CDM means that rich countries pay for emissions credits from individual projects in developing countries, where something is done to reduce emissions below what they are deemed to have been otherwise. Note the counterfactual, it’s impossible to determine what the actual reductions are (or in fact whether there are any) because we cannot know what would have been without a project. It’s a pretty patchy mechanism, but really the only thing there is right now to tap those low cost greenhouse gase abatement options in the developing world. It does result in financial flows to developing countries, estimated in the tens of billions until 2012, which is its attraction. A share of it goes to ASEAN countries – not a large share though, the big destinations are China, then India, and Brazil.

Much more comprehensive mechanisms are needed though. And to make them work, the basic principle needs to apply: rich countries need to put the cash on the table.

Against this background, one wonders to what extent it is really correct that ASEAN members have a strong interest in the outcome of Australia’s great carbon debate. After all, they don’t seem to be taking much interest. Are they missing something – or, which is perhaps also possible, are we?

On the face of it, the interests and priorities of rich countries (like Australia) and poor developing countries (much of ASEAN) are sharply different. Developing countries in ASEAN are strongly focused on the need to tackle issues of mass poverty. They aim to promote domestic peace (mainly in the form of internal security and stability) and prosperity (in the form of strong growth, including rapid expansion of domestic energy supplies and consumption). Rich countries are little uneasy with the domestic emphasis on stability in ASEAN (human rights issues can be a problem) but are keen to discuss regional military issues. And rich countries are also uncomfortable with the idea of unlimited economic growth which promises to generate lots of carbon emissions across the region.

It’s not obvious that these sharply differing priorities can be easily accommodated. The climate debate in Australia reflects the “blue and green” international environment agenda. But the environmental debate in Asia is focuses on the “brown” agenda – of what to do with local garbage and sanitation, how to provide clean water, and severe degradation of air quality in cities. Boats in the bays off the huge cities of Manila and Jakarta are delayed because their propellors get clogged up with plastic bags. Millions of poor people in Manila dispose of their personal sanitation waste by wrapping the stuff up in newspaper each night and dumping it in nearby parks.

One suggestion which Christopher and David canvass is that the sharply differing interests of rich and poor countries can somehow be reconciled by market-based arrangements that involve international emissions tradeoffs. Hopefully something along these lines can be worked out one day. However for many reasons, the chances of setting up effective mechanisms in the foreseeable future seem slim. The devil is in the detail with schemes of this kind. Christopher and David invite ASEAN countries to join in the Australian debate. But one wonders why should they? Australia is not offering much at present. For the time being, it seems much easier for ASEAN countries to sign large soft-loan agreements with China to develop their domestic coal-fired power sectors.