Global IssuesAuthor and Page information
- This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity.
- To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:
A growing concern from developing countries and various NGOs is the need for public participation and the effect on populations and poor countries that global warming negotiations have, given that the effects on poor people and poorer countries are much more. In some cases, climate changes have already affected some small island nations.
Climate justice, equity and sustainable development are all important parts of this debate that are often left out of mainstream discourse. Equal rights to the atmosphere for all human beings and equity within and between nations are paramount. This implies for example, that reduction percentages and emissions allowances etc. should be based on on a per capita basis; a view held by many developing countries and the European Union—but a view that the United States disagrees with.
This web page has the following sub-sections:
What about the Developing Countries?
Global warming is primarily a result of the industrialisation and motorisation levels in the OECD countries, on whom the main onus for mitigation presently lies.
— World Bank, Transport Economics and Sector Policy briefing, quoted from Collision Course; Free trade’s free ride on the global climate, New Economics Foundation, 2000.
It has long been accepted that those industrialized nations that have been industrializing since the Industrial Revolution bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades.
With a bit of historical context then, claims of equity and fairness take on a different meaning than simply suggesting all countries should be reducing emissions by the same amount. But some industrialized nations appear to reject or ignore this premise.
Common goal but different responsibilities
During various stages of climate negotiations, the US complained about the apparent unfairness in the Kyoto Protocol, which doesn’t commit developing nations to the same levels of reductions in global warming pollutants.
However, what Washington has not mention is that the developing nations are NOT the ones who have caused the pollution for the past 150 or so years and that it would be unfair to ask them to cut back at for the mistakes of the currently industrialized nations.
When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated and then signed and ratified in 1992 by most of the world’s countries (including the United States and other nations who would later back out of the subsequent Kyoto protocol), the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. In short, this principle recognized that
- The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
- Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
- The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (Text is original, but minor edit made to reformat as a list)
That is,
- Today’s rich nations are responsible for global warming;
- It is unfair to expect the third world to make emissions reductions in the same way.
In addition, developing countries will also be tackling climate change in other ways. These three are discussed further:
Today’s Rich nations are responsible for global warming
Today’s rich nations are the ones responsible for global warming as greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and rich countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the poor countries.
As the World Resources Institute (WRI) highlighted in a report (2003) industrlialized countries are the biggest polluters:
- In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively.
- Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides.
- The environmental consequences of the policies of industrialized nations have had a large, detrimental and costly effect on developing countries — especially the poor in those countries, that are already burdened with debt and poverty.
As the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) notes:
Industrialised countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the industrialised countries’ emissions are still present in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs.
— Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002
It is unfair to expect the third world to make emissions reductions to the same level as rich nations
It is therefore unfair to expect the third world to make emissions reductions, especially considering that their development and consumption is for basic needs, while for the rich, it has moved on to luxury consumption and associated life styles.
According to a Christian Aid report (September 1999), industrialized nations should be owing over 600 billion dollars to the developing nations for the associated costs of climate changes. This is three times as much as the conventional debt that developing countries owe the developed ones.
As the above-mentioned WRI report also adds: “Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.”
As the above-mentioned CSE also adds:
Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still significantly lower than that of industrialised countries. The difference in emissions between industrialised and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equalled that of 19 Indians.
— Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002
CSE is also worth quoting here at length from an article in mid-December 2007:
Responsibility needs rights.
The tragedy of the atmospheric common has been the lack of rights to this global ecological space. As a result, countries have borrowed or drawn heavily and without control. They have emitted greenhouse gases far in excess of what the Earth can withstand. This was because they could emit without limits or quotas and were “free riding” on this natural capital. Some researchers have called this the “natural debt” of the North, as against the financial debt of the South.
This is the science and the politics of CO2. One tonne of CO2 emitted in 1850 is the same as a tonne emitted today. The greenhouse gases … have long lifetime in the atmosphere; these gases are still warming the atmosphere, at any given year. The ‘sinks’—forests, oceans and soils—are the only cleaners of this dirt. The net emissions add up to the space that a nation has appropriated in the global atmospheric common and therefore its responsibility for the climate change.
Calculated in terms of the total emissions of each country, since the early 1900s, we find that every living American carries a natural debt burden of more than 1,050 tonnes of C02 (see graph: Cumulative CO2 emissions). In comparison, every living Chinese has a natural debt of 68 tonnes and every living Indian, a mere 25 tonnes. Therefore, even with all the talks of India and China catching up with rich world in terms of total emissions, the fact is in terms of natural debt it will take many more decades before this happens.
This principle was accepted by the climate convention, which agreed that the rich world had to reduce its emissions to make space for the poor to grow. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol set the first, hesitant and weak, target for reduction by the rich countries. But this agreement has been more of less reneged on. The per capita emission of CO2 from fuel combustion in the US is still roughly 20 tonnes per year; between 6 tonnes and 12 tonnes for most European countries. This is not comparable to the per capita emissions of China, roughly 4 tonnes and 1.1 tonnes in India.
— What equals effective, Down To Earth Magazine, CSE, December 15, 2007
The above article also notes the disparities within nations, including countries such as India, where the wealthy do consume far more than the rich, and that needs addressing too.
(The slight difference in emissions capita quoted by the sources above are due to the differences in the date of the data and the changes that had taken place between.)
Furthermore, many emissions in countries such as India and China are from rich country corporations out-sourcing production to these countries. Products are then exported or sold to the rich. Yet, currently, the “blame” for such emissions are put on the producer not the consumer. It is not a clear-cut issue though, as some producers create products and try to market them to consumers to buy, while other times, there is a market/consumer demand for certain products. Companies who can try to avoid more regulation and higher wages in richer countries may attempt to off-shore such production. As discussed on this site’s consumption section, some 80% of the world’s resources are consumed by the wealthiest 20% of the world (the rich countries). This portion has been higher in the past, suggesting that those countries should therefore bear the brunt of the targets. This issue is discussed in more detail in various part of this site’s trade and economic issues section.
Developing countries will also be tackling climate change in other ways
Under the Convention, the rich were to help provide means for the developing world to transition to cleaner technologies while developing:
The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
Furthermore, many developing nations are already providing voluntary cuts and as they become larger polluters, they too will be subject to reduction mechanisms.
New Scientist reports that Brazil, China, India and Mexico and other such fast developing countries have slowed their rising greenhouse gas emissions by more than the total cuts demanded of rich nations by the Kyoto Protocol yet this is rarely reported by the mainstream when Bush and others point to China and India concerns.
Policies primarily intended to curb the air pollution from factories and cars or to save energy have had the side-effect of fighting global warming. Note, however, the emissions are still rising, but at a much slower rate.
At the end of 2005, Reuters reports that “a Chinese state-owned energy firm plans to invest at least $2.48 billion over the next five years in biomass, garbage treatment and other alternative energy projects.” This company, China Energy Conservation Investment Corp., announced this in response to a new law in China promoting renewable energy, which sets tariffs in favor of non-fossil energy such as wind, water and solar power and is due to take effect in January.
China has a goal of getting 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, though the same report admits that China still largely depends on coal for its electricity (some 70%) and will continue to do so.
Compare that, however, to say the an industrialized country that feels it is taking a lead in climate change affairs: United Kingdom’s goal is for 10% of all its electricity to be from renewable sources.
Side Note
US News & World Report adds that China’s renewable energy market is expected to grow to $100 billion over the next 15 years.
A 2002 report from the Pew Center for example, highlights how key developing nations have been able to significantly reduce their combined greenhouse gas emissions by some 19 percent, or 300 million tons a year, with possibly another 300 million tons by 2010. Those nations are Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey.
Various efforts reported by Pew included:
- Market and energy reforms to promote economic growth;
- Development of alternative fuels to reduce energy imports;
- Aggressive energy efficiency programs;
- Use of solar and other renewable energy to raise living standards in rural locations;
- Reducing deforestation;
- Slowing population growth; and
- Switching from coal to natural gas to diversify energy sources and reduce air pollution.
This shows that the rich nations can and should be able to do so as well.
An earlier report in 2000 from the WRI also notes that developing countries are already taking action to limit emissions (emphasis original).
In a report, earlier still (1999), WRI also noted that:
- Growth caps for the poor amount to guessing on a country’s future economic performance;
- Modeling developing country climate change commitments after industrialized country commitments is not the way to go, and could threaten the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol, given the uncertainty of future emission levels and the international emissions trading provisions in the Protocol.
- For poorer countries, an alternative policy may therefore be appropriate (and WRI goes on to suggest one).
The US is the world’s biggest polluter. It has 4 percent of the world’s population, yet emits some 21 to 25 percent of the world’s Carbon Dioxide (and CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gases.) It would make sense that USA has to make more cuts than a developing nation.
Climate negotiations ignoring social justice and equity
The above, and other principles in the Convention, formed what some described as the social justice and equity part of climate change issues. Unfortunately these have been largely ignored in the discussions which are usually dominated by the rich nations, and oil producing countries, who talk more about economic effectiveness only. In a way, this can be understood, because:
- Rich nations such as the United States, and OPEC countries, are worried about the economic impact of changing the fundamental underpinnings of their economies and their way of life.
- The social justice and equity dimension is a concern primarily for the third world. Without as strong a voice as the rich countries, when it comes to discussion and negotiation, this concern isn’t heard, understood, or seen as important.
Hence, when the US backed out of the Kyoto agreements on emission reductions citing, amongst other things, that China and India for example should also have emissions cuts imposed on them, these “social justice and equity” dimensions were hardly considered, or treated as important enough. But considering the following:
- Meaningful assistance to other countries to transition to cleaner development has been lacking;
- Third world debt and poverty has diverted immense resources from sustainable development;
- Poor countries including China and India had already made reasonable emission cuts;
- Pressure from citizens in rich countries to clean up their environment has often actually led to moving those dirty industries/factories to the third world while still producing for the benefit or profit for the first world. This was eventually noted by the BBC, in December 2005, reporting on “new” research that shows similar fears, despite these concerns being voiced many years ago.
These and many, many other related issues have hardly received detailed coverage either at all, or at least at the same time as the coverage of US reasons for backing out of Kyoto. Hence it is understandable why many US citizens would agree with the Bush Administration’s position on this, for example.
See this site’s section on climate change negotiations and actionsand Trade Related Issues for more on some of these aspects.
Politics and Interests
At the time of the end of the CoP-8 climate change conference, what appears to be a change in principle by the European Union, towards the position of the developing countries has emerged. That is, as Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) comments, “Denmark, currently president of the European Union, announced yesterday [October 31, 2002] that developing countries would not get any money for adapting to climate change until they start discussing reduction commitments.” Not only can this be described as blackmail, as CSE also highlight, but in addition, rich nations themselves have shied away from their commitments, amounting to hypocrisy.
As CSE continued, “Adaptation funds have been on the negotiations agenda for several years now. Industrialized countries, including progressive countries like Denmark, have run away from committing anything concrete, and developing countries have not been able to pin down any liability on them.” (CSE has also been critical of leaders in developing countries who “are equally to blame for encouraging the perception that they can be bought” appearing to respond to money only such, giving an opportunity for some rich nations to exploit that.)
Economics and political agendas always makes it difficult to produce a treaty that all nations can agree to easily. The wealthier and more powerful nations are naturally able to exert more political clout and influence. The US, for example, has pushed for different solutions that will allow it to maintain its dominance. An example of that is trading in emissions, which has seen a number of criticisms.
© Anne Ward Penguin
The way current climate change negotiations have been going unfortunately suggests the developed world will position themselves to use the land of the developing and poor nations to further their own emissions reduction, while leaving few such easy options for the South, as summarized by the following as well:
Investments in “carbon sinks” (such as large-scale tree plantations) in the South would result in land being used at the expense of local people, accelerate deforestation, deplete water resources and increase poverty. Entitling the North to buy cheap emission credits from the South, through projects of an often exploitative nature, constitutes “carbon colonialism”. Industrialised countries and their corporations will harvest the “low-hanging fruit” (the cheapest credits), saddling Southern countries with only expensive options for any future reduction commitments they might be required to make.
— “Saving” the Kyoto Protocol Means Ending the Market Mania, Corporate Europe Observatory, July 2001
More Information
For more information on this, you can start at the following links:
- Equity Watch from Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment.
- Climate Justice section of a scathing report on business interests in climate negotiations from the Corporate Europe Observatory.
- Equity—Bottom line or wishful thinking? from a report from PANOS on the Climate Change Convention.
- This web site’s section on the Kyoto conference that looks more at the issue of developing countries and the US position.
- Climate Justice from CorpWatch heavily criticizes corporate interests and influence in climate negotiations.
- Christian Aid goes as far as criticizing the Kyoto protocol as a fraud because of the unfairness by rich countries. As they point out:
- 4.5 per cent of the world’s population lives in the USA and emits 22 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
- 17 per cent of the world’s population lives in India and emits 4.2 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
- Britain emits 9.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, while Honduras emits 0.7 tonnes per person.
- The world’s poorest countries account for just 0.4 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. 45 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions are produced by the G8 countries alone.
- EcoEquity provides a number of articles and commentary.
Where next?
Related articles
- Climate Change and Global Warming Introduction
- Global Dimming
- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Reactions to Climate Change Negotiations and Action
- Global Warming, Spin and Media
- Climate Justice and Equity
- Climate Change Flexibility Mechanisms
- Carbon Sinks, Forests and Climate Change
- Global Warming and Population
- Energy Security
Share this page with:
Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Reddit
Google
Want to link to this page on your site/blog?
… to produce this:
Anup Shah, Climate Justice and Equity, GlobalIssues.org, Last updated: Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Other options
Find this page/site useful?
Author and Page Information
- Created: Sunday, November 12, 2000
- Last Updated: Tuesday, January 01, 2008