While climate change and its effects have become an enduring part of everyday conversation, sparing no corner of the world, the issue of accountability – more specifically, inequalities in responsibility – are often left out of the discussion or skewed in favour of the developed world, which possesses decision making power. The disproportionality in the effects of climate change on the developed and developing world is often regurgitated and self-evident. Little, however, is said about how the countries that self endow themselves as key stakeholders in global policy construction and summits to reduce climate change. Ironically, these are the same countries that have historically reaped the benefits of rapid industrialization, thus, being the largest contributors to carbon emissions today. Despite this, the developed world currently sanctions much of the developing world that relies on fossil fuels for their failure to implement renewable/clean energy while ironically gatekeeping or refusing to subsidize the technology to do so.
Similarly, the latest G-7 meeting on the 11th of June this year, which included the largest economies in the world, making up nearly 40% of the global economy, disappointed climate activists due to its lack of commitment to setting targets and deadlines to end the use of coal, financing renewable energy in developing countries, and control vehicular pollution. What is more concerning is the fact that G-7 nations “emit more carbon dioxide today than when the group was created in 1975,” producing roughly 8.7 billion tons of CO2 or 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Given that this meeting was intended to “set the tone” for the upcoming COP26 climate change conference in Scotland this November, such a lack of concrete proposal despite recognizing the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is concerning. Despite having the ability to create what Lila Karbassi, Chief of Programmes at UN Global Compact, calls a “domino effect of positive change across the wider global economy”, the recent G-7 meeting only highlights both the inefficiency and reluctance of the developed world to compromise their own economic growth.
The key to fighting climate change is helping the developing world, not making it harder for them.
While President Biden’s Build Back Better World (BB3W) initiative serves to “meet the tremendous infrastructure needs in low- and middle-income countries” by mobilizing private-sector capital in areas including climate, sow some seeds of optimism, is this enough to celebrate? The realistic answer is no. The “values-driven”, “transparent” initiative with a focus on “good governance” and partnership run the age-old risks of creating cyclical dependency and core-periphery relationships which disproportionately benefit developed intervening countries in contrast to the recipient countries who may acquire short-term benefits but end up being exploited. The initiative, however, is still fresh and lacks details on implementation and signs of international cooperation. Previous initiatives – notably the Paris agreement – in which countries consistently failed to meet targets provides evidence of the need for further caution. Pledges of climate finance from industrialized countries of up to $100bn by the G7 to aid developing countries have been spouted from 2009, and yet such promises have failed to even come close.
Who’s responsibility is it?
The impacts of climate change including floods, droughts, crop failures, and most recently dangerously heavy monsoons causing flooding in parts of India and Sri Lanka, are disproportionately experienced by the developing world due to a lack of protection and luxury of food reserves. Moreover, these issues are not isolated and in fact have global repercussions beyond the climate including diminishing supply for trade, increase risk of epidemics, and greater aid dependencies. Sonam P. Wangdi, Chair of the Least Developed Countries Group under the UNFCCC, stated that “[w]e are bearing the brunt of the impacts…It’s the poorest who have contributed the least [to the problem], but who suffer the most. The richer countries have the most capacity to adapt to climate change, and they are the most insulated.” Wangdi’s statement truly exemplifies the crux of this article.
Given that the largest and wealthiest countries in the world are the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, it logically is their responsibility to take accountability for slowing down global warming. Making unfulfilled pledges to reduce their own emissions is not enough. The failure to meet and enforce goals from the Paris climate accords attests to the age-old injustice of the developed world using their privilege to bypass global resolutions, digging the graves of the vulnerable global south.
Developing countries cannot afford climate change – R&D, renewable energy, fossil fuels
Switching to renewable energy is one of the global strategies to stop the use of fossil fuels to limit climate change. The success of this is evident to different extents in both the developed and developing world. The likelihood and timeframe, however, of reaching the scale it would take these countries solely to rely on sustainable energy is thwarted by the significant cost attached to R&D, installation, and maintenance. U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres, claimed the G-7 gathering was a “pivotal moment” specifically for rich countries whose responsibility it is to use their surplus resources to fund climate adaptations and projects in the developing world by “at least doubling their latest climate commitments.” As the rest of this article has restated, however, this is unlikely to happen.
If we were to actually hold countries accountable for climate change based on their carbon debt, massive economies like the US would not be able to “emit any carbon in the future at all.” And yet, these very countries we look up to as pioneers of change and justice are the ones that have historically exploited natural resources from others for their own benefit, polluting the world beyond repair. To make matters worse, they continue to sanction and criticize the developing world for their continued reliance on traditional forms of energy without providing any support for alternatives. I find myself questioning the legitimacy of global summits and conferences targeting climate change as there is an obvious disparity between who has done the damage and who is held accountable. But beyond that, what is the point of such gatherings and targets when they are not met, and worse, when there is nothing legally binding countries to adhere to proposed solutions? The future of climate change is a bleak one, as the disparity between the developed and developing world grows larger and larger. At the rate the world is going, events such as the massive and deadly mudslides plaguing Sri Lanka will only become more commonplace, burdening the developing world as world powers make empty promises and goals at climate conferences. Without real change and true action, there is little hope for change and the world as a whole will continue to suffer.
Edited by Arielle De Leon
