Equity vs equality

It is no secret that the large portion of carbon emission comes from the Global South, while the impact of these emissions are felt across the world. Africa and Asia are disproportionally affected by droughts, floods, crop failure, water stress and pollution.

Pakistan, which happens to be one of the lowest emitters, is widely considered to be one that will have to face a disproportionately high amount of climate related catastrophes if the current warming trends continue. This is because Pakistan is already at risk of multiple natural threats due to its geographical diversity and its varied climate. At the moment, the nation faces recurring heat waves, droughts, floods, landslides, storms and cyclones, which are only expected to increase over the next few years.

These natural calamities have already disrupt the livelihoods of locals and the economy of the nation. In Pakistan’s future, scientific evidence points towards increased temperatures far above the global average. The World Bank Climate Risk Country Profile has also put Pakistan among the top risk-prone countries when it comes to climate change.

It is then no surprise that the Global South finds itself angered about the rising pollution in the West, and calls for climate equity. In fact, the better part of the developing world has drawn a conclusion that wealthier nations must bear the burden of climate action. They must consume less of the world’s resources and reduce their contribution to global warming while their developing counterparts must be given time to boost their economies before they can attempt to address any climate concerns. Any attempt at declaring common goals towards net-zero emissions is seen as being not only unfair, but imperialist. It is because of this that, for over a decade, the global discussion on climate change has degenerated into a north-south confrontation, on who is to blame and who must fix it.

The most recent of these outbursts came at the meeting reviewing the new UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) before its launch. The report, which is written by scientists, is accompanied by an executive summary for policymakers that is signed off on by governments. It is this summary that is most widely read, scrutinised and publicised once the report is launched. The latest IPCC summary, however, was significantly delayed as both India and Saudi Arabia continue to fight over the wording of the document.

The two nations complained about the framing of the latest report, that delineates ways for countries to ward off the worst impacts of climate change, and asked for more regional differentiation. They also spent a great deal of time trying to insert language about equity throughout the report, which reportedly irked many of the other delegations present there as the two countries happen to have a highly problematic climate record.

After the report finally launched, the Indian Environment, Forest and Climate Change Minister Bhupender Yadav told media that environmental negotiations are not about give and take — they are about saving the world. Developed nations must take historic responsibility and consider what they have done in the past. He added: “India needs to act in its own interest, [its] climate change strategy must be based on the principle of co-benefits. [India] should take measures to deal with climate change because it is good for the world, but also because it is good for us.”

This type of rhetoric is problematic. It does not address the fact that while it may be unfair that the world as a whole needs to cut down carbon emissions when not every player in the game contributed equally, the earth is still warming at an alarming rate. So while it makes perfect sense to ask for a redistribution of wealth to correct for the deficit left in the developing nations economies due to past colonial regimes and imperialism, it is not a notion that the West is likely to accept anytime soon.

In the meantime, the Global South continues to suffer from climate degradation. It is certainly not sensible to state – as our not so friendly neighbour has done many a time in the past – that the Global South should be allowed to pollute more than the West so that they may ‘catch up.’

What is the best way forward? The first step should be a reality check. While it may not have created the problem, the contribution of the developing world towards global carbon emissions has been steadily rising since the early 1980s and some of the largest polluters in the world can be found there. What’s worse is that, due to its position, the Asia-Pacific region is likely to be the first to feel the deadliest impact of climate change. Secondly, while it is also important to recognise that the developing nations will still need to meet the basic needs of their population, since they have not created centuries-long dependence on crude oil and natural gas, they are more agile in their ability to switch to greener alternatives.

However, this does not mean that the burden of solving their energy needs sustainably falls simply on the shoulders of the developing nations. Global cooperation and funding in the matter is crucial. The Copenhagen Climate Pledge of 2009, allocating $100 billion a year in climate finance for the Global South, needs to be taken seriously in letter and spirit. Unless this is done, it cannot be expected that the developing world can even meet the basic needs of its citizens, including access to electricity, food and sanitation sustainably.

Ultimately, international climate negotiations between the Global North and the Global South are driven by the need for a global response to climate change. However, these global discussions need to address the ground realities of climate change for a sustainable environment.

The writer is a Sub-Editor, Bol News