Dilemma of climate action and development 

How a new classification of countries could help break the deadlock in climate negotiations ahead of COP30

When the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, it was agreed only industrialised countries would have to undertake emissions cuts. To this end, Annex I was added to the convention, listing the 37 nations that were considered industrialised.

Since 1992, this list has not been amended. However, the world has since undergone significant changes, and many countries considered developing nations in 1992 now rank among the wealthiest countries in the world.

At COP29 last year in Baku, the distinction between industrialised and developing countries was a major source of tension, as governments from the global south pushed for greater financial support. While most, if not all, observers agree Annex I is outdated, no consensus has emerged on how to revise it and how to adopt a classification that promotes climate justice within the framework of the negotiations.

At the same time, many nations from the global south are concerned that curbing their carbon dioxide emissions could hamper their development. In particular, countries such as India and Senegal worry that phasing out fossil fuels could compromise their ability to meet their growing energy demands. They argue, understandably, that they have a right to development, which imperative emissions reductions should not jeopardise.

A champagne curve

Our study aimed to investigate the extent to which developmental needs influence countries’ decisions to increase their greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this, we have correlated consumption-based CO₂ emissions per capita with each country’s score on the Human Development Index, a benchmark that aggregates data related to GDP, health and education.

We found the relationship between development and CO₂ emissions exhibits a “champagne curve”, similar to how champagne bursts from a freshly opened bottle in a non-linear fashion. In short, emissions surge during the early phases of development, but they plateau or even decline once a country reaches a HDI score of 0.8 (on a scale of 0 to 1).

Past the threshold of 0.8, further development and improved wellbeing of the population no longer translate into an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. For a similar HDI score, countries can exhibit per capita CO₂ emissions ranging from 5 tonnes to 25 tonnes a person.

In contrast, poorer countries with a HDI score below 0.6 have very similar and low emissions. For these nations, achieving a higher level of development implies an increase in emissions. Intermediate countries — those with a HDI score of between 0.6 and 0.8 — face a trade-off between economic growth and sustainability, requiring major investments in green technologies.

A policy game-changer

On this basis, we propose classifying countries in three categories: those with advanced, moderate and limited transformation capacity, depending on whether their HDI score is above 0.8, between 0.6 and 0.8, or below 0.6. These three categories could help revise the distinction established by Annex I and guide more equitable climate action in terms of emissions reductions and financial commitments.

Not all nations can transition equally, and our classification provides a means to move beyond the outdated framework of Annex I.

Furthermore, it offers a way out of the binary framing that opposes development and emissions reductions. We show that, once a certain threshold of development is reached, climate action does not require sacrificing the wellbeing of the population. In fact, it is quite the opposite, featuring better infrastructure and greener technology.

At a time when the climate transition is often associated with the rhetoric of sacrifice and reduced wellbeing, we consider this a particularly important finding.

*

*