Climate change is not an environmental issue. This may come as a surprise to most, considering all the noise we’ve heard in recent years about changing weather patterns, rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. On the contrary, climate change is a fundamentally economic issue. One that will not be solved until the question of national interest and the right to develop is addressed. In light of the upcoming COP17, this doesn’t bode well for Africa. Let me explain. On November 28, Durban will play host to the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The city will see thousands of international negotiators descend in an effort to hammer out a deal that will see the UNFCCC countries agree to legally-binding measures to mitigate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On the surface, the scientific facts behind climate change are generally undisputed. The world is warming due to an increase of GHGs in the atmosphere, and although the globe often goes through phases of periodic cooling and heating, the increase in global temperature since the 19th century is being attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Simply put, humans – and the wildly environmentally-unfriendly practices we have cultivated since the Industrial Revolution – are responsible for the change. It is also a well-known fact that some countries have been historically more responsible for the vast amount of GHGs in our atmosphere than others. The United States saw unprecedented economic growth in the 20th century due to the booming success of the military-industrial complex. As a result, it is the world’s largest emitter of GHGs, and is widely regarded as one of the most environmentally unsustainable societies on earth. International negotiations are a notoriously tricky business. Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of climate change talks. The subject-matter, and the implications (some might say repercussions) of cutting carbon emissions is notoriously difficult to navigate. This is not because the scientific facts explaining the changing climate are in question. Rather, it is because debate rages on about the culpability of some states over others, and the concomitant action that should be taken as a result. GHG emissions are not standard the world over; some states, such as the US mentioned earlier, have played a much larger role than others in contributing to the levels of CO₂ we currently find in the atmosphere. Others, such as most of the developing world, have contributed virtually nothing to these levels. Ironically, these states face the greatest impact from climate change, from desertification in Africa to flooding in some parts of Asia. The core dispute in climate talks – the crucial factor that has caused previous COPs to fail miserably – is the face-off between the developed world and those countries that are still developing. The latter grouping, largely affiliated with the G77 and the Africa Group, argues that forcing developing states to curb their CO₂ emissions on the scale required to achieve a 2°C limit to rising temperature levels would virtually eliminate the chances of proper long-term development and economic growth in these countries. They contend that developed nations had the right to develop through ‘dirty’ means such as coal-fired power plants, and that it is only just to allow the developing world to do the same, despite any damage this might cause to the environment. The developed world is taking a hard-line approach to such a request, arguing that the overall needs of the climate should supersede any claims to fast-track development. In spite of this seemingly sacrificial justification, their motives seem far from environmentally-minded.
The likelihood of a fair, legally-binding deal done in Durban is looking increasingly jeopardised by developed states’ unremitting insistence upon the same emissions standards for everyone.
Climate change presents a new security threat to the world of geopolitical strategy. Intra- and international conflict is expected to soar due to what will become ever-dwindling resources (especially water), and states are seeking to secure their interests before the situation grows too volatile. It has even been suggested that developed nations have a vested interest in keeping their developing neighbours poor and incapacitated, particularly after being sufficiently spooked by the rapid rise of Chinese economic influence. National self-interest has traditionally always trumped a universal negotiated solution, and this has not always been limited to the realm of climate change. Africa, as a continent mostly comprised of what the United Nations describes as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), as well as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), faces an uphill battle in holding developed nations accountable for their historically dirty development. The Africa Group of negotiators is pursuing a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol by all states through a pledge to a second commitment period, as the first expires in 2012. Such a proposal is based on the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, i.e. the premise that all states have a responsibility to address climate change through mitigation efforts, but these efforts will differ vastly according to the a state’s particular historical culpability. Considering the developed world’s stubbornness in former COPs (notably COP15 Copenhagen in 2009) surrounding this issue, it remains to be seen whether agreement will ever be reached over how to distribute the responsibility for cutting emissions. The likelihood of a fair, legally-binding deal done in Durban is looking increasingly jeopardised by developed states’ unremitting insistence upon the same emissions standards for everyone. National self-interest has traditionally always trumped a universal negotiated solution, and this has not always been limited to the realm of climate change. The international community is teetering on the brink of disaster: without collective international action, the world faces catastrophe on a scale never seen before.
– By Lyndsey Duff, researcher at the Institute for Global Dialogue
