Climate change is perhaps the biggest issue we will face in the 21st century. Every country will encounter the effects of rising global temperatures, increased severity of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Unfortunately, the impact of these events will confront and put specific countries at greater risk than others. Climate change mitigation techniques and funding for restoration prove to be a bigger task for countries that have lower GDPs, while countries with higher GDPs will have an easier path when it comes to facing the impact of climate change. What’s the problem with this situation? The underlying truth is countries with high GDPs, which have the increased ability to cope with climate change, are also the ones who have contributed to climate change the most. Thus, countries that have contributed incredibly small amounts to climate change are the countries that will face some of the harshest impacts. As a result of this reality, it seems clear that those with the highest carbon emissions, who have contributed the most to climate change, should be in charge of providing aid and funding for climate change mitigation and reconstruction for countries with the lowest carbon emissions.
As this is a very complex and widespread issue, it is beneficial to look at this argument on a more specific basis, by comparing two countries at opposite ends on the carbon emissions scale. Two case studies will be investigated: Kiribati, an island nation in the south pacific, comprising 32 atolls and one coral-raised island called Banaba; and the Netherlands, located in the northwestern part of the European continent.
Kiribati is a relatively small country, with a population of only 130,000 inhabitants. The GDP is 0.18 billion dollars (USD), and the carbon emissions are approximately 52,818 tons, contributing 0.00% of global shares. Of its 52,818 tons, the majority of the contributions are from transportation as a means to travel in order to work around the islands. Very small shares of Kiribati’s carbon emissions are due to unsustainable power-related industries or buildings. Kiribati is a country that is often described as being most threatened by rising sea levels, with most of the nation sitting at just 6.5 feet above sea level. By 2050, experts in climate change research have predicted that all of Kiribati will be underwater. In the meantime, the major risks that the inhabitants of Kiribati face include increased flooding (which is already occurring), contamination of water sources, and food scarcity. Therefore, all of the 130,000 people who call the island of Kiribati home are presently facing the dangerous effects of climate change today, and sadly, it is only worsening.
Residents of Kiribati are already starting to feel the dire effects, as one village councillor from the northern end of Tarawa Island explained to journalists that “the village maneaba [meeting place] was flooded. Many breadfruit trees have died,” he said, “many coconut trees have been uprooted.” However, since requesting shoreline protection, the government of Kiribati has not responded with any action. His words echo most people on the islands, who are trying to adapt to these concerning changes in the climate but cannot do so without government intervention. The current president, Taneti Maamau, has taken a different approach. He plans to elevate the island, mainly by way of dredging materials such as sand and dirt, redistributing the massive amounts of material back onto the island to raise it higher above sea level. Although this is a preferable method for many Kiribatians who do not want to leave their homelands, it is an extremely expensive process.
As a result, Kiribati is in conversation with China, to receive funding to dredge the surrounding sea, and to also build an elevated bridge road running the entire length of the atoll. Unfortunately, this comes with complicated expectations and conditions from China, such as building a military base on one of the islands, which makes Kiribati unable to receive funding until an agreement is reached. Therefore, to avoid these tiresome challenges of dealing with conditional loans that only satisfy the wants of other countries, it should instead be mandatory that large carbon emitters like China, the United States, and others provide aid to help Kiribati in their efforts. This aid should be given with no strings attached since Kiribati has contributed an insignificant amount to the world shares of carbon emission but is still facing the direst situations from the actions of these carbon-emitting countries.
Alternatively, the Netherlands is a country on the opposite end of the scale. The population of the Netherlands is just over 17,000,000 people. The GDP is 909.1 billion dollars (USD), and its carbon emissions are just over 160,000,000 tons which have contributed 0.46% to the global share. Building use, the power industry, other industrial combustion and transportation share equal weight in the distribution of their CO2 emissions. It is already quite clear the vast differences in relation to Kiribati. The amount of CO2 emissions from the Netherlands is more than 3,000 times that of Kiribati’s CO2 emissions. Regardless of fault, the most important difference though is each country’s ability to fight climate change. The Netherlands paints a much different picture than that of Kiribati. Dating all the way back to the 1950s, the Netherlands has had the technology and the means to combat rising sea levels. Similarly, to Kiribati, the Netherlands is a very low-lying nation, with over 26% of the country located under sea levels. However, the Netherlands heightened economic position enables them to fund and achieve projects to combat sea levels. As mentioned in the Dutch Review article, in the 1950s they started the Delta Works project which saw the building of dams and storm surge barriers that protect almost 700 km of the Netherlands’ coast. More recently in 1997, this project was continued and created more storm surge barriers and flood gates that protect the entire city of Rotterdam from floods. The 1997 project called Maeslantkering, cost around 450 million euros. Although these innovative projects are extremely beneficial for Dutch inhabitants, it shows a clear disparity in mitigation techniques and abilities between countries like the Netherlands and Kiribati.
Kiribati and its inhabitants are not responsible for the climate change impact their country will face in the coming years. Nonetheless, they will be the ones facing food loss, health risks, and even displacement. Inhabitants of the Netherlands are still at risk of rising sea levels, but already have many mechanisms in place to protect them, and undoubtedly more to come. The purpose of this comparison is not to say that the Netherlands is solely responsible for funding the mitigation actions of Kiribati, but instead to show that these countries are responsible and thus have a growingly vital role in the survival of the nations who are being hit with the impacts of climate change today. China has emitted 1,081,569 kilotons, the United States has emitted 4,817,720 kilotons, and Canada has emitted 580,000 kilotons of carbon. The comparison in carbon emissions is astounding and clearly shows that negligence in regard to our climate should not go unpaid. Kiribati and other nations like it should receive compensation from these mass emitters to help their fight against the harshest impacts of climate change. If countries can work together to address these climate issues, we can ensure the prosperity of these nations in the years to come as climate change worsens.
Edited by Liz Bredt
Olivia is in her fourth year at McGill University. Since transferring from the B.Ed. kindergarten and elementary program she is currently majoring in International Development studies with a minor in Education. As a staff writer she publishes articles on issues relating to international development, with a particular interest in human rights, climate change, and health care.