-in-the-global-south\/<\/a> and this https:\/\/www.instituteforenergyresearch.org\/fossil-fuels\/coal\/coal-is-still-king-globally\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How developing countries took control of climate negotiations and what that means for emission reduction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":416973,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore how developing nations shape climate negotiations, impacting greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts amid ongoing global challenges.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"The Stockholm Dilemma: Climate Negotiations and Emission Growth","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI1XC8xMlwvQVFNeUFvR01QdGlHRmpPZGRVT2ZZTDBaaTQ2U1VUbHJGRVpVcTRTX2o1YTBEWVNjTGNyTXh5Ny1IR1JfZVN0eFFEakRmVEJvMl8xLWhLX2NjLUNsZ3dfempzeWcwRDNIT1BBVVdQTHd0NHEzRFNtRVdMTFBnaEJBSUJsRXJRMmstMTAyNHg1NzYuanBlZyIsInR4dCI6IlRoZSBXZXN0IHZzLiB0aGVcdTAwYTBSZXN0IiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJoaWdod2F5IiwiZm9udCI6IiIsImJsb2dfaWQiOjE1NTgxMjQ0OX0.6GeKi7SPZ6bA5Y7xv2_sP6aBkBnaLmpf8IUFtgqFhjcMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829997,691818056,691840108,691839319,691825384,691831976,691840110,691823602,691840109],"class_list":["post-416970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-dioxide-co","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-negotiations","tag-cop-conferences-of-the-parties","tag-greenhouse-gas-ghg-emissions","tag-paris-agreement-in-2015","tag-un-sponsored-conferences","tag-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-unfccc-2","tag-western-scientists","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/AQMyAoGMPtiGFjOddUOfYL0Zi46SUTlrFEZUq4S_j5a0DYScLcrMxy7-HGR_eStxQDjDfTBo2_1-hK_cc-Clgw_zjsyg0D3HOPAUWPLwt4q3DSmEWLLPghBAIBlErQ2k.jpeg?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Ktk","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":417444,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=417444","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":0},"title":"\u201cTHIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR ENRON STOCK!!\u201d (1997 Kyoto memo)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/16\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Global green planners back in the 1990s were euphoric that\u00a0somehow,\u00a0someway, the world had embarked on an irreversible course of climate control (and thus industrial and land-use control). But the Kyoto Protocol predictably failed, and with the Paris climate accord of 2015 teetering (COP30), the momentum has shifted toward climate and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Screenshot-2025-12-16-202744.png?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Screenshot-2025-12-16-202744.png?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Screenshot-2025-12-16-202744.png?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Screenshot-2025-12-16-202744.png?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0Screenshot-2025-12-16-202744.png?fit=1200%2C925&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291517,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=291517","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":1},"title":"Outcome Of COP 28 \u2013 Just The Facts","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/16\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The 28th\u00a0Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from November 30 to December 13, 2023. According to various reports, more than 100,000 people attended the conference and its associated events.","rel":"","context":"In \"1.5 degrees C. goal\"","block_context":{"text":"1.5 degrees C. goal","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=1-5-degrees-c-goal"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0COP28-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0COP28-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0COP28-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0COP28-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0COP28-United-Arab-Emirates.jpg?fit=1200%2C720&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290368,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290368","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":2},"title":"Wrong, USA Today, a 1.5\u2103 Temperature Rise Is Not a Scientifically Established Climate Threshold","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"By H. Sterling Burnett As part of its COP 28 climate conference coverage\u00a0USA Today\u00a0ran an article claiming that preventing a 1.5\u2103 rise in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels is a necessary climate threshold to prevent all manner of climate disasters. This is false. Both the 1.5\u2103 and 2.0\u2103 thresholds\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"1.5\u2103 Temperature Rise\"","block_context":{"text":"1.5\u2103 Temperature Rise","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=1-5%e2%84%83-temperature-rise"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/4apokalipsis-gorod-ruiny-nebo.jpg?fit=1200%2C766&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/4apokalipsis-gorod-ruiny-nebo.jpg?fit=1200%2C766&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/4apokalipsis-gorod-ruiny-nebo.jpg?fit=1200%2C766&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/4apokalipsis-gorod-ruiny-nebo.jpg?fit=1200%2C766&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/4apokalipsis-gorod-ruiny-nebo.jpg?fit=1200%2C766&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290317,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=290317","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":3},"title":"Climate Colonialism: \u2018The looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits\u2019 \u2013 Western carbon offset companies look to lock up \u2018a tenth of Liberia\u2019s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe\u2019s, & swaths of Kenya, Zambia & Tanzania\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Financial Times: The looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits - Western carbon offset companies look to lock up \"a tenth of Liberia\u2019s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe\u2019s, and swaths of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania\" - \u201cThe [methods] of exploitation might be new but the consequences are not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Africa\"","block_context":{"text":"Africa","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=africa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00GApj_yBWAAAQJoS-935x1024-1.jpeg?fit=935%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00GApj_yBWAAAQJoS-935x1024-1.jpeg?fit=935%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00GApj_yBWAAAQJoS-935x1024-1.jpeg?fit=935%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00GApj_yBWAAAQJoS-935x1024-1.jpeg?fit=935%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":441510,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=441510","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":4},"title":"Update On New York Climate Act Negotiations: Details Starting To Emerge","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/26\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"We\u2019re now more than three weeks past the mandatory April 1 deadline for New York\u2019s annual state budget. So far, few details have emerged about the reasons for the delay. Negotiations are supposedly taking place among the Governor and the leaders of the two houses of the State Legislature. But\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-leadership-community-protection-act"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQPTKS1BsXpveu8ZAf_Z7SFixfU6qb6Po2jGDgxpimWL4suw5T0DM_EEePgz3TXLDvlJtYnWRepD4CmhZK-S5-I0W2SpsuSccfqiL1ukbQEBQggeqL9kWXfTkK9w4i7I.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQPTKS1BsXpveu8ZAf_Z7SFixfU6qb6Po2jGDgxpimWL4suw5T0DM_EEePgz3TXLDvlJtYnWRepD4CmhZK-S5-I0W2SpsuSccfqiL1ukbQEBQggeqL9kWXfTkK9w4i7I.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQPTKS1BsXpveu8ZAf_Z7SFixfU6qb6Po2jGDgxpimWL4suw5T0DM_EEePgz3TXLDvlJtYnWRepD4CmhZK-S5-I0W2SpsuSccfqiL1ukbQEBQggeqL9kWXfTkK9w4i7I.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQPTKS1BsXpveu8ZAf_Z7SFixfU6qb6Po2jGDgxpimWL4suw5T0DM_EEePgz3TXLDvlJtYnWRepD4CmhZK-S5-I0W2SpsuSccfqiL1ukbQEBQggeqL9kWXfTkK9w4i7I.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/AQPTKS1BsXpveu8ZAf_Z7SFixfU6qb6Po2jGDgxpimWL4suw5T0DM_EEePgz3TXLDvlJtYnWRepD4CmhZK-S5-I0W2SpsuSccfqiL1ukbQEBQggeqL9kWXfTkK9w4i7I.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":410799,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=410799","url_meta":{"origin":416970,"position":5},"title":"US President Trump escalates\u00a0pressure on EU to walk back climate policies","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/29\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The United States is increasing pressure on its European allies to weaken or completely roll back regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, part of the Trump administration\u2019s broader attempt to undermine international efforts to tackle climate change.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/00AQP6AOFqFNnKoo9FXV0kuYyY4RltVzwa0gfJyNZocvZFv__Lk85LBHM_MK1oGp3CzpD3JKziWd8awd9KH8OQx324nBLJZEBdsibbz-UyXaa_bybjTkG539k-RP7pubAC-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/00AQP6AOFqFNnKoo9FXV0kuYyY4RltVzwa0gfJyNZocvZFv__Lk85LBHM_MK1oGp3CzpD3JKziWd8awd9KH8OQx324nBLJZEBdsibbz-UyXaa_bybjTkG539k-RP7pubAC-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/00AQP6AOFqFNnKoo9FXV0kuYyY4RltVzwa0gfJyNZocvZFv__Lk85LBHM_MK1oGp3CzpD3JKziWd8awd9KH8OQx324nBLJZEBdsibbz-UyXaa_bybjTkG539k-RP7pubAC-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/00AQP6AOFqFNnKoo9FXV0kuYyY4RltVzwa0gfJyNZocvZFv__Lk85LBHM_MK1oGp3CzpD3JKziWd8awd9KH8OQx324nBLJZEBdsibbz-UyXaa_bybjTkG539k-RP7pubAC-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/00AQP6AOFqFNnKoo9FXV0kuYyY4RltVzwa0gfJyNZocvZFv__Lk85LBHM_MK1oGp3CzpD3JKziWd8awd9KH8OQx324nBLJZEBdsibbz-UyXaa_bybjTkG539k-RP7pubAC-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C794&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/416970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=416970"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/416970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":416976,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/416970\/revisions\/416976"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/416973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=416970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=416970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=416970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}