emission-conscious states in the world as well as the role of MNC’s in inhibiting
states from pursuing carbon-conscious policies.
Next, the position within the global economy translates to the capabilities
with which a state can respond to the effects of climate change. For example,
New Zealand -in the global North- would be better equipped to deal with rising
sea levels than Sri Lanka -in the global South- due to the differences in their
economic strength. This results in discrepancies in the prioritisation of
addressing climate change as a country in the global South would not be able to
recover as easily from the effects of climate change as a nation from the global North 19 . The result of this discrepancy in prioritisation is that some states will
not have the same incentives as other states to agree on cutting carbon
emissions, leading to stalemates in interstate negotiations.
Finally, the extent to which a state is vulnerable to the effects of climate
change will also affect its perception of whether it should prioritise and invest in
countering it. For some nations in the global South like Kiribati, climate change is an existential threat 20 . This is in comparison to a country in the global North
like Canada, where the physical effects of climate change will not be as dramatic.
States in the global South are also more likely to be more dramatically affected
by climate change. This difference in the perception of the dangers of climate
change also affect states’ responses to attempts to foster international
agreements on climate change.
It is not only the divide between the global North and South that has
historically inhibited international agreements on the reduction of carbon emissions, there has also been a historic intra-North conflict 21 . This debate was
19 Paterson, p.172. 20 Paterson, p.85. 21 Paterson, p.73.
10
Made with FlippingBook HTML5