health care and education involve expan-
ding access to energy services. Given the
limited access to low-carbon energy techno-
logy in developing countries, this means an
increase in fossil fuel use and carbon emis-
sions. For the world's poor, this pits develop-
ment squarely against climate protection.
describes a climate agreement that has deve-
lopment woven into its DNA. The frame-
work faces up to the big question: what kind
of climate regime brings global emissions
rapidly under control, even while the develo-
ping world scales up energy services to fi ght
endemic poverty and support human deve-
lopment? The answer the scale of the
break from the usual is alarming.
Following the latest science, the framework
apportions responsibility for reducing emis-
sions among the rich and poor, and proposes
strategies to meet the challenge. Allocating
responsibility for such rapid emission reduc-
tions among countries is the biggest challenge.
The fundamental problem is that the vast
ing world, where most emissions now occur
and where they are growing most rapidly,
but the capacity to make reductions lies
mainly in the developed world.
The framework proposes a legally binding,
two-fold obligation. First, the developed
world must commit to deep reductions in
domestic emissions. The depth of these cuts
is based on the science, on the silent fact that
our climate system does not negotiate.
Second, the rich must support, through
fi nance and technology, a rapid transition to
clean energy in the developing world, and
the adaptation needed to cope with already
inevitable warming (see page 26).
Such obligations may seem implausible to
some. But for rich countries, facilitating the
low-carbon development of the poor is a
matter of self-interest. Withhold this assis-
tance and developing countries will exploit
fossil-based technologies to generate energy
and poor communities will continue to burn
the wood and charcoal that creates black
carbon emissions (see page 13).
fundamental challenge of human develop-
ment for the world's poorest people. Green-
house Development Rights shows that we
cannot choose between climate protection
and human development. We shall have
both, or we shall have neither.
Sweden's responsibility for tackling
climate change. The report reveals the
hidden emissions of Sweden's consumers
and suggests a path to reduce emissions
to 2020 and beyond. The report harnessed
SEI's research into carbon footprinting
(see page 20) and the GDRs framework.
confi dence in today's climate negotiations. The wrangling between developed and developing
countries, rich and poor, continues amid the twin crises of climate and development.
How can we break with politics as usual?
GDRs framework
than USD 20 per day from paying for climate change.
The poor, wherever they are located, prioritise
development.
.s
re
o
c
e
e
d
o
-
r
ig
s
-
gd
r
s