Unequal burdens: Climate responsibility in a divided world

Should all states be held equally responsible for implementing climate policy despite huge differences in contributions to climate-related issues?  

There is much debate around whether developing nations should be expected to implement climate policy. One idea is that the majority of the global south haven’t contributed toward the climate crisis, and so it should be the global north who must be responsible. On the other hand, the notion that it doesn’t matter who created the problem, but that it is a pressing one which everyone must work to solve. These are both valid points, and so developing nations should be contributing, but on a smaller level than developed states who have the funds to focus on climate policy.   

The industrial revolution beginning in the 1760s hugely increased the use of coal which led to much higher levels of air pollution and global warming amongst other detriments to the planet. The US has released more than 509GtCO2 since 1850 and is responsible for a huge 20% of the global total. China, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia make up the following 27%. These emissions are (mostly) due to manufacturing for developed western states, like Brazil mining crude oil, iron, and steel for the US, and Indonesia manufacturing clothing and electronics for American brands like Nike and H&M, and Japanese brands like Toyota.

Germany and the UK are themselves responsible for the next 7% of CO2 emissions. The rise in fossil fuel emissions overall is rooted in industrialisation and the growth of consumer capitalism, beginning in Britain, moving to Western Europe, and continuing to the US and Japan. Therefore, the argument stands that since developed nations were and are the main contributors towards the climate crisis, such as rising temperatures, they should be the ones responsible for enacting climate policy. It was the growth of capitalism and imposition of colonial exploitation that caused the emergence of a ‘global north and south’, so it is perhaps sensible to allow developing states to focus only on development even if it means not helping with global environmental efforts.  

It’s not to be disputed whether climate change will undermine development in the long term. Climate change results in extreme weather which is damaging to health, infrastructure and agriculture.  In fact, it’s in these developing countries that people are affected more so, often because of a reliance on agriculture. This means that climate change pushes more people in developing nations into poverty, and so it makes perfect sense for these nations to take action, as efforts will not hinder development, but promote it in the long term. Malaria cases increase in hotter temperatures, crop yield failures increase with natural disasters and long-term climate trends, and changes in rainfall result in water scarcity. All of the above affect developing nations more than developed nations. Even the UNFCCC agrees that all states hold responsibility for taking positive climate action. All parties agreed in Article 4 to implement national programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and take climate considerations into account in broader policies where feasible.  

In saying that, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol did create a divide between developed and developing states, because binding resolutions applied only to the developed states. It was assumed that developed states could internalise pollution costs while developing states could continue to emit.

This did reflect ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, since industrialised states could afford to carry out decarbonisation and historically produced the majority of emissions. Developing states were allowed to prioritise economic growth. The Kyoto agreements were based on 1992 economic conditions not including any future projections, so, China for example was not bound to any agreement, and emissions from China grew to surpass that of the US by 2007.

However, for the most part it was sensible for developed states to be tasked more heavily, as many low-income states at the time lacked the funds and institutional frameworks required to implement binding emission reductions without undermining poverty reduction. The 2015 Paris Agreement did acknowledge economic developments and so introduced Nationally Determined Contributions so that states could set their own targets in light of different social circumstances. However, this was decidedly not the best plan because contributions often weren’t enough.  

Only one tenth of greenhouses gases are produced by the 74 lowest income countries who will be affected by climate change most. Development initiatives cannot be successful in the longer term without preventative climate action, such as policies on land use where rising sea levels may become a problem, or preparation for natural disasters. If developing nations are focusing on preventative measures, perhaps it should be the developed states which are less affected by climate change who should be tackling climate change itself. This is furthered by the fact that developed states are more likely to have the funding to implement green measures.  

All members of the global community should make an effort to tackle climate change. The UNFCCC recognises ‘common but differentiated responsibility.’  This means that every nation should be creating positive climate policies, but that developed nations with more resources that have contributed to effects more (like the US, China, and Japan) should be putting much more focus onto climate policy than developing nations that contribute less and have less resources to put these policies into place.

Climate change has and continues to bring huge detriment to the planet and therefore people’s lives, so it’s not practical to play a drawn-out blame game. Importantly, nations that have the funds to help the planet more than others, should be doing the most. Everyone, however, must take some measures, because climate action is vital to development and sustainability everywhere.