Climate Justice In An Uneven World
Sai Chandan
The climate question continues to evoke significant attention across the world. With increasing signs of climate distress, COP26 was advanced as an avenue to address the issue and to pledge commitments towards climate goals. COP26 is the 26th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. During the Paris Agreement in 2015, it was decided that the countries would enhance their Nationally Determined Contributions every five years – which are to be updated for the first time during COP26. The overarching goal of the conference is to keep the 1.5°C temperature rise as an achievable goal. However, climate activists and scientists have already criticised the governments for overshooting the emissions levels that could have met this temperature goal. And the Global North countries are trying to shift the blame for their incompetence onto the developing countries. Their western media lapdogs and some sections of the climate activists are harping on this agenda. Unfortunately however, the entire mainstream debate on climate distress does not seek to address the tenets of climate justice, equity and global fair share of emissions.
Who is Responsible?
It is only fair, just and equitable that the Global North should bear the brunt of the costs related to addressing global climate change. Historically, these were the countries which were the most polluting ones (aka industrial revolution, colonialism and the post-1950 developments), but were not scrutinized in the same fashion as it is being done in the recent decades. In addition to historical emissions, these western countries are the largest polluters even today. The two large countries from the Global South i.e China and India have 1/2 and 1/8th the per capita CO2 emissions of the US. This despite China being the manufacturing powerhouse of the world which accounted for the bulk of the global poverty reduction in the last four decades, and despite India relying heavily on coal and other fossil fuels for its energy needs. A study published by The Lancet Planetary Health Journal computed the overall climate responsibility from a historical viewpoint by taking into account the total accumulation of emissions in per-capita terms. The study finds that the EU and US have a cumulative climate debt of 69%, and Global North a whopping 92%. So ideally these countries should be responsible for 92% of the reductions.
The difference between Global North and South on any number of indicators is quite stark. However, what we instead see is a willful ignorance of these large global differences. It is even more disappointing to see progressive groups from the Global South generalizing the need for climate action – instead of putting far greater pressure on the West. And since the countries which are industrialising/developing only now (such as China or India), are high polluters in absolute terms – western political class and climate movements are unfairly putting the blame on the Global South countries.
China the big polluter?
Another aspect to this debate in recent years relates to how the western media and society has come to fear the growth of China. A number of statistics are published to scare people into believing that China’s economic development is a propeller of global climate catastrophe. And it is claimed that since China’s production and consumption of different commodities is high, any redressal of climate change is not fruitful as long as China doesn’t act. There are a number of takers for this view from the Global South as well. However, what is missed in this discussion is how the West is responsible for consuming the bulk of the goods manufactured in China, and that China (and few other countries in Global South) is an outsourcing destination for a number of western consumption goods. In 2019, as per World Bank’s data, China’s manufacturing value added stood at US $3.8 trillion, while its merchandise exports amounted to nearly US $2.4 trillion, i.e., nearly two-thirds of its manufacturing GDP is exported to other countries. Although a good proportion of these goods are imported by developing and low income countries, Europe, Australia, US and Japan, alone import around 45.5% (UN’s COMTRADE Database) of the Chinese exports, while having less than 16% of the global population. In addition, China over the past four decades has grown at a pace previously unknown in the history of industrialization, making climate activists wary of China’s growth. However, it is conveniently ignored that China’s growth and industrial development was far more pro-poor than the growth of the west in recent years – 64% of the global poverty reduction based on the international poverty line was in China. China alone contributed to more than half of the percent change in real incomes of the 5th percentile (poorest 5% of the world) and between 40th and 70th percentiles of the global population’s income distribution during 1988 and 2008 – as per the famous elephant curve of global growth incidence, also known as the Lakner-Milanovic graph. If we exclude China, the global growth of real income is significantly lower across all income distributions except for the top 10% of the world’s income earners – the percentile where the change in incomes with and without China converges.
Industrial Development and the Climate Question
Well meaning activists from the third world ask whether it is prudent to follow the western countries and their path of development. Yes, it is true that capitalism doesn’t provide a solution to the climate problem and that the final solution for this climate question can only be found in an alternative system. But should this alternative system not include industrial development or growth? A possible alternative framework, to diverge from the way west had industrialised, is to incorporate the elements of socialist and central planning – where there are possibilities for the state to intervene and direct development in a manner which is conducive to the environment. Planning provides avenues for a balanced scientific evaluation of development projects based on their impacts on the environment, and also by taking into account the socio-economic progress that could be achieved from those projects. It is essential for any developing or underdeveloped country to enhance their productive forces. This is true of even a socialist regime, as an alternative to capitalist framework. Material prosperity for the people at large can be achieved only if the productive forces are developed and used for people’s benefit and advancements (not for corporate loot). So there is no question of not industrialising the Global South – each country has a right to industrialise and develop their productive capacities.
The climate activists then ask – should this industrialization be as polluting – can it not be environment friendly? Ofcourse, it is possible for industrialisation to be not as polluting as it currently is. But is it the responsibility of the Global South and the poor countries to invest in developing the R&D and technology required for enhancing the renewables and other sources for a green industrialisation? Investments in these fields are costly and time consuming, and it is again only fair that the developed and rich countries invest in identifying and developing cost effective technologies and systems that can be provided for the Global South. It is the duty of the West to develop these and provide the same to the poorer countries not as profit making enterprises but as global public goods. In 2009, the rich countries pledged to commit $100 billion each year as “climate finance” to the poorer countries. Just before COP26, the leaders of these countries have already admitted that they have failed to adhere to these promises so far. At the same, the poorer countries are well endowed with natural resources such as coal and other fossil fuels. It is unfair on the part of the developed world to enforce restrictions on the use of these resources by developing countries for their material advancements. Especially, at a time when their contribution to global emissions are miniscule compared to the giants. South Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa have in 2018, contributed only 8.1%, 5% and 2.4% of the total CO2 emissions, while simultaneously being responsible for 24%, 8.4% and 14% of the global population.
Measuring the Commitments Towards Climate Goals
Of late, we are provided with indices and performance evaluations of countries by global agencies measuring a country’s commitment and action towards climate goals. Concepts of equity and justice do not feature in these evaluations in any form. Apart from that, these evaluations tend to exaggerate the contributions of the western countries towards climate goals. Scandinavian countries are usually praised and hailed for their sustainable livelihoods and commitments to renewables. There is no doubt that these countries are performing better than other developed nations such as the US, and commit their resources in a far better manner to address climate change. However, what goes missing in this debate, is how these Scandinavian countries escape scrutiny by preaching sustainability and climate friendliness domestically, while internationally engaging in trade in polluting goods. Norway which espouses strict adherence to climate goals has 50% of its value of merchandise exports coming from oil and gas. Branko Milanovic writes that this tendency to engage in “virtue signaling” is very similar to the actions of the British during the Opium trade with China – wherein the British banned opium sale and consumption in their domestic markets, but benefited greatly from dumping and selling the same to foreign markets particularly in China.
On the other hand, media and climate activists in the west completely ignore the contributions made by China in recent years to address this issue – they are world’s largest renewable energy producers, outnumbering the next in line US, by nearly 4 times. Of the top five countries producing renewable energy, three are from the Global South. China fixed its emissions peak year as 2030, and it’s net zero target year as 2060. This would by far be the fastest move from peak to net zero recorded by any country. China’s production of solar energy is much higher than that of the US and EU combined. Obviously, there is a lot more that China should do but what is frustrating is the fear generated by the western societies that China is not doing enough.
Way Ahead
There is no doubt that to reduce per-capita emissions and to tax polluting industries, is a politically difficult strategy – whether it is in the Global North or South. However, the difference lies in that the north is not only in a better position but also more responsible to address the climate question. However, what we witness in the world of activism is an avoidance of these tenets of justice and fair share in the access to these global commons. As per the calculations of climate responsibility from the journal mentioned above, China has a global historical climate credit of 11% despite accounting for large CO2 emissions in absolute terms, and India alone accounting for a claim of 34% of this credit. The rest is to be shared by the countries in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
None of the above points seek to dismiss the need for climate based activism in the third world. The governments of these countries should also be kept accountable, but not at the cost of ignoring the global context. Climate activism in the Global South should engage with their northern counterparts more critically to foresee an adherence to equity and justice.
It is only natural to treat unequals unequally. This is also the essence of reservation policies in our country – to positively discriminate the historically oppressed, marginalized and disadvantaged communities while allocating resources or determining entry. It’s surprising how the proponents of this idea in India, miss the same when it comes to global climate change. Global North and South are not two similar sets of countries – the latter was colonised, looted and deprived of its productive capacities for a number of years and still continues to be held in the stranglehold of the western finance capital. To ask these countries to wait until a cleaner alternative comes by is criminal and inhumane. A number of urgent socio-economic issues of these economies of Latin America, Africa and Asia require enhancements in productive capacities across sectors which could very well generate undesirable greenhouse gas emissions.
It is therefore quite evident that by accounting for per capita measurements and using calculations based on historical emissions, the Global South countries have a legitimate claim to global emissions. And it is the responsibility of the climate activists in the Global South to emphasise the right of these poorer countries to a fair share of emissions – instead of playing to the agenda set by the West.
Sai Chandan Kotu is a Masters student at Lund University, Sweden.
Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR
Twitter
https://twitter.com/StudentStruggl4