Climate change, environment and

development
Book or Report Section

Accepted Version

Okereke, C. and Massaquoi, A.­B. S. (2017) Climate change,

environment and development. In: Haslam, P., Schafer, J. and
Beaudet., P. (eds.) Introduction to International Development:
Approaches, Actors and Issues, 3rd Edition. Oxford University
Press, Don Mills. Available at
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/62917/

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the
work. See Guidance on citing .

Publisher: Oxford University Press

All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law,

including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other
copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in
the End User Agreement .

www.reading.ac.uk/centaur

CentAUR
Central Archive at the University of Reading
Reading’s research outputs online
 Chapter 17

Climate Change, Environment and Development

Chukwumerije Okereke and Abu-Bakar S. Massaquoi

<A>Learning Objectives

 To understand the intricate and complex relationship between climate change,

environment and development;

 To learn the key historical and more recent developments in the environment, climate

change and development nexus;

 To engage with the key debates, concepts, actors and institutions in the global

governance of environment and sustainable development.

<A>Introduction

From its original position as a subject of peripheral concern, the environment has become

one of the central topics in international development discourse. Today, climate change, a

quintessential environmental problem, is generally recognised as the most important

development challenge in the 21st century (IPCC, 2014). In addition to acknowledging its many

significant direct consequences, climate change is increasingly used to frame discussions on

other important global challenges, such as health, energy and food security.

For a long period in international development history, the focus of debates and policies

was essentially about how to stimulate economic growth mostly by increasing industrialization

and mass consumption in developing countries. A popular philosophy that underpinned the

emphasis on economic growth was the notion that environmental protection was the preserve of

the rich – something that is necessary only after a certain level of economic growth had been

attained. This philosophy, which continues to exert powerful influence today, is not without

1
some intuitive appeal. For example, alleviating poverty would seem a natural priority when

compared to measuring the size of, or closing a hole in the ozone layer. While the former would

immediately strike many as a matter of urgent need, the latter, in contrast, might seem as an

exotic and abstract scientific preoccupation. Moreover, common observation shows that

developed countries generally tend to have cleaner environments (air, water, etc.) in addition to

higher quality of lives. It is difficult to question the many benefits that economic development

has brought to poorer countries, for example, improved mortality rate, better education,

improved wellbeing, enhanced sanitation etc.

In recent years however, the place of the environment in economic development has

become a matter of intense academic and public policy debate. The rise of environment as a key

issue in international development is rooted in three facts. First is the extensive and increasing

impact of humans on all aspects of the environment (IPCC, 2014; Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005). Secondly, advances in science and technology have afforded not only better

understanding of the extent of the environmental damage being caused by humans, but also the

tools to more widely communicate and disseminate this information. Consider for example the

impact of iconic images of environmental degradation in the Nigerian Niger Delta, an entire

village in Bangladesh being displaced by climate change induced flood, or more recently live

TV pictures of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Thirdly, there has been a greater

realization of the propensity of environmental degradation to undermine the very basis of

economic development and human well-being, for example air pollution in rapidly developing

China.

Since the late 1960s, environmental issues and their links with development have been a

subject of increasing international cooperation, with the creation of institutions and multilateral

environmental agreements. Currently, the global community has decided to adopt Sustainable

Development Goals (SDG) as the overarching framework for a post-2015 development agenda,

2
in a move that perhaps marks the clearest acknowledgement of the environment and

development connection. The SDGs build on the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

that were established through a summit of the UN in 2000. To date, the SDG process has

engaged governments, international organisations and the wider civil society, with the hope that

by September 2015, a universal sustainable development agenda, likely to extend until 2030,

will be launched.

Overall, despite the rise of environment in international development and the elaboration

of institutions and governance processes at national and global levels, there remains a

widespread sense that international development efforts are yet to truly incorporate or internalize

environmental considerations (Epstein and Buhovac, 2014; Reid, 2013) . Over 20 years since the

concept of global sustainable development was adopted as the guiding principle of economic and

international development, there are still no easy answers to the question of how best to

effectively combine the goals of environmental protection and economic development at national

and global levels (Ehresman and Okereke, 2015).

<A>THE CENTRAL PARADOX AND CONTENDING APPROACHES

The central paradox of the environment-development relationship is that whereas

economic development is needed to achieve well-being, the process of economic growth often

leads to environmental degradation, which in turn reduces well-being. Differences in

understanding the exact nature of this relationship and how to resolve the complex interactions

constitute the central challenge of environment-development politics across different scales of

governance, from local through national to international levels. In addition, or rather in close

relation to the paradox described above, environmental problems also exhibit two other defining

characteristics – the one is the tragedy of commons and the other is the collective action

problem.

3
<CATCH: Key Issues Box 17.1>

<A> Key Issues Box 17.1 Defining collective action problem and tragedy of commons

Collective action problem is a term that describes the situation in which multiple individuals (also

communities or countries) would all benefit from a certain action, for example reducing greenhouse gas

emissions that cause climate change, but, the associated cost of taking action makes it highly unlikely that

any individual can or will undertake and solve the problem alone.

Famously linked to American ecologist Garth Hardin (1968) the term, Tragedy Of The Commons is

linked describes an economic problem in which individual users of given commonly owned resource (say

graze land or atmosphere) each continues to try to reap the greatest benefit from exploiting such a given

resource even when it is apparent that the demand for the resource has overwhelmed the supply. The

tragedy is that every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer

enjoy the benefits. Furthermore, the over exploitation, driven by individual gain, Hardin argues will

ultimately result in the degradation of the common resource. (For an interesting critique of Hardin’s

thesis, see Ostom, 1990; Stonich et al., 2002).

<End Box>

The figure below (Figure 17.1) shows the steady and dramatic increase in the quality of

human lives from 1870 to 2007 based on life expectancy at birth, mean years of schooling,

expected years of schooling and gross national income per capita (Escosura, 2013).

Measurements based on other development indicators such as infant mortality, the number of

people with access to safe drinking water and number of undernourished children also show that

quality of living has been increasing across all regions of the world (Escosura, 2013).

4
<CATCH: Figure 17.1>

<A>Figure 17.1: World Human Development: 1870-2007

(Source: Escosura, 2013)

Advocates of modernization theory (see Chapter 3) to international development growth

are quick to link these improvements to industrialization, urbanization, advances in technology,

and increase in global trade. Accordingly, they suggest that economic growth is undeniably a

good thing to which all countries should aspire. Moreover, they argue that the best help rich

countries can offer poor countries is to export the same development models of state intervention

used by the West and to help fast-track poor countries through the various stages of growth

(Chambers 2014).

In addition, some economists have hypothesized that the relationship between economic

development and environmental quality takes the form of an inverted U-shape, which is called

the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) (Figure 17.2) (Dietz et al., 2012). The EKC theory

suggests that although environmental degradation generally increases as modern economic

growth occurs, this increase comes to a halt and then starts to reverse after average income

reaches a certain level in the course of development. The modernization theory and the EKC

5
remain highly influential in shaping international environmental and development polices to

date. These approaches suggest that the solution to pollution and environmental degradation

resulting from economic growth is in fact the pursuit of even more economic development.

<CATCH: Figure 17.2>

<A>Figure 17.1: Environmental Kuznets Curve

However, it has been noted that the scale of environmental destruction associated with

economic development over the decades has become increasingly large. Figure 17.3 below is a

graph of the global Living Planet Index (LPI), which shows the rapid decline in the number and

diversity of vertebrate species living in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Recent

Global Ecosystem Assessment projects have shown that over the past 50 years humans have

altered and negatively impacted on the natural environment in far more dramatic fashion

compared to any other time in human history (Seppelt et al., 2011). Other global assessments

also reveal drastic decrease in world biodiversity, extinction of many species, pollution of

various types of ecosystems, and even decrease in levels of happiness (DeFries et al., 2012).

Critics have observed that in addition to elevating western values over indigenous

cultures, modernization theory promotes a scale of environmental resource exploitation and

consumerism, which is ultimately unsustainable (Hannigan, 2014). In addition, the validity of

6
EKC has been challenged. It has been pointed out that the relationship may not hold true for

many pollutants, for natural resource use and for biodiversity conservation, especially when a

global perspective is taken. For example, energy and land resource use do not fall as income rises

(Dietz et al., 2012). Moreover, it has been argued that many developed countries attained and

were able to maintain a certain level of environmental quality only because they were able to get

most of their resources from, and shifted a high proportion of their pollution to the poor

developing countries (Ewing and Rizk, 2008; Wackernagel et al., 1999).

<CATCH: Figure 17.3>

<A>Figure 17.1: Living Planet Index

(Source: Loh et al., 2010)

Furthermore, pointing to the degradation of global common pool resources such as the

ocean, the atmosphere, and especially the role of Western industrialization in this process, many

argue that more modernization can only portend danger for humanity as a whole (Gills, 2015;

Takahashi, 2010). That said, many states and citizens in developing countries have not concealed

their desire to attain the level of development comparable to the West and a willingness to

achieve this goal irrespective of the immediate costs to the environment. The World Bank

(2010:44) sums up the sentiment behind this view rather well when they declare that ‘it is

ethically and politically unacceptable to deny the world’s poor the opportunity to ascend the

7
income ladder simply because the rich reached the top first’ (World Bank, 2010). These

observations form the foundation of the argument that only a global approach is sufficient to

tackle the problem of environmental degradation and international development (Okereke, 2008).

At the same time, it has also been reported that the question of how to achieve or maintain

economic growth that supports a good quality of living without undermining the very natural

support base upon which both growth and lives depend, cannot be met with a simple answer of –

just more growth.

<CATCH: Key Issues Box 17.2>

<A> Key Issues Box 17.2: Environment-Development Paradox: The Case Of China

China has experienced rapid economic growth in the past 30 years, which has resulted in

dramatic increases in certain aspects of wellbeing and a rise of significant environmental

challenges. China’s secondary industry currently produces the highest volume of industrial

products in the world, including steel, cement, fertilizer and coal (Zhang, Abbas, and Shishkin,

2012), and was recently ranked fourth for crude oil production globally (National Bureau of

Statistics of China, 2012 cited in Zhang et al., 2012). However, this rapid growth fuelled by

energy from burning coal, natural resources and environmental services has caused severe

environmental problems especially water and air pollution. China is home to some of the world

cities with the worst air pollution record (Liu and Diamond 2005). Respiratory and heart diseases

related to air pollution are the leading causes of death in China (Xu et al., 2014) with some

studies suggesting that the problem of air pollution costs China up to 10% of GDP every year.

China fares equally badly in many other environmental issues. Five of China’s cities are in the

top 25 of the most vulnerable cities to climate change in the world (Maplecroft, 2013).

Additionally, about 40% of the water in the country's river systems is unfit for human

consumption, and the combination of desertification and erosion have swept over almost 30% of

China’s land over the last two decades (Liu, 2013).

8
However, a comprehensive understanding of the environmental situation in China requires an

acknowledgment of the impact of wider global economic forces and structures (Yang et al.,

2013). China may have taken a high polluting route to development at least in part because of

politics, national economic interests and ideological conflicts, which made it difficult for the

country to access cleaner technologies from the West. Furthermore, many of the businesses that

powered industrial development in China are Western companies that are interested in

maximizing profit and value for their Western shareholder. Today, a vast proportion of the

products being made in China are designed for consumption by western citizens. At the same

time, China’s real ecological footprint goes far beyond its own borders and reaches far corners of

the world especially Africa, where many Chinese companies are engaged in intensive

exploitation of various natural resources including oil, wood and precious metals (Mol, 2011).

<End Box>

<A> A History Of Global Environmentalism And International Co-Operation For Sustainable

Development

Early currents of modern environmentalism can be traced to the early 1960s when

various movements, some of which were transnational in nature, campaigned to draw attention to

the environmental hazards associated with nuclear energy. Many scholars (e.g., Rootes &

Rootes, 2014; Dryzek, 2013) have linked global environmentalism to the rise of environmental

movements in the US. The publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 is often seen as

in important landmark. Carson argued that uncontrolled and unexamined pesticide use in the

United States, mostly DDT, was harming and killing animal populations (especially birds).

Furthermore, she stressed that through the process of bioaccumulation, dangerous

amounts of pesticides were finding their ways into the human food chains and causing serious

injuries to human lives. Carson was very critical of capitalism, which she said placed profit

9
above considerations of health and safety. She was also very critical of mainstream science

which she said downplayed or completely ignored the risks and uncertainties associated with

widespread pesticide use. Carson’s book sparked a vociferous national debate not just about the

safety of the use of a number of chemicals, but also the impact of Western industrialization

throughout the world. In the end, the book prompted a reversal in the national pesticide policy,

and motivated an environmental movement that engendered the establishment of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency..

Another publication that had far reaching impact on the rise of global environmentalism

was The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1971). This book, which originated from research

commissioned by the Club of Rome, painted an apocalyptic picture of famine, resource scarcity,

hunger, ecosystem collapse, pollution and reduction in life expectancy, due to what it described

as exponential increase in population and environmental degradation over the last 30 years. Like

Carson before them, the authors were very critical of materialism and called for environmental

regulation and greater emphasis on conversation at the global level.

It was in response to these currents of opinion for sustainable use of environmental

resources that the United Nations (UN) organized the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment in 1972 in Stockholm. This was the first ever Conference on the Environment

convened at the United Nations level. It had representatives from 113 countries, as well as from

many international non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and other

specialized agencies in attendance (Egelston, 2013). A key product of the conference was the

Stockholm Declaration containing 26 principles aimed at addressing the need to safeguard and

improve the human environment. The document reflected on the development-environment

nexus, including the idea that environmental protection is fundamental to good quality of life and

the enjoyment of human rights; and that population growth and economic development pose

considerable threat to environmental protection (Dodds, Strauss and Strong, 2012).

10
 As a follow-up to the conference, the UN General Assembly established the UN

Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. UNEP’s core function, as outlined in the original

mandate was to lead the UN’s work on environment and its links to international development

(see Chapter 10). In 1983, the UN Secretary General requested Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the

Norwegian Prime Minister and Public Health Specialist to chair a Commission on Environment

and Development. The launch of the commission was sparked by a number of high profile

environmental incidents around the world, including a severe drought in Africa that killed about

a million people and endangered the livelihoods of 36 million people, and a leak from a pesticide

factory in Bhopal, India, which killed more than 2,000 people and injured over 200,000 people.

Also notable were an explosion of liquid gas tanks in Mexico City, which killed 1,000 and left

thousands more homeless, and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion, which sent nuclear

fallout across Europe, increasing the risks of potential human cancers.

Following extensive consultations and meetings across all the continents, the Brundtland

Commission published its pioneering report entitled ‘Our Common Future’ in April 1987, which

brought the term ‘sustainable development’ firmly into public discourse. The report defines

sustainable development as ‘a development that meets the needs of the present generation

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland et

al., 1987:43). It recommended that for sustainable development to be attained, ‘societies need to

meet human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable

opportunities for all’ (Brundtland et al., 1987:44). In their view, sustainable development

required the utilization of resources, the arrangement of institutional structures, and the

orientation of technology in a manner that fits and improves both current and future potential to

meet human needs and aspirations (Ghai and Vivian, 2014; Lafferty and Eckerberg, 2013).

Furthermore, the Brundtland Commission report cited ways of linking environment and

development, and stressed the significance of considering the inter-relationship and inter-

dependence of economic, environmental and social issues in framing and implementing

11
 development policy decisions to address global environmental challenges (Chatterjee and Finger,

2014).

The 1980s saw some of the most influential advances in climate science and international

response to global environmental change (Dryzek, 2013). For example, the Vienna Convention

was agreed as a framework to protect the ozone layer in 1985, and the Montreal Protocol (a

protocol to the Vienna Convention) in 1987 further protected the ozone layer by phasing out the

production of substances that cause ozone depletion.

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),

unofficially known as the Earth Summit, was organized in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Believed to be

the biggest global environment conference ever, the key aim of UNCED was to reinforce the links

between environment and development. The meeting produced 21 principles for actualizing

sustainable development at the global level with Principle 4 asserting that ‘environmental

protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in

isolation from it.’ In addition, a more detailed blue print for the protection of the earth and its

sustainable development at local levels, known as Agenda 21, was also adopted.

Agenda 21 had a wide-ranging focus, including decreasing deforestation, preventing

pollution, alleviating poverty, promoting chemicals management and avoiding the depletion of

natural resources. In full support of the objectives of Agenda 21, the UN General Assembly

founded the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1992, as part of the Economic and Social

Council. Furthermore, UNCED produced the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD),

the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) and broad Principles on Forest Conservation. A number of global

summits of sustainable development have been defined since the Rio Earth Summit. These

include Rio+10 otherwise known as The World Summit on Sustainable Development in

Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002 and more recently, Rio+20 on the theme of the Green

Economy organized once again in Rio, Brazil.

12
 <CATCH: Key Issues Box 17.3>

<A> Key Issues Box 17.2: Key Agreements In Sustainable Development History

1972: UNEP created by UN General Assembly

1973: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

1979: Bonn Convention on Migratory Species

1985: Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer

1987: Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

1992: UNCED publishes Agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainable development

1992: Convention on Biological Diversity

2000: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety adopted to address issue of genetically modified

organisms

2000: Millennium Declaration - environmental sustainability included as one of 8 MDGs

2001: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

2010: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

(IPBES)

2011: UNEP launches the Green Economy report in the context of sustainable development

and poverty eradication key theme for Rio+20.

2015: The Paris Agreement adopted during the 21st Conference of the Parties of the

UNFCCC in Paris

<End Box>

<CATCH: Key Issues Box 17.4>

<A> Key Issues Box 17.2: The Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda

13
 At the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, 17 Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) were conceived, which were adopted in New York in September

2015. The SDGs build on the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were established

through a summit of the UN in 2000. Before the launch, the SDG process engaged governments,

international organisations and the wider civil society to propose a universal sustainable

development agenda, which is likely to extend until 2030. The groundwork also included the

allocation of the task of developing a set of measurable indicators and targets to an

intergovernmental Open Working Group (OWG). This 30-member group, established in January

2013, was assigned the responsibility of submitting a report to the UN General Assembly in

September 2014, in which the focal areas above and how the interests of member countries align

with them are discussed. Many member countries see the SDGs as an opportunity to address

prevailing and potential sustainable development challenges. Nonetheless, a counter current has

emerged, particularly in respect of ensuring that the SDGs don’t end up largely unfunded like the

MDGs Overall, a lot of hope is being expressed about the SDGs, with many member countries

motivated by its promise to offer innovative and transformative approaches to achieving

sustainable development, such as new and stronger global partnerships, capacity building and

information sharing opportunities, and measures to improve accountability through effective

monitoring and reporting (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform-

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html).

<End Box>

<A> CLIMATE CHANGE

The Earth’s climate can be affected by natural elements that are external to the climate

system, such as alterations in volcanic activity, solar output, and the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Of these, the two important issues on timescales of present-day climate change are changes in

volcanic activity and changes in solar radiation. Climate change can also be caused by human

14
activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and the conversion of land for agriculture and

forestry. In addition to other environmental impacts, these activities change the land surface and

emit various substances to the atmosphere such as Carbon (IV) Oxide- a greenhouse gas, which

in turn can influence both the amount of inward and outward energy and thus, can have both

warming and cooling effects on the climate.

Climate change exemplifies the intricate connections and tensions between global

economic development and environmental sustainability perhaps more than any other

environmental issue (Okereke and Schroder, 2009). There are at least three points of connection,

all of which are of great significance. First, through its severe negative impacts on the natural,

human, social and economic systems of developing countries, climate change could reverse

decades of international development efforts and further limit the resources available to fight

poverty in both rich and poor countries. . Some of the potential impacts of climate change in

developing countries include increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events, reduced

crop yield causing food insecurity, desertification, ecosystem collapse, fresh water shortages,

lower incomes and scant economic growth, population displacement, and exposure to new health

risks (IPCC, 2007; 2014).

Second, while large-scale economic development is needed to pull billions of citizens in

developing countries out of abject poverty, a business-as-usual approach to development will

exacerbate the problem of climate change with potentially irreversible long-term consequences

(IPCC, 2014; IPCC, 2007). Furthermore, poverty contributes to environmental degradation and

climate change, which in turn, increases poverty and underdevelopment – the so-called poverty

trap (Okereke, 2014). A well-known example of this is the relationship between poverty,

population growth and deforestation in developing countries. Third, climate change will

considerably shape development choices in developing countries, where governments will need to

jump to smarter technologies and more effective and resilient structures (Okereke and Yusuf,

2013). Hence, while climate change poses profound challenges to international development, it

15
also offers unique opportunities to pursue growth and build more resilient economies.

A crucial dimension of climate change is that although its impact is and will be felt world

over, its current and future impact will fall disproportionately on the world’s poor populations

who have contributed the least to the problem. The Climate Vulnerability Monitor (2012)

indicates that climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year,

98% of which is occurring in poor countries especially in Africa. Available reports suggest that

between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will be exposed to increased water stress triggered

by climate change by 2020, which will significantly affect agricultural production, thus, increasing

food insecurity and malnutrition (Kjellstrom, 2015).

These occurrences could increase the costs of adaptation to at least 5 to 10 percent of

Africa’s GDP (Tanner and Horn-Phathanothai, 2014). Furthermore, the Climate Change and

Environmental Risk Atlas notes that the top 10 out of 193 countries that will be affected are in the

third world. These countries include: Bangladesh (1st and most at risk), Guinea-Bissau (2nd),

Sierra Leone (3rd), Haiti (4th), South Sudan (5th), Nigeria (6th), DR Congo (7th), Cambodia

(8th), Philippines (9th) and Ethiopia (10th) (Maplecroft, 2013).

<CATCH: Figure 17.4>

<A> Figure 17.4 Climate Change and Environmental Risk Atlas

16
(Source: Maplecroft, 2013)

<CATCH: Current Events Box 17.4>

<A> Current Events Box 17.4 Counting The Costs Of Climate Change

A number of recent reports draw attention to the intricate links between the projected climate

risks in developing countries and future state of the global economy. The Maplecroft Climate

Change and Environmental Risk Atlas for example highlights the extent to which global

economic growth is endangered by climate change. The 6th annual edition of the atlas discloses

that by 2025, 31% of the economic yield world over, will be from countries recording ‘high’ or

‘extreme risks’ from the impacts of climate change. This forecast doubles current levels of

climate change. A costing using a Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), which is a core

part of the Atlas, shows that about 67 countries with a combined yield of $44 trillion will be

severely affected by climate change. These estimates confirm that some of the countries upon

whose growth the world currently depends like China, will be hit extremely hard by climate

change, should present-day development practices in the public and private sectors go

unchanged. In 10 more years beyond 2015, China and India are predicted to record an increase in

their GDPs from current levels to $28 trillion and $5 trillion respectively, which will amount to

nearly 23% of the world’s economic output.

Equally, the situation is grim for most countries in Africa, including Nigeria, the

region’s largest economy. Drawing on recently released UN IPCC climate projections for the

period up to 2040, it is clear that a significant warming of about 20C is projected for West Africa,

which indicates an increase in rainfall and humidity and severe consequences for communities,

governments and businesses. In the case of Nigeria, which is ranked the 6th most climate-
17
 vulnerable country in the world according to the 2013 Maplecroft Climate Change Vulnerability

Index (CCVI), climate change will mainly affect the oil sector and surrounding communities

through erosion and sea level rise. Already, the impacts are being felt, with a flooding between

July and November 2012 resulting in an estimated loss of 500,000 barrels-per-day in oil

production, equal to more than one-fifth of the country’s total production capacity (Maplecroft,

2013-

http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2013/10/30/31-global-economic-output-forecast-

face-high-or-extreme-climate-change-risks-2025-maplecroft-risk-atlas/)

<End Box>

<B> The Climate Regime

Global effort to address climate change has focused on the United Nations Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiated in 1992 as part of the UNCED. The Kyoto Protocol is a

key component of the UNFCCC because it contains mandatory targets for emissions reduction for

states, detailed measures for implementation and a compliance mechanism, which is the only one

of its kind (Hovi, Stokke, and Ulfstein 2013). In December 2015, during the 21st Conference of

the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris, a new agreement designed to replace Kyoto was adopted

(The Paris Agreement). It is intended that the Agreement will come into force in 2020. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides crucial scientific evidence for

climate policy. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the Executive Council of the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with

the mandate to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in

climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year of

its creation, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly

establishing the IPCC and called on the body to submit its first assessment report in time to feed

into the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in 1992. Today, the

18
IPCC is the world’s foremost institution for scientific research on climate change, with five

‘assessment reports’ to its credit, produced in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2014.

The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol on their own part may well pass as the most elaborate

and complex agreement the world has ever negotiated (Luterbacher and Sprinz, 2001). The regime

embraces two main responses in its action against climate change. The first is mitigation, which

focuses on the reduction of the amounts of greenhouse gas that states and other actors are emitting

into the atmosphere. The second is adaptation, which focuses on how to cope with the impacts of

climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. More recently, the concept of resilience considers

adaptation as a process of coping with, responding to and recovering from climatic shocks and

stresses has gained prominence (Bahadur, Ibrahim, and Tanner 2013). Mitigation and adaptation

overlap, as the more climate change effects are mitigated, the less the prospect that individuals,

communities and countries will need to adapt. Conversely, some efforts at adaptation such as

planting trees can also help in mitigation.

Developing countries have consistently demanded an effective global response to climate

change with emphasis on urgent and ambitious mitigation efforts by rich countries that are thought

to be responsible for the course of climate change at least in historical terms. Second, they call for

assistance in terms of finance, technology and capacity building to help them increase their

adaptation to climate impacts. More recently, Low Carbon Development (LCD) and cognate terms

like climate compatible development, Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS), and green

growth have all become popular terminologies in international environmental and sustainable

development discourse. Their popularity has stemmed from the notion that they offer a new hope

for continued growth in the South while also serving as a soft alternative to hard quantified GHG

emission reduction targets for the developing countries (Nussbaumer, 2009). LCD is also

attractive because it appears to hold the promise to reconcile a long and deep conflict between the

economic development aspirations of developing countries and the imperative to cut

anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. However, over

19
20 years since the negotiation of the UNFCCC, there remains a wide sense of frustration from

developing countries that the rich countries are not only denying their obligations to reduce

emissions and help poor countries adapt to climate change; but in fact, that they are surreptitiously

conscripting developing countries into undertaking burdensome emission reduction commitments.

The Paris agreement, which will come into effect in 2020 commits requests all countries (both

developed and developing countries) to commit to ambitious emission reduction programmes.

<CATCH: Current Events Box 17.5>

<A> Current Events Box 17.5 Looking Ahead- A Post-2020 Climate Agreement

The overriding purpose of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was to develop a long-term process for

managing climate change including quantified emission reduction obligations from states. The

first commitment period of Kyoto was 2008 to 2012. There are wide differences in opinion about

how effective was Kyoto Protocol. Signatories to the UNFCCC meet every year in what is called

the Conference of Parties meeting (COP) to negotiate on various aspects of the international

climate agreement. Since 2005, there has been a series of negotiations about how to maintain

momentum on climate action after the first commitment period of Kyoto. An agreement was

supposed to be reached in Copenhagen (COP-15) in 2009, but this did not happen due to

disagreements between states such as China and US. Since the failure in Copenhagen, much has

been done to spark a renewed interest in UNFCCC-led negotiations, with the COPs in Cancun

(2010), Durban (2011) and Doha (2012) seen as interventions to rebuild trust between developed

and developing countries. Accordingly, in November 2015, an agreement to replace the Kyoto

Protocol was signed at the Conference of Parties (COP 21) meeting in Paris, which will come

into force in 2020 and provide a framework for long-term global action on climate change. The

trust of the Paris Agreement is voluntary pledges of emission reductions from all countries called

Indented Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which will be submitted and reviewed

20
 every five years. Despite widespread enthusiasm, some have expressed gave worries about

building a hope for effective global emissions reductions on the voluntary pledges of states.

There is a wide sentiment that the Paris Agreement does not provide enough support for

developing countries to enable them take climate action with regards to mitigation and

adaptation.

http://www.rff.org/Publications/Resources/Pages/185-Negotiating-a-Post-2020-Climate-

Agreement.aspx

<End Box>

<B> Key Actors and Roles

Many actors, including UN agencies, other multilateral organisations such as the European

Union, US Agency for International Development (USAID) etc., transnational public sector

institutions and businesses, play crucial roles in global climate governance. For example, the

climate change sub-programme at UNEP focuses on developing the capacity of institutions in

developing countries to mainstream climate change decisions into national development strategies.

These different strategies are principally linked to the broader UNFCCC framework for global

climate governance. Nonetheless, recent developments in the climate regime have led to a

renewed interest in multilateral and transnational partnerships outside the UNFCCC structure.

These partnerships, such as the G8 and G8+5, largely seek to address climate issues outside the

UNFCCC agenda, while others seek to demonstrate the crucial role multilateral institutions play in

addressing global environment-development challenges (Green, 2012).

It could be that these responses are emerging in response to the failures of the UNFCCC

to both regulate and stimulate the realization of emissions reductions or provide adequate funds

for adaptation in developing countries (Morin and Orsini, 2014). Andonova and colleagues (2009)

describe these partnerships in relation to three overlapping roles: information sharing; capacity

building and implementation; and decision-making (Andonova, Betsill, and Bulkeley, 2009). The
21
main drive, as Bulkeley and Jordan (2012) note, is to outline their own priorities for addressing

climate change accordingly (Bulkeley and Jordan, 2012). Conversely, while these partnerships

seek to strengthen the UNFCCC process, others such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean

Development and Climate (APP) created by President Bush after the withdrawal of the US from

the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, enthusiastically wanted to build a parallel framework to the

UNFCCC. Nevertheless, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change (MEF),

which succeeded the APP, has been instrumental in relinking the parties with the UNFCCC

(Tanner and Horn-Phathanothai, 2014).

<CATCH: Current Events Box 17.6>

<A> Current Events Box 17.6 Governing Climate Change: A Case Of The UNFCCC

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) architecture involves

196 country parties, each with a focal point for representation and negotiations, usually located

in a focal ministry dealing with environmental matters. Negotiations are also attended by

bilateral and multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and United Nations agencies. The

framework categorises country parties into three interlocking groups, namely: ANNEX 1 parties

constituting countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

NON-ANNEX 1 parties comprised of the larger proportion of countries, including emerging

industrialised economies, and ANNEX 2 parties solely including OECD countries with relevant

international commitments. The UNFCCC is governed through a Conference of Parties (COP)

that is comprised of representatives of country parties to the convention, who meet once a year.

During negotiations, countries with common interests tend to form groups to save time and make

stronger cases. These groups change however, depending on the issues being negotiated. Some

prominent groupings under the UNFCCC include: the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)

comprised of 42 countries and observers; the Least Developed Countries (LDC) comprised of 48

22
country parties; the African Group with 53 members from Africa; the EU Delegation comprised

of 28 countries of the European Union; and the Umbrella Group comprised of the United States,

Russia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

<End Box>

Global climate deliberations have also led to an important set of public and private

sector multinational responses, including: the C40 Climate Leadership Group, which is an

association of 58 of the world’s megacities; the Asia Cities Climate Change Resilience Network

(ACCCRN) formed by the Rockefeller Foundation; and the World Mayors Council on Climate

Change (WMCCC), which seeks to connect industrialized and developing municipalities through

an advocacy for city-based climate responses. In the private sector also, a number of consortia

have been formed. A notable example is the World Business Council of Sustainable

Development (WBCSD), which works with 29 world leading companies from 14 industries to

develop a vision 2050 that describes the ways by which a global population of 9 billion will live

contentedly within the obtainable natural resource limits (Wilkinson and Mangalagiu, 2012).

However many scholar have point out the irony of development agencies like World Bank and

business organizations like WBCSD projecting themselves as leading actors in the efforts to

address global environmental problems when in fact, these actors are actively engaged in

activities (e.g., funding the development of dam and coal fired power station and exploiting tar

sands) that cause environmental degradation (The Ecologist, 1987; Corten, 2001).

It is evident that a lot work is required by multiple actors and at multiscale to stem global

environmental degradation and the seeming infectiveness of international institutions for

environmental and sustainable development governance. Failures of global and country-level

internal institutions to surmount the collective action challenge, and offer means through which

countries, organisations and businesses can act together to address pressing challenges of

poverty and environmental degradation remains a key global challenge of the 21st century.

23
 <A> Controversies and Crosscutting Themes
<B> Environmental and Climate Justice
One major issue that has dogged international cooperative effort for global governance of

climate change and sustainable development is the subject of equity and social justice.

Contestations for climate justice mainly in the form of demands for fair treatment by poor

countries have provoked the most vociferous debates and controversies between rich and poor

countries in global sustainable development policy circles (Okereke, 2008; 2010). Concern for

climate justice has been expressed in many forms. Firstly, poor countries are keen to point out that

rich countries are responsible for, and have profited disproportionately from the bulk of the

pollution that is causing today’s global environmental problems. A good example is climate

change where 25 countries account for 75% of historic global emissions (Bulkeley and Newell,

2015).

Second, poor countries point out that they bear a disproportionate burden of global

environmental impacts arising from past and current global economic activities as a result of their

geographical location, lack of protective infrastructure and low adaptive and response capacities.

This would seem doubly unfair given as noted, that the rich countries have benefited and still tend

to benefit more from these harm-producing activities due to their advantageous position in the

global economic structure (Lewis, 2013). Third, poor countries fear that they are not able to

participate effectively in the negotiation of global environmental agreements due to poor capacity

and structural weaknesses (Okereke and Charlesworth, 2014). They insist that procedural justice is

necessary to elaborate rules that are fair to all countries. Fourth, poor countries fear they may be

saddled with responsibilities that could undermine their development aspirations. Again, to use

climate change as an example, developing countries have pointed out that they have been forced

into committing significant cuts in their own emissions, though they only contributed one-fifth of

global emissions between 1850 and 2002 (World Bank, 2005).

24
 Developed countries on their part, have argued that the fact of a rapidly deteriorating

environment demands that all countries must make commitments and sacrifices to help facilitate

an effective response (Chasek, Downie, and Brown, 2013). Moreover they argue that emphasis on

historical responsibility for environmental and climate damage is unhelpful and point out that it is

hardly justice to seek to punish sons for the sins of their fathers. Rich countries also often suggest

that developing countries are the architect of their own poverty and vulnerability through several

decades of corruption and poor governance (Rodrik, 2014).

A major equity concept that has been devised to mediate the justice conflict between

developed and developing countries is the Common but Differentiated Responsibility and

Capability Principle (CBDR+C). However, despite its popularity and frequent invocation in

environmental agreements and policy circles, the CBDR+C principle has done little to

satisfactorily resolve the deep moral impasse that characterises environmental and climate change

bargaining (Okereke, 2008). Developing countries have so often focused on the ‘differentiated’

side of the norm, while developed countries tend to emphasise the ‘common’ side to highlight the

need for equal commitment. The result is that while almost all major global environmental

agreements negotiated since 1972 contain copious references to equity and justice, many

developing countries feel they have made very little progress in securing real justice.

A major argument by developed countries often deployed in response to concerns for

equity is that a focus on distributive justice especially in the form of North-South financial or

technology transfer will undermine effective and efficient approaches to deal with climate change.

For this reason developed countries insist that it is much better to use market approaches or

instruments in dealing with environmental issues.

In contrast with earlier views that pursuing equality reduces economic efficiency, recent

evidence suggests that extensive inequality hinders socio-economic growth, and addressing equity

and social justice concerns can deliver fair and lasting development impacts (Acemoglu and

Robinson, 2012). Additionally, it has been proposed that inequality in access to education and

25
other resources such as land, credit etc. can hamper economic growth, since the talents, ideas,

views and experiences of a large proportion of the population are not wholly utilised (Leach et al.,

2012).

Nonetheless, market approaches have dominated global environmental and sustainable

development rule making, including policies like the Clean Development Mechanism that have

been crafted as part of solutions for North-South distributive justice (Elah and Okereke, 2014).

Through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), developing country parties request financial

support to respond to climate change. Nevertheless, the mechanism is reported to have failed in

providing broad-based socio-economic benefits (Boyd et al, 2007). It is also commonly assumed

that CDM processes fail because of poorly defined objectives, as each country is expected to

determine what comprises sustainable development benefits (Boyd et al, 2007). Additionally

CDM has been viewed by most developing country parties as a way of taking the pressure off rich

countries that need to make domestic cuts in emissions reductions, rather than buy their way out of

local liability. In some critical literature, CDM has been referred to as a form of carbon

colonialism (Bachram, 2004).

<B> What does Sustainability mean anyway?

Another major source of controversy that characterises global sustainable development

polices stem from fundamental differences in the way the very concept of sustainability is

understood by different sections of the global community. In its broadest sense, sustainability

means the ability of any system to maintain its performance over time. Performance in this context

refers to development in relation to the social and individual qualities of life (Tanner and Horn-

Phathanothai, 2014). From these understandings, it can be supposed that sustainability is

concerned with a ‘development that lasts’, which may require placing an emphasis on

safeguarding natural resources (natural capital) that provide a range of services for humans and the

environment, or substituting natural capital with other forms of produced capital. In effect, this is

26
a choice between weak sustainability and strong sustainability respectively (Dietz and Neumayer,

2007).

In respect of a weak sustainability paradigm, the understanding generally is that capital

assets can substitute each other and the focus ought to be on the total stock of capital. Proponents

of weak sustainability commonly assume that natural and produced capital are exchangeable, and

that there are no inequalities in the kinds of well being they produce. Within this perspective, it is

thought that it does not matter whether the current generation depletes non-renewable

environmental resources, or continues to increase carbon emissions, as long as employment,

technologies, and basic services are provided in return (Dietz and Neumayer, 2007). Obviously, a

weak view of sustainability demands increased monetary compensation for environmental

degradation and resulting conditions such as climate change. In contrast, advocates for a strong

sustainability paradigm emphasise that some capital assets are more important than others,

implying that others cannot substitute them. In their view, policies should be formulated to

safeguard environmental resources upon which economic development primarily depends. Within

this context, it can be observed that sustainability involves preserving and growing people’s

capital stock, with a focus on guiding the present generation through taking just as much as they

need, so that the next generation will have as much as they would require (Tanner and Horn-

Phathanothai, 2014).

<B> Driving forces behind environmental change

The impact of humans on the environment is generally measured using the equation

I=PAT. Accordingly, the impact (I) of any population on the environment is expressed as a

product of three characteristics: the population's size (P), its affluence (measured in per-capita

consumption) (A), and the prevailing technologies in use (T). In short, impact (I) is calculated as a

combined function of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T).

27
 While this seems simple and straightforward, there is a huge controversy, often reflecting

differences in value, about the relative role of the various components and where emphasis should

lie in designing global environmental policy. Simply stated, the controversy is often about whether

the actual cause of environmental change is population growth in developing countries, or power,

affluence and use of technology in the rich and developed countries. Developed countries often

like to focus on the impact of population on the environment. They suggest that a key aspect of

global sustainable development policy must include some measure of population control in

developing countries. For example, it is projected that the next two decades will see

unprecedented growth in urban populations, from three to five billion people, who will mostly live

in developing countries. Furthermore, it is thought that growth in population is the major cause of

the increasing demand for energy, which is expected to rise mainly in developing countries in few

decades (Tanner and Horn-Phathanothai, 2014).

But developing countries often prefer to stress the role of affluence and technology as

the main sources of the problem. They point out that most of this stress on the global environment

comes from only 25 percent of the world’s population, who consume 75 percent of global

resources (forest, cement, paper, energy, precious metals, etc.). Because of technological growth

and affluence, global electricity demand is projected to double by 2030 (from a 2004 baseline),

should current consumption trends remain. Tied to this, is the rapid urbanisation and growth of

cities, which accounts for 60 to 80 percent of global energy consumption (Kamal-Chaoui and

Robert, 2009) (see Chapter 19).

The impact of technology on the environment is far more complex. On the one hand

advances in technology have helped to stem environmental degradation. Common examples are

renewable energy and innovative farming utilised in large-scale food production. On the other

hand, advances in technology have made resource depletion much easier and quicker as evident in

large-scale fish trawling in the oceans and deep-water oil exploration. Furthermore, technology

has been considered a cause for widening the income inequality gap, as the rich are able to access

28
specialised and expensive equipment to grow their wealth at the expense of poor people, who only

benefit from the wages they are paid for working on the rich men’s farms (Milanovic, 2015).

<A> SUMMARY

The chapter has sought to make the case that global environmental challenges are now

central concerns in international development discourse. Environmental issues and international

development are now so intricately bound that it is not conceivable that these issues can be

ignored in any major debate or academic work on development. This chapter lays out a

foundation for understanding the intricate and complex relationship between climate change,

environment and development. It presents the key historical and more recent developments in the

environment, climate change and development nexus, and engages with the key debates,

concepts, actors and institutions in the global governance of environment and sustainable

development.

It was noted that while the global community has attempted to respond to these

challenges by intensive co-operation marked by the creation of numerous institutions and

policies, finding optimum options for balancing the need for environmental protection and

economic growth especially in the context of global inequality remains a difficult challenge. It

was noted that the main challenge in addressing environmental –development problems has to do

with the intricate and paradoxical relationship between economic growth and environmental

degradation as well as the fact that global environmental challenges as classical examples of the

collective action problems. The chapter also highlights the roles of many other factors such as

ideological differences between the developed and developed countries about the role of market

in solving environmental challenges, the problem of agreeing what sustainability means in

practice, and fundamental disagreements about how to resolve thorny issues of justice and

fairness.

29
 The above difficulties have been further illustrated by exploring the issue of climate

change, which has been described as the greatest development challenge of the 21st century, with

its impacts touching both present and future generations. The chapter shows that while despite

wide acknowledgment of the need for urgent and organised response, the likelihood of achieving

the level of cooperation required to ensure effective action remains in serious doubt. It is a huge

ask for international politics marked by power and self-interested calculations of states as well as

societal commitment to luxury and high levels of consumption to respond to the radical changes

in behaviour, structure and systematic injustice required to address climate change. The chapter

underscores the thesis that effective global governance of sustainable development appears to

require radical changes in the global values as well as serious attention to questions of justice

and fairness.

While there are edited volumes and books on different aspects of the link between

environment and development, this chapter provides students with the insights and concepts

required to understand and engage with a global debate that is fast evolving as a result of the

challenges and choices presented by climate change. As this book is essentially about

international development approaches, actors, issues and practice, this chapter presents the ways

in which development choices conflict with or support arrangements oriented towards

environmental protection, climate management and sustainable development.

<A> Discussion Questions

 Is environmental degradation an inevitable consequence of economic growth?

 Why is it so difficult for developed and developing countries to agree on just and equitable

policies for the pursuit of global sustainable development?

 What obligations if any do rich countries owe the poorer ones for the damages caused by

climate change?

30
  Discuss the relative impact of population, affluence and technology on environmental

pollution.

<A>Suggested Reading

Adams, W. M. (2009). Green Development. Environment and sustainability in a developing

world. London and New York.

Elliott, L. M. (2004). The global politics of the environment. Palgrave Macmillan.

Okereke, C. & Ehresman, T.G., 2014. International environmental justice and the quest for a
green global economy: introduction to special issue. International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics, 15(1), pp.5–11.

Wilson, G., Furniss, P., & Kimbowa, R. (2010). Environment, development, and sustainability:
perspectives and cases from around the world. Oxford University Press.

World Development Report 2010, The World Bank.

<A>Related Websites
 www.newsroom.unfccc.int
 http://www.unep.org/climatechange/
 www.ipcc.ch

GLOSSARY
Adaptation: Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change - for example construction
of barriers to protect against rising sea levels.

Bioaccumulation: The accumulation of substances, such as pesticides, or other chemicals in an

organism, occuring when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a rate greater than that at
which the substance is lost.

Climate change: A pattern of change affecting global or regional climate, as measured by

yardsticks such as average temperature and rainfall, or an alteration in frequency of extreme
weather conditions. Both natural processes and human activity may cause this variation.

31
Common pool resources: A common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common
property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g.
a community forest, or fishing ground), whose size or characteristics makes it difficult, but not
impossible, to define recognised users and exclude other users altogether.

Green economy: An economy that results in reducing environmental risks and ecological
scarcities, and that aims for sustainable development without degrading the environment.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs): Natural and industrial gases that trap heat from the Earth and warm
the surface. The Kyoto Protocol restricts emissions of six greenhouse gases: natural (carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and industrial (perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and
sulphur hexafluoride).

Mitigation: Action that will reduce man-made climate change. This includes action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or absorb greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

<A>Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron and James Robinson. 2012. ‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power,
Prosperity and Poverty.’

Andonova, Liliana B., Michele M. Betsill, and Harriet Bulkeley. 2009. ‘Transnational Climate
Governance.’ Global Environmental Politics 9(2):52–73.

Bahadur, Aditya V., Maggie Ibrahim, and Thomas Tanner. 2013. ‘Characterising Resilience:
Unpacking the Concept for Tackling Climate Change and Development.’ Climate and
Development 5(1):55–65.

Bachram, Heidi. 2004. "Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: the new trade in greenhouse
gases." Capitalism Nature Socialism 15.4: 5-20.

Bulkeley, Harriet and Andy Jordan. 2012. ‘Transnational Environmental Governance: New
Findings and Emerging Research Agendas.’ Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy 30(4):556–70.

Bulkeley, Harriet and Peter Newell. 2015. Governing Climate Change. Taylor & Francis.

Chambers, Robert. 2014. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Routledge.

Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie, and Janet Brown. 2013. Global Environmental Politics.
Westview Press.

Chatterjee, Pratap and Matthias Finger. 2014. The Earth Brokers: Power, Politics and World
Development. Routledge.

Chow, Gregory C. 2015. China’s Economic Transformation. John Wiley & Sons.

32
DeFries, Ruth S. et al. 2012. ‘Planetary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change
Science to Contribute to a Sustainable Future.’ BioScience 62(6):603–6.

Dietz, Simon and Eric Neumayer. 2007. ‘Weak and Strong Sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts
and Measurement.’ Ecological Economics 61(4):617–26.

Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York. 2012. ‘Environmentally Efficient Well-
Being: Is There a Kuznets Curve?’ Applied Geography 32(1):21–28.

Dodds, Felix. 2014. Earth Summit 2002: A New Deal. Routledge.

Dodds, Felix, Michael Strauss, and Maurice F. Strong. 2012. Only One Earth: The Long Road
Via Rio to Sustainable Development. Routledge.

Dryzek, John S. 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University
Press.

Dunn, Rob. 2012. ‘In Retrospect: Silent Spring.’ Nature 485(7400):578–79.

Economy, Elizabeth C. 2011. The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s
Future, Second Edition. Cornell University Press.

Egelston, Anne E. 2013. Sustainable Development. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Elah, M. and Chuks Okereke. 2014. ‘A Neo-Gramscian Account of Carbon Markets: The Case
of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and the Clean Development
Mechanism.’

Epstein, Marc J. and Adriana Rejc Buhovac. 2014. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices
in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Escosura, Leandro Prados de la. 2013. ‘World Human Development: 1870-2007.’

Ewing, Brad and Sarah M. Rizk. 2008. ‘The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008.’ Global Footprint
Network 2008(December):87.

Fuentes-nieva, Ricardo and Isabel Pereira. 2010. ‘Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva and Isabel Pereira.’
Human Development.

Ghai, Dharam and Jessica M. Vivian. 2014. Grassroots Environmental Action: People’s
Participation in Sustainable Development. Routledge.

Gills, Barry K. 2015. ‘Global Development in the Anthropocene.’ Globalizations.

Green, Duncan. 2012. From Poverty to Power, 2nd Edition: How Active Citizens and Effective
States Can Change the World. Oxfam.

Hannigan, John. 2014. Environmental Sociology. Routledge.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons". Science 162 (3859): 1243–1248.

33
Hargroves, Karlson and Michael H. Smith. 2013. The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business
Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century. Earthscan.

Hovi, Jon, Olav Stokke, and Geir Ulfstein. 2013. Implementing the Climate Regime:
International Compliance. Earthscan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. ‘Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability.’ … II Contribution to the IPCC ….

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change’ edited by R K Pachauri and A Reisinger. Change
446(November):12–17.

Kamal-Chaoui, Lamia and Alexis Robert. 2009. ‘Competitive Cities and Climate Change.’

Kjellstrom, Tord. 2015. ‘Impact of Climate Conditions on Occupational Health and Related
Economic Losses: A New Feature of Global and Urban Health in the Context of Climate
Change.’ Asia-Pacific journal of public health / Asia-Pacific Academic Consortium for
Public Health 1010539514568711 – .

Korten David. When corporations rule the world. USA: Kumarain Press

Lafferty, William M. and Katarina Eckerberg. 2013. From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda
21: Working Towards Sustainable Development. Routledge.

Leach, Melissa et al. 2012. ‘Transforming Innovation for Sustainability.’ Ecology and Society.

Lewis, William Arthur. 2015. The Evolution of the International Economic Order. Princeton
University Press.

Liu, Jianguo and Jared Diamond. 2005. ‘China’s Environment in a Globalizing World.’ Nature
435(7046):1179–86.

Liu, Nengye. 2013. ‘Country Report: The People’s Republic of China: Criticism Levelled at
China's Revised Environmental Protection Law.’

Loh, J. et al. 2010. ‘The Living Planet Index.’

Luterbacher, Urs and Detlef F. Sprinz. 2001. International Relations and Global Climate
Change. MIT Press.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to
growth. New York, 102.

Milanovic, Branko. 2015. ‘Global Inequality of Opportunity: How Much of Our Income Is
Determined by Where We Live?’ Review of Economics and Statistics 97(2):452–60.

34
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.

Mol, Arthur P. J. 2011. ‘China’s Ascent and Africa's Environment.’ Global Environmental
Change 21(3):785–94.

Nussbaumer, Patrick. 2009. ‘On the Contribution of Labelled Certified Emission Reductions to
Sustainable Development: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of CDM Projects.’ Energy Policy
37(1):91–101.

Okereke, Chukwumerije and Tariya Yusuf. 2013. ‘Low Carbon Development and Energy
Security in Africa.’ in Africa. In: Global Climate and Energy Security, eds. H. Dyer and M.
Tombretta. Surrey: Edward Elgar Publishing: pp.462-482.

Okereke, Chukwumerije and M. Charlesworth. 2014. ‘Environmental and Ecological Justice.’ In

Palgrave Advances in International Environmental Politics, eds. M. Betsil, K. Hochstetler
and S. Dimitris. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 123-147.

Okereke Chukwumerije. 2008. Global justice and neoliberal environmental governance:

Sustainable development, Ethics and International Co-operation London: Routledge

Okereke, Chukwumerije. 2008. ‘Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance.’ Global

Environmental Politics 8(3):25–50.

Okereke, Chukwumerije. 2010. ‘Climate Justice and the International Regime.’ Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(3):462–74.

Okereke Chukwumerije, and Schroeder, Heike. 2009. How can the objectives of justice,
development and climate change mitigation be reconciled in the treatment of developing
countries in a post-Kyoto settlement? Climate and Development 1: 10–15.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge university press, 1990.

Pachauri, R. K. et al. 2014. ‘Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.’

Pearce, David. 2013. Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy. Routledge.

Reid, David. 2013. Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. Taylor & Francis.

Robinson, Warren C., Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William
W. Behrens. 1973. ‘The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the
Predicament of Mankind.’ Demography 10(2):289.

Rodrik, Dani. 2014. ‘The Past, Present, and Future of Economic Growth.’ Challenge.

Rootes, Christopher and Reader in Political Sociology and Environmental Politics and Director
of the Centre for the Study of Social and Political Movements Christopher Rootes. 2014.
Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global. Routledge.

35
Santoro, Michael A. 2015. China 2020: How Western Business Can—and Should—Influence
Social and Political Change in the Coming Decade. Cornell University Press.

Seppelt, Ralf, Carsten F. Dormann, Florian V. Eppink, Sven Lautenbach, and Stefan Schmidt.
2011. ‘A Quantitative Review of Ecosystem Service Studies: Approaches, Shortcomings
and the Road Ahead.’ Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3):630–36.

Stern, Nicholas and Great Britain. Treasury. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern
Review. Cambridge University Press.

Stonich, S., Stern, P. C., Dolsak, N., Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Weber, E. U. (Eds.). (2002). The
drama of the commons. National Academies Press.

Takahashi, Satsuki. 2010. ‘Surviving Modernization: State, Community, and the Environment in
Two Japanese Fishing Towns.’

Tanner, Thomas and Leo Horn-Phathanothai. 2014. Climate Change and Development.
Routledge.

Wackernagel, Mathis et al. 1999. ‘National Natural Capital Accounting with the Ecological
Footprint Concept.’ Ecological Economics 29(3):375–90.

Wilkinson, Angela and Diana Mangalagiu. 2012. ‘Learning with Futures to Realise Progress
towards Sustainability: The WBCSD Vision 2050 Initiative.’ Futures 44(4):372–84.

World Bank, 2005. ‘World Resources 2005 : The Wealth of the Poor Managing Ecosystem to
Fight Poverty.’ 1–266.

World Bank, 2010. ‘Development and Climate Change'. Washington, DC: 44.

Xu, Meimei et al. 2014. ‘Spatiotemporal Analysis of Particulate Air Pollution and Ischemic
Heart Disease Mortality in Beijing, China.’ Environmental Health 13(1):109.

Yang, Shanlin, Yu Bai, Sufeng Wang, and Nanping Feng. 2013. ‘Evaluating the Transformation
of China’s Industrial Development Mode during 2000–2009.’ Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 20:585–94.

Zhang, Junjie, H. Abbas, and P. Shishkin. 2012. ‘Delivering Environmentally Sustainable

Economic Growth: The Case of China.’ Asia Society Policy … (September).

36