Introduction

Growth rates in energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in developing countries, particularly the People's Republic of China, have increased rapidly in recent years. Emissions from the original signatories to the Kyoto Protocol (known as “Annex B countries”)— essentially the developed world and economies in transition—will almost certainly be surpassed by emissions from non-Annex B countries before 2010. Previous analyses projected that this crossing point would occur in 2020 or later (Weyant et al. 1999). The main source of unexpected emissions growth is China. According to the historical record provided by Marland et al. (2008), since 2000 the average annual growth rate in China's emissions has exceeded 10 percent, compared to 2.8 percent in the 1990s. Globally, the average growth rate since 2000 has been 3.3 percent, compared to 1.1 percent in the 1990s.

Raupach et al. (2007) decompose emissions growth in several regions into the factors of the Kaya identity: population, per capita income, energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP), and carbon intensity of energy. In China, the first and last factors have been stable: population growth is slow and carbon intensity has remained consistently high due to heavy reliance on coal. Emissions growth has been driven by a combination of rapid economic development and the reversal of the past trend of declining energy intensity. Between 1980 and 2000, energy intensity in China had been falling faster than in any other major economy. This decline has been attributed to efficiency improvements at the firm level as market reforms privatized formerly state-operated enterprises (Fisher-Vanden et al. 2004).

Multiple changes are occurring simultaneously around the globe at an increasing pace. Energy and resource scarcities have emerged or intensified. Different trade regimes have evolved. New communication and information technologies have exploded into daily life. New human health issues have appeared, and old health issues have, in some cases, been exacerbated. Changes in global climate and associated patterns of extreme weather events must be added to this list, especially for the global poor whose very livelihoods depend directly in many instances on the use of specific natural resources.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), concluded that a portfolio of mitigation and adaptation will prove to be the best option for dealing with climate change; see IPCC (2007b, 2007c). In this Challenge paper, we provide some additional evidence in support of such a multi-faceted approach – a combination of mitigation, investment in research and development (R&D) on less-carbon-intensive technologies, and adaptation is found to be superior to adopting any single option at the expense of all others. In addition, it will become clear that ignoring climate change would mean that efforts which have been designed to ameliorate many of the other challenges contemplated in the Copenhagen Consensus exercise will ultimately be “swimming upstream” – i.e. expending effort unnecessarily simply to stay in place.