Constituting Global Leadership: Which Countries Need to Be Around the Summit Table for Climate Change and Energy Security?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THERE IS GROWING CONSENSUS THAT THE G8 WILL BE REPLACED BY THE G-20 as the key informal body that meets at the leaders' level. Whether it focuses on setting agendas, breaking deadlocks, or being friends of reform, there will continue to be controversy regarding its composition. Why? Because there is no axiomatic or correct way to choose the countries to constitute the summit table for global negotiations. (1) Various criteria provide guidance, such as total population, economic weight and power, leadership in science and technology, cultural reach, the capacity to introduce new ideas, and the desire to lead. Regional weight is a possible factor. Capacity and willingness to burden share are other criteria. Internal national credibility and political will are other measures. Given that battles are first won on the domestic front, can a country arrange its own compliance? Some might argue that agreement is easier with other like-minded countries that have the same values, but legitimacy requires the group to be representational as well as effective. For example, a recent paper (2) examined two variables as a guide to a representational and effective [G-20.sup.3]--GDP and population--listing countries that would have more than 2 percent of either global population or world GDP and arguing that those with the most economic activity and largest populations must be included (Table 1). Table 1 and subsequent tables rank countries by the magnitude of the measure being considered and highlight current membership in the G-20. Table 1 GDP or Population Greater Than 2 Percent of Earth's Total 2008 2020 Bangladesh Bangladesh BRAZIL BRAZIL CANADA CHINA CHINA FRANCE FRANCE GERMANY GERMANY INDIA INDIA INDONESIA INDONESIA ITALY ITALY JAPAN JAPAN Nigeria Nigeria Pakistan Pakistan Russia Russia Spain Spain UNITED KINGDOM UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES UNITED STATES Total: 16 Total: 15 GDP:72% GDP:66% Population:65% Population:63% Source: A Fresh Look Global Governance: Exploring Objective Criteria for Representation. Working Paper, no. 160, 6 February 2009, available at www.cgdv.org/content/publications/detail/ 1421065/. Note: CAPPED country names represent countries in the Group of 20 industrizlized countries. When the representational group consists of countries that are not like-minded, is there any possibility for agreement? If so, which countries need to be around the table? We first assess the potential for agreement among a representational group of countries using results from theories of coalitions, regimes, and consensus. We then review a number of variables that may provide the basis for a country's inclusion in a future G-20 or G-X. The variables selected are indicators or proxies for (1) who caused the climate change/energy security/development problem; (2) who is most affected; and (3) who can do something about it. We conclude with the Chinese concept of comprehensive national power to illustrate one attempt to weight several factors and compute an overall index. Is Meaningful Agreement Possible in a Group of 20? In recent G8 meetings, commitments have been made on issues such as the economic crisis, poverty, climate change, development, Africa, global growth and stability, financial markets, investment, innovation, energy efficiency, energy security, clean energy, corruption, modern education systems, infectious diseases, globalization, and international trade. For a variety of reasons, many of the commitments have not been fulfilled, (4) but it is anticipated that a Leadership of Twenty (L-20) council will be able to break deadlocks on several of these important issues. (5) However, because the challenges of reaching a consensus coalition of agreement will be greater with twenty leaders than with eight, we will consider whether or not a meaningful coalition is possible for the former number. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".