Special Topic1

THE CANADIAN AND GLOBAL APPROACH TO MITIGATE AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE – IS IT WORKING?

By: John Hibberd      May 12, 2019

1.            INTRODUCTION

The scope of this article will review and question the Canadian and Global approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The main issues and challenges with climate change will be summarized from both a Canadian and a Global perspective. A concept proposal for a more fair approach to address the economic and political issues, as well as, other related issues, including environmental pollution (i.e. air, water, soil, and noise) and habitat encroachment/destruction will be discussed.

2.            BACKGROUND CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE

Climate Change is a hot topic these days in Canada, no pun intended. We have seen the Carbon Tax implemented on a Provincial and where applicable, on a Federal basis in many provinces, with many challenging the implementation of this tax.  Many people in the Government and the Public are clearly very passionate about their positions on climate change and protecting the environment. However, from some of the discussions and papers, the issues have been so politicised to the point that one side of the argument wants to muzzle the other and dictate what happens – like a totalitarian regime. A new approach is required that is more sustainable, integrated, and pragmatic than with the current Made in Canada approaches, that are apparently based on the non-legally binding Paris Accord (adopted in Dec 1997 and entered into force in Nov 2016)[1] and the legally binding Kyoto Protocol (adopted in Dec 2015 and entered into force in Feb 2005)[2] prior to that. Please note that Canada correctly gave notice to leave the Kyoto Protocol back in 2012,[3]  after completing the first compliance period from 2008 to 2012, because it was determined that there was going to be a very high economic cost to implement. More specifically, several sources estimated up to a 3% Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) economic sacrifice. Based on these estimates, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have likely resulted in zero to negative growth for the Canadian economy for the foreseeable future.[4]  

For many Canadians, the fear is that the current Made in Canada climate change policies and apparent sacrifices to implement are having a similar negative impact on the Canadian economy to that estimated by the Kyoto Protocol. This is because other competitor countries, especially developing countries, are not even close to doing the same under the current Paris Accord framework, actually, they are given a bye because the implementation and the setting of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) is voluntary.[5]  In other words, countries can choose to set very low NDC targets or to even do nothing, with no repercussions, while Canada is pushing ahead with its policies towards economic stagnation, shrinkage, and lost opportunities. Therefore, a new approach needs to be developed that is economically viable, flexible to change, and less draconian so that it gets a greater buy-in by the general public, as well as, from the public and private sectors. The bottom line is that people are not going to support something that is perceived to have a negative effect on their quality of life, and more importantly, their livelihood. The justification for a given approach needs to address not only the benefits on a global basis but also more importantly on a national, provincial, local, and individual basis. Also, most people do not properly understand the science behind what is going on in the climate change debate and are blindly jumping on one bandwagon of absolute opinion or the other, based on their political affiliations and if they will be economically impacted – how can there ever be any agreement with this sort of absolutism.

As previously stated, we must consider another more sustainable, integrated, and pragmatic approach that is both flexible and fair. Let us get away from calling for higher taxes and government debt based financing to finance climate change mitigation and adaption initiatives. Also, trickledown economics and/or throwing more money at dysfunctional, uncompetitive, and damaging initiatives (i.e. rebate programs, subsidies for non-core competency sectors, etc.) are not going to solve climate change, especially when Canada accounts for less than 2% of the Global GHG emissions.[6]  Figure 1 shows the relative percentage of Carbone Dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions by country for 2005 and 2014.[7]  The data shows that other much larger GHG emitters than Canada in the developing world, like China (at 26%+) and India (at 7%+), are clearly not doing enough, while they continue to increase their emissions year over year. As previously stated, the Kyoto Protocol and now the Paris Accord are giving developing countries a bye, that are collectively having the most significant impact on Mother Earth, at up to 70% of GHG emissions, when compared to other anthropogenic sources.

Figure 2 shows that the net 20% increase in Global GHG emissions from 2005 to 2014 is primarily due to increases in developing countries, and more specifically due to huge emission increases in China and India.[8]  Therefore, to initiate real effective reductions of GHG emissions on a Global Scale, then all countries, developed and developing, must be onside and working cooperatively together. This is especially important if developed countries, like Canada, want to avoid seeing more companies relocating to developing countries with their less restrictive environmental and development policies. Also, giving money to grow a predatory developing country’s economy, like China’s, at the expense of Canada’s economy, is clearly wrong and self-defeating.

Developed countries like Canada trade with many developing countries and should be applying incentives and/or restrictions in the trading relationship to promote real change. Incentives can be in the form of preferred bilateral trading partnerships for selected commodities, as well as, technology sharing and investment. Restrictions can take the form of lower trade and with it lower investment and gradually increasing restrictions on the bilateral economic and political relationship, until a commitment to real change is realized. Please note, hard line degenerative restrictions in the form of tariffs and embargos have historically not worked and have in many cases resulted in unnecessary hardship and conflict. Restrictions, if applied, must take into account humanitarian impact so as not to cause a humanitarian crisis, which would be morally wrong, regardless of what the politics are.  Also, application of restrictions must not cut off high level dialogue between countries because there is always a better chance of solving issues by people talking with each other than not. Bully tactics by developed countries will not get developing countries onside with Climate Change mitigation and adaption. 

3.            ROOT CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE  

Climate change is firmly supported by empirical data and evidence from numerous pier reviewed scientific sources. The results of environmental models that predict the impacts of climate change as a function of greenhouse gas accumulation, as well as, other natural and human based (anthropogenic) activities go from life being a little challenged to massive extinctions of large numbers of species – possibly even including mankind. Some scientists have described the destructive path that mankind is currently on as being analogous to human activities causing a bucket of life sustaining water to start tipping, that will eventually reach the point of no return and tip. When the bucket of water eventually tips, all the contents will spill out, except for a few drops that may hang on so that when nature rights the bucket, the few drops can help start a whole new cycle of life, while the bucket is again refilled with life sustaining water. It may be hard for many people in developed countries, living in their comfortable high tech urban dwellings, with plenty of food, water, and luxuries, to even consider we are on the brink of some planetary scale environmental disaster. At first glance, this is just too alarmist since nature has always found a way to counteract, absorb, change, and/or fix extreme environmental conditions, so that life can survive. However, if we open our minds to what the empirical data is telling us and try to be unbiased, then we have to admit that human activity is causing changes, as evidenced by the destruction and the deterioration in regions of our planet on an unprecedented scale that appears to be not sustainable. I stress regions of our planet since I am primarily referring to developing areas and more specifically, developing countries. We in the developed areas of the world have already been though our respective agricultural and industrial revolution periods and are now embarking into the technology (or for some the biotechnology) era. I understand that developing countries want the right to freely and independently develop as the developed countries so enjoyed in the past. These developing countries want help and investment from developed countries but definitely do not want to be told what to do, unless there is a benefit for them – and I stress ‘a benefit for them.’ We have seen developing countries, such as China and India bring a majority of their population out of poverty and subsistence living with an eye on joining and maybe even surpassing the developed countries. Many other developing countries are experiencing the same good fortunes with an eagerness to gain their rightful share of the world economic pie to increase their prosperity. Global population is currently approaching 8 billion people with developing and underdeveloped countries accounting for more than 6.5 billion people. Remember that the population in 1950 was 2 billion and development was less rapid on a per capita basis when compared to today that is assisted by a much larger world population and advancements in technology. This goal of developing countries to grow economically and to prosper is understandable but there is a big problem here regarding how this is done to minimize damage to Mother Earth. This need to minimize the damage to Mother Earth, with current policies requiring developed countries to carry the burden for making improvements before it is too late, is the basis of the current Climate Change debate.

The problem is that current development in most developing countries is on a scale that is orders of magnitude greater than what has occurred in the past for developed countries. Depending on where we care to look around the world, this unprecedented development is causing varying levels of ecological impacts with both short term and long term effects that are only just starting to be qualified and quantified, in an effort to better understand what is happening. As many scientific sources have pointed out, the major contributing factors are:

  1. Rapid Industrialization;
  2. Land Development and Land Conversion;
  3. Rapid Population Growth;
  4. Resource Exploitation to meet Consumption Demands; 
  5. Habitat Encroachment by Human Development;
  6. Environmental Pollution;
  7. Climate Change; and
  8. The Philosophy of Continual Economic Growth based on Financial Criteria (perpetual Supply/Demand relationship growth).

4.            OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO FAIRNESS OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

Another issue is that many view climate change policies as unfairly benefiting developing countries at the expense of developed countries, making the developed countries less competitive economically. More specifically, many in developed countries believe that current climate change policies threatens the long term economic and political stability, along with quality of life, in their respective countries.

We all live in a world that seems to be changing at an ever increasing rate. When we look at past historical trends, we are seeing standards of living generally improving for an ever greater share of our human population. We in the developed world can understand why many developing and underdeveloped countries aspire to get their share of the benefits that the developed countries currently enjoy. Many developed countries and more specifically the corporations in those developed countries have benefited by exploiting opportunities in the developing and the underdeveloped countries, many of which were former colonies or mandates of their respective parent developed countries (i.e. USA, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.). It is interesting that these same corporations from the developed countries are now being challenged by new competing (nationalized and independent) corporations arising in the developing countries, such as, from China and India. This trend is causing a redistribution of wealth in the world, and with it, political and economic power, such as, with the rising relative influence of China and India when compared with the USA and the major European countries. Developed countries now are facing more competition for generating wealth from resources, manufactured goods, agricultural goods, services, and other wealth generating areas. For example, from 1945 to 2018, the USA GDP as a percentage of the world gross domestic product has decreased from a high of 35% to approximately 20%[9] [10]  (depending on the reference source and not taking into account Purchasing Power Parity, PPP), respectively. Some historians have concluded that the position of the USA as the hegemon of the world will be challenged by rising nations such as China and India but this is a whole other topic for another article.[11]

Economic stability helps to provide political stability and vice versa – one supports and provides stability for the other. This stability linkage helps to provide prosperity for the people and helps to fight poverty. Therefore, to achieve relative prosperity, a country and/or group of countries must have economic and political stability that must work to compliment and strengthen each other. Over the last decade, many developed countries have suffered from unsustainable political and economic policies that are undermining the long term economic health in those respective countries and benefiting countries that have political policies, sometimes predatory, that are in-line with promoting long term economic growth, such as in China and many other stable developing countries. The main indicator for these unsustainable policies is the ever increasing debt relative to National Annual GDP for most developed countries, so their respective governments can maintain a country’s quality of life and can continue to buy votes with borrowed money to stay in power.

We are also seeing predatory encroachment by newly moneyed long term thinking developing countries, such as China, buying an ever increasing share of wealth generating resources, corporations and know-how in short term economic gain thinking developed countries, like Canada. In Canada, that is suffering from aggressive foreign competition, as well as, harmful government policies that are making the financially stressed Mining, Oil & Gas, and manufacturing sectors uncompetitive, have resulted in a general sell off of assets to the same foreign entities for short term financial gain to shareholders and owners. As a result, from a national perspective, an increasing number of Canadian skilled workers in those sectors are being made redundant, along with no more tax generation from their labours, until they are able to find another job that may likely be in a different and lower paying economic sector. From a global perspective, a major portion of the jobs have just been transferred from Canada to the foreign entity, along with a good portion of the revenue from the revenue generating assets.  Learned people will argue that this is over simplified and inaccurate but the trend is quite clear – lost high paying skilled jobs and lost revenue from revenue generating assets. Of course, we regularly hear the Canadian Federal government proclaim that job growth is good and unemployment is at record lows. Maybe we should ask:

  1. How many of the lost full time skilled jobs have been replaced with low paying unskilled full-time and part-time jobs?
  2. How many long term skilled unemployed people have given up looking for a job and are no longer counted towards unemployed numbers?
  3. What proportion of our annual GDP growth is from activities that are not actually expanding the economy, such as, from the net revenue generated from the sale of existing housing (not newly built units)?
  4. Why are most of Canada’s core competency resource based primary and secondary industries (mining, manufacturing, oil and gas) shrinking?
  5. What proportion of Canada’s economy and productive GDP is from our shrinking resource based primary industries compared with other sectors, such as, green industries?

Canada’s core competency is internationally recognized as primarily a premier high quality resource supplier to the world. Canada is recognized as second to none for its know-how related to resource management and supply. Canada is a rich country with a high standard of living because of its core competency as a resource supplier and is why it qualifies as an important member of the G7 (or Group of 7 largest advanced developed economies). This leads to two questions:

  1. Why do we have Federal Policies that are limiting our relatively clean and well managed resource supply sector, so that dirtier and more destructive sources of supply elsewhere in the world are allowed to develop and even be financed by developed countries?
  2. Why are Canadian Policies being allowed to destroy the resource supply core competency when we could be generating wealth from it to fund new green ideas and initiatives, rather than placing an ever growing tax burden on the general public?

The above questions indicate that the well intentioned people that are making these restrictive climate change policies cannot see the forest for the trees. I would rather see:

  1. The development and conversion of land use via sustainable forestry and agriculture in Canada than funding unsustainable land rape and pillage of forests and other lands in Brazil and Indonesia;
  2. The development of cleaner and more equitable resource development, such as, Oil and Gas extraction and supply from Canada, than dirty and in many cases blood oil and gas development in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia;
  3. The reduction of GHG emissions from China, so it is no longer the fastest growing and largest GHG emitter on the planet, via assistance from Canada and other developed countries sharing with them cleaner technology know-how on condition that they expand their economy in a more sustainable manner, that does not exceed the assimilative capacity of their surrounding environment. This can also be applied to other developing countries; and
  4. The requirement for high population density areas of the world, like China and India, to meet local assimilative capacity requirements, that will generally be more restrictive for development than areas with lower population density and higher relative assimilative capacities, as in Canada.

Looking at pollution (not just GHG emissions), along with assimilative capacity, is important so that pollution from one country does not impact other countries. The bottom line is that environmental pollution in one area of the world, especially air and water pollution, can affect other areas of the world. Solution by dilution is definitely not the answer since many pollutants are cumulative in our air, water, and soils. It is disappointing that current Made in Canada approaches to climate change do not fairly apply policies that give credit for the relatively cleaner and more sustainable supply sources, so that there is a fairer economic playing field between Canada and its trading partners. An alternative approach that is more fair and equitable will be provided later in this article.

Regarding the climate policies, the Kyoto Protocol wanted developed countries, like Canada, to be legally bound to fund the reduction of GHG emissions and required no legally binding commitment from developing countries. Collectively, the developing countries account for the largest and fastest growing source of GHG emissions, led by China and India. GHG emissions in developed countries are on a path to actually stabilizing but much of this may be due to a decrease in primary and secondary industry activity and conversion to alternative lower GHG emitting energy sources. The Paris Accord makes all countries perform climate mitigation and adaption on a non-legally binding basis. It is expected that many countries, especially developed, will participate with honesty and integrity but many, mostly developing, may not, depending on their individual social-political-economic challenges. The Paris Accord is definitely better for Canada than the Kyoto Protocol – however, going from one faulty engine of hope to another is not realistic and will not work in a fair and equitable manner.    

5.            ALTERNATIVE APPROACH PROPOSAL

The current Canadian framework to address climate change is generally punitive to Canadian primary and secondary industries because Canada is really financing the expansion of industry in other predatory developing countries at the expense of industry in Canada. Therefore, this alternative approach to address climate change attempts to more fairly apply policies that give credit for relatively cleaner and more sustainable supply sources so that there is a fairer economic playing field between Canada and its trading partners. We previously mentioned assimilative capacity determination for an airshed zone boundary as a means to define ultimate allowable development within the zone boundary. Pollutant Credit Trading for selected pollutants such as Carbon dioxide, Sulphur, and NOx can also be used so that one company that has pollutant loading credits (because pollutant concentrations and loading emissions are well below their allowed emission limits) can sell to another to help bring them into local emission compliance. From a macro perspective, the assimilative capacities can be estimated for respective predefined airshed zones based on ability of each zone to assimilate, sequester, or otherwise reduce pollutants to defined concentration limits within the respective zone boundary. This approach can be used to define development and production limits within the zone, based on the technologies applied. The concentrations of pollutants within a zone boundary will have to be handled by local authorities to meet local health and safety criteria and is beyond the scope of this article. The required data collection for this approach is as follows:

  1. Define boundary for each individual airshed zone for all zones across the globe;
  2. Estimate fauna and water coverage within each air zone boundary;
  3. Determine prevailing air currents and constricted topography (mountains, etc.);
  4. Collect background air and water quality within each airshed zone boundary;
  5. Collect rural and urban population data, fossil fueled energy data (i.e. vehicles, residential heating, etc.), and identify density profile within air shed boundary. Calculate total emission for selected pollutants from population;
  6. Collect industrial/energy production, fuel usage, technologies applied, and estimate emission per unit production for each type of production/energy supply sector. Calculate total emission for selected pollutants from industrial activities;
  7. Collect agricultural related fuel usage and other sources of emissions (i.e. animals, land clearing, etc.) and estimate emissions per unit hectare. Calculate total emission for selected pollutants from agricultural activities;
  8. Calculate macro loadings and concentrations within airshed zone boundary for selected pollutants from data in items 5, 6, and 7;
  9. Estimate assimilative capacity from data in items 1 to 4 to establish assimilative capacity limits for selected zone areas; and
  10. Check if total loadings and concentrations in item 8 exceed assimilative capacity limits in item 9. If exceeds, develop and apply mitigation options to bring loadings and concentrations within assimilative capacity limits, within a certain time frame.

Industries and populations within an airshed zone that do not meet limits within a certain time frame will have ever increasing restrictions applied when trading with areas outside of their airshed zone and/or with other countries. These restrictions will force them to take action. The onus will be on local countries to address their development within each airshed zone or be restricted when trading with outside countries. Countries like China and India will be opposed to this since we already know that many of their respective developing areas are environmentally stressed and new proposed development is predominantly going to be done in other stressed areas and will not be considered sustainable. This is why I do not understand why Canada is restricting itself by buying cheap products from predatory countries with relatively stressed environments and ever growing emissions, rather than buying from more expensive environmentally friendly developed countries with relatively low stressed environments. More specifically, the cheap products from most areas of the developing world have hidden and escalating environmental impact costs that will continue to proliferate under the current global policies. These hidden costs, if quantified, would likely increase the real cost of the cheap products from most developing countries, like China, to be closer if not more than the real cost of products from the more environmentally friendly developed countries, like the USA and Canada. Developing countries must show verifiable climate change mitigation and adaption policies to earn the right to get help from and enhance their relationship with developed countries, like Canada, to meet the challenges of climate change.

This alternative approach, as outlined, is only one of many possible approaches that may help enhance the Paris Accord and the Made in Canada Climate Change Policies to have a better chance to meet the challenges of climate change mitigation and adaption, by developing fairer global and national climate change policies.  If there is full participation by all countries to meet verifiable targets in an honest and transparent manner, through agreed to LEGAL NDC targets and limits, then maybe the Paris Accord’s short term 20/20/20 targets can be achieved. Unfortunately, under the Paris Accord’s current voluntary and non-legally binding framework, it is unlikely that the 20/20/20 targets will be met, which also implies that the longer term climate change mitigation and adaption requirements will also not be met. In the end, constructive, fair, and legally binding changes will need to be made to the Paris Accord and to the Made in Canada Climate Change Policies that may help to avoid future conflicts due to trans-boundary pollution and climate impacts.

6.            CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the Climate Change debate remains a hot topic in Canada and on the global stage. Climate change and its potential impact are firmly supported by empirical data and evidence from numerous pier reviewed scientific sources. Unfortunately, the current Canadian framework to address climate change is not effective because Canada is really financing the expansion of industry in other predatory developing countries at the expense of industry in Canada. The current Paris Accord and earlier Kyoto Protocol that Canada left, still give developing countries that continue to increase their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions year over year a bye, at the expense of committed developed countries. This is a problem since developing countries, such as China and India, are collectively having the most significant impact on Mother Earth, accounting for up to 70% of the annual total GHG emissions. On the other hand, developed countries are collectively seeing a decrease in the net annual GHG emissions and emissions will eventually stabilize, even though the emissions from some individual developed countries, like Canada, are still increasing at a small overall rate. Unfortunately, the overall net 20% increase in Global GHG emissions from 2005 to 2014 is primarily due to emission increases in developing countries, and more specifically due to huge emission increases in China and India. This means that developing countries are quickly catching up to the total cumulative GHG emissions from past activities in the developed world and therefore, developing countries pose the greatest risk to not being able to meet climate change mitigation and adaption goals of the Paris Accord.  

Developed countries like Canada trade with many developing countries and should be applying incentives and/or restrictions in the trading relationship to promote real change to reducing GHG emissions. Incentives can be in the form of preferred bilateral trading partnerships for selected commodities, as well as, technology sharing and investment. Restrictions can take the form of lower trade and with it lower investment and gradually increasing restrictions on the bilateral economic and political relationship, until a commitment to real change is realized.

The major problem that is causing climate change is that current development in most developing countries is on a scale that is orders of magnitude greater than what has occurred in the past for developed countries. Depending on where we care to look around the world, this unprecedented development is causing varying levels of ecological impacts with both short term and long term effects.

Another issue is that many view climate change policies as unfairly benefiting developing countries at the expense of developed countries, making the developed countries, like Canada, less competitive economically. More specifically, many in developed countries believe that current climate change policies threatens the long term economic and political stability, along with quality of life, in their respective countries.

The current Canadian framework to address climate change is generally punitive to Canadian primary and secondary industries because Canada is really financing the expansion of industry in other predatory developing countries at the expense of industry in Canada. Therefore, an alternative approach to address climate change attempts to more fairly apply policies that give credit for relatively cleaner and more sustainable supply sources so that there is a fairer economic playing field between Canada and its trading partners.

The alternative approach requires assimilative capacity determination for an airshed zone boundary as a means to define ultimate allowable development within the zone boundary area. Pollutant Credit Trading for selected pollutants such as Carbon dioxide, Sulphur, and NOx can also be used so that one company that has pollutant loading credits (because pollutant concentrations and loading emissions are well below their allowed emission limits) can sell to another to help bring them into local emission compliance. Industries and populations within an airshed zone that do not meet legally binding limits within a certain time frame will have ever increasing restrictions applied when trading with areas outside of their airshed zone and/or with other countries. These restrictions will force all affected parties and governments to take action. Developing countries must show verifiable climate change mitigation and adaption policies to earn the right to get help from and enhance their relationship with developed countries, like Canada, to meet the challenges of climate change.

Finally, the Canadian and the Global approach to climate change are not working. Constructive, fair, and legally binding changes will need to be made to the Paris Accord and to the Made in Canada Climate Change Policies to make them work to address climate change. Good working Policies may help to avoid future conflicts due to trans-boundary pollution and climate impacts. More specifically, as stated by the Paris Agreement, any changes to Policies must consider equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, and the different national circumstances of each country that is considering making a legally binding commitment to address climate change.[12]

References:

  1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What is the Paris Agreement? https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement, Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  2. UNFCCC. What is the Kyoto Protocol? https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol, Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  3. CBC News. Canada Pulls out of the Kyoto Protocol – Dec 12, 20011. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-kyoto-protocol-1.999072, Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  4. Grady, Patrick. The Challenges of Complying with the Kyoto Protocol. http://global-economics.ca/kyoto.htm, (Global Economics, Jan 20, 2003), Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  5. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement, COP21. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf, (COP21 in Paris, France, Dec 12, 2015), Article 4, Paragraph 2, Retrieved May 12, 2019
  6. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2019). Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (Canada, April 2019). https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html, Table A.1, Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  7. Ibid, Table A.1.
  8. Ibid, Table A.1.
  9. Madison, Angus. Contours of World Economy 1 – 2030 AD. (UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 379 Table A4
  10. Ibid, p. 379 Table A4
  11. Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. (USA: Random House, 1988), Chapter 8.
  12. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement, COP21. Article 4, Paragraph 2, Retrieved May 12, 2019