To reach a climate agreement in the near future, countries must look into the past 4

The second round of this year’s climate negotiations have wrapped up in Bonn, Germany, and government negotiators are digging in to their positions, making the chances of signing any global climate deal in Copenhagen this December - let alone a fair deal - increasingly slim.

A snapshot at the midpoint on the road to Copenhagen reveals that much has stayed the same since last time parties were assembled here in March. Two major hurdles block forward movement in reaching an agreement: the lack of political will by industrialized countries to commit to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions, and resistance on their part to deliver comprehensive financing to help poorer countries deal with locked-in climate change and a shift to ecologically sustainable development.

What’s beginning to change with this round of talks is how developing countries and climate justice movements frame both of these issues.

The Climate Debt Must be Repaid

According to a growing number of governments and civil society organizations the developed world owes the developing world a twofold climate debt. The greenhouse gases that rich countries have released to date directly translate into physical impacts and financial losses in poorer countries. At a technical briefing arranged by UN officials on historical responsibility for climate change, Bolivian ambassador Angelica Navarro noted a loss of 4 to 17% of GDP each year in her country as a result of changing weather patterns. These impacts constitute an “adaptation debt.” And to pay it off, those who caused the problem must fully compensate developing countries for the effects of their emissions.

A second debt - an “emissions debt” - is a bit more complicated, but no less real. It’s based on the scientific fact that the atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases before reaching the tipping point of irreversible climate chaos - and on the principle that every person, no matter where he or she lives, has an equal right to the remaining atmospheric space.

The South Centre, a Geneva-based intergovernmental organization, estimates that the space left can hold up to 600 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions - and the people in industrialized countries have already used more than their fair share. With less than 20% of the world’s population, they have emitted almost three quarters of all climate change gases. According to Martin Khor, director of the South Centre, if rich countries don’t radically change course they will have used up 240 gigatons of the atmospheric space by 2050, although based on population their allocation should only be 125 gigatons.

In other words, developed countries have taken out a loan of 115 gigatons of carbon dioxide, and developing countries are asking for it back. As people in poorer nations continue to improve their quality of life, fight for access to electricity, and grow their domestic industry they will need this space. The idea that poorer countries shouldn’t use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it’s unrealistic. Failing to take this reality into account at the negotiations will doom the people and economies of all nations.

How Low Can You Go?

The implications for developed countries here in Bonn and on the road to Copenhagen -where world leaders are supposed to reach an agreement that will pick up where the Kyoto Protocol leaves off in 2012 - are profound. To repay their emissions debt they must commit to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries are calling for cuts of 45 to almost 80 percent from 1990 levels in the next 10 years. Some researchers are saying that to avoid a climate catastrophe reductions from rich countries actually have to plunge to 100 percent - and then go negative by the middle of the century.

Even with a clean energy and land use revolution, it’s close to impossible for countries like the U.S. to meet such ambitious targets. The balance of their climate debt, then, will have to be repaid in a transfer of money and clean technology to developing countries so that they can create new economies that are low-carbon and still meet the needs of their citizens. The price tag will be along the lines of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Industrialized countries have balked at the sum, but their obligation to deliver this support is already enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a global agreement which even the U.S. signed. And if the bank bailouts have taught us anything, it’s that where there’s a political will, there’s a way to mobilize trillions of dollars.

Meena Raman, researcher and legal advisor to the Third World Network and former Chair of Friends of the Earth International, called the technical briefing and the introduction of the climate debt concept “one of the most important moments in the history of the Convention.” But if climate talks in Copenhagen are to yield a just and effective result, the conversation must move beyond concepts to commitments from nations with the greatest historical responsibility.

Janet Redman is co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies where she provides analysis of the international financial institutions’ energy investment and carbon finance activities.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Steven Earl Salmony Posted 10:21 pm
    15 Jun 2009

    How is the family of humanity to sensibly organize to respond ably to the human folly, avarice and stupidity that is now being consciously perpetrated by those few million greedy people who possess a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and the power it purchases? After all, a tiny minority is primarily responsible for the Earth being ravaged and threatened as a fit place for habitation by our children.When are the morally bankrupt, super-rich Masters of the Universe among us to be held to account for having disgracefully institutionalized the ‘goodness’ of their pathological arrogance, conspicuous consumption and excessive hoarding for the benefit of none others than themselves and minions? For many too many economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians
    short-term financial gains, power accrual, economic expediency and political convenience have directed their thought and behavior.Perhaps it is time for many ordinary people not only to deploy these words from Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”, but also to live out this great man’s example of principled, peaceful, refusal to submit to arrogant, dishonest, avaricious and dishonorable authority that is relentlessly degrading Earth’s frangible environment and recklessly dissipating Earth’s limited resources in our time.Perhaps honesty, more transparency, constructive personal action, accountability and necessary social change are in the offing.Scientists have a duty to warn and to inform; leaders of the family of humanity have a responsibility to act with moral courage and a willingness to do the right thing. At least some scientists appear to be doing their duty. Except for a precious few, great human beings like President Barack Obama, the human community appears to be virtually bereft of adequate leaders.
  2. Andrée Zaleska's avatar

    Andrée Zaleska Posted 7:05 am
    16 Jun 2009

    Janet, Excellent analysis and a very fair presentation of the problem of the misuse of the "commons" of our atmosphere.  It's right to think of our debt to the poor, when so much has been made out of the monetary debt of the poor countries to us.Andrée ZaleskaJP Green Housewww.jpgreenhouse.org
  3. Global Changes Posted 8:34 am
    16 Jun 2009

    I do think that the countries responsible for emitting all the CO2 over the past decades should be responsible for it aswell as their current emissions. The poorest countries will be hit first by climate change, and it is the duty of the those responsible to do something about it before its too late.
  4. Ken Ward's avatar

    Ken Ward Posted 8:37 am
    16 Jun 2009

    "The idea that poorer countries shouldn’t use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it’s unrealistic." This line struck me as worrisome and, thinking it over, I come down in a different spot then my partner Andrée does above. I do agree with the general thrust of Janet's analysis – us 1st world hogs have a moral, political and pragmatic obligation to less-profligate societies – but I disagree with all three premises above: 1. poor ("less rich" is, I think more accurate) nations should not "develop" as the US did; it's destructive and does not necessarily "improve quality of life"; 2. should less rich nations keep ramping up carbon emissions in the secure understanding that doing so rights a previous wrong, they will be acting unjustly, in turn, toward other living things and future generations, and; 3. let's be real here, no solution is "realistic," if we understand this to mean averting climate cataclysm without global upheaval – if that's the standard, we might as well just give up now. What we need to be debating now is which unrealistic solution is most realistic (and beneficial in the long term). The equitable and green answer is that the 1st world pays for a global transfer to renewables in exchange for cap & phase out on extractions. The alternative "unrealistic" solution will be one or more techno-crackpot responses, life shooting sulphur into the upper atmosphere – stuff that can be done cheaply and unilaterally   ...   The upshot, I think, is that "atmospheric commons" is not a useful extension of Hardin's use of the term, because putting carbon into the atmosphere appears more and more like exposure to radiation – we have no idea what the "safe" limit might have been.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement