Finance
Under Pressure
As mainstream banking received more critique, has ethical banking gained momentum in the aftermath of the credit crunch of 2008?
Internet Capital Sourcing Model Gives Hope to Small Businesses
The controversial financial model ‘crowdfunding’ looks set to change the field for small business, social enterprise and even the arts
Which social impacts of the Eurozone crisis are you concerned about?
Education
Extracurriculars - When is Enough, Enough?
Secondary school and university students are taking on a variety of extracurricular activities to try to enhance their CVs, but how enriching is this behaviour?
It's My Language Too!
The majority of people speaking English today are not natives, should their use of language still be measured against the standards of the Queen’s English?
Main Content
The Environment Debate Gets ‘Heated’
With the international conference on the environment coming up late this November in Durban, disputes about the past and social divisions are expected to carry the day
The financial crisis that troubles world economy has been under the spotlight for so long that almost all other global issues have been relegated to secondary status. This is, perhaps, to be expected. As the famous Clinton campaign phrase put it “It’s the economy stupid”. What else could it be anyway?
In this context, the upcoming meeting on the environment, to be held in Durban, South Africa in the end of November has not received the appropriate attention. As dates for Durban approach, states (and groups of states) are getting prepared for yet another battle where economic stakes are going to be high, This time, however, they are going to be disguised in environmental talk.
From Kyoto to Durban
Ever since the entering into force of the Kyoto protocol, in February 2005, signatory states have been asked to reach goals regarding the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
What that means, essentially, is that states should cut down on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and focus on orientating their economies to more environmental friendly modes of development and production.
According to the protocol, not all states were considered equally responsible for the current state of affairs. Developed countries –that contribute more to the emergence and deterioration of the greenhouse effect- were expected to bare most of the weight for this transition to green economy.
This is not translated only to cutting down emissions and changing their own modes of production, but also to financing green development in poorer states.
But so far, results have been mixed and most specialists agree that the Kyoto protocol targets –set for 2012- will not be reached. The industrialised countries have failed cutting down their GHG emissions; the US never ratified the agreement –despite being a signatory state; and the world’s number one emitter is now China, a developing economy.
The Kyoto protocol’s life finishes in 2012 and the meeting in Durban is supposed to be a major stepping stone towards a new agreement. But skepticism prevails.
Poor versus Rich
The stakes in Durban are expected to be high, with developing countries pushing industrialised states to cut more emissions and give out more money.
These intentions were made clear in a meeting between the so called BASIC –Brasil, South Africa, India and China- countries in Beijing, where a decision was made to push for more concessions on behalf of the West.
A decision by the EU to charge airliners that enter European air-space for polluting the environment was regarded as an especially hostile move by BASIC states. In their joint declaration, these states affirmed that "unilateral measures on climate change, such as the inclusion of emissions from international aviation […] would violate the principles and provisions of the convention and jeopardise the effort of international co-operation in addressing climate change".
In their view, industrialised states have not only failed to reach the Kyoto protocol targets, but they are also unilaterally trying to cut down on emissions generated by others in their own territory.
In addition, there is a lot of controversy regarding the financial assistance that developing states were supposed to receive. In a summit held in Copenhagen, in 2009, richer nations agreed to give out more economic assistance for developing countries to move down the green path.
But, as the BASIC states will be arguing, this money is not really new at all. In fact, developed states had agreed to provide financial assistance even before Copenhagen. Old pledges were disguised as new to hide the fact that rich nations are unwilling to pay the cost.
How the past matters…
But why should rich countries pay for the greening of developed countries economies? Perhaps, when it comes down to the environment, political or social divisions should not matter at all. What ever happened to “the polluter pays principle”?
If developing states such as China or India are becoming the worlds leading emitters, should they not be treated on an equal basis with, say, the US or Japan?
The developing countries’ arguments are backed by technical analyses and scientific data which combine physics with history. And they make a lot of sense.
The West industrialised much sooner than the rest of the world and is far more responsible for global warming and the Greenhouse effect, than any developing state. Western wealth, they argue, is to a considerable extent, owed to the fact that these countries were polluting the atmosphere and destroying the planet when no one else could –and no one else knew that this was the case.
It was only when the rich had become rich enough that they stopped and took a look at the environmental consequences of their actions. But, suspiciously enough, that was the exact moment when other countries were making their own bid towards industrialisation and development.
That is simply not fair, developing countries say. If our planet faces dire environmental problems, the prime perpetrators are the rich Western states that antagonised each other for industrial supremacy in the late 19th and throughout the 20th century.
If the West is retrospectively feeling bad for the consequences of its actions, it’s not developing states who should pay the price.
Maybe, it is time for the West to stop being a net CO2 emitter and become a net CO2 absorber.
…and where the future may lead
Developed countries are acknowledging part of their historical responsibilities and so does the UN, but they are far from willing to travel all the way to becoming net CO2 absorbers.
While the Durban summit should be the stepping stone for a new and more comprehensive agreement on the environment, past grievances and social divisions are expected to carry the day.
As if that was not enough, Russia has made a proposal asking UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC) officials to monitor the relative wealth of every country, in order to make sure the poor are really poor and the rich are really rich.
This way the focus remains on the divide but the division line becomes fuzzier.
For environmental specialists, however, one thing is becoming less and less fuzzy and that is the fact that global warming is a real threat to the planet.
One latest research, conducted by scientists at Berkeley, California, provides with yet more data on the issue and reaffirms existing studies. Despite what skeptics think, the essay attests that our planet is getting warmer every day.
Debates on historical responsibility and the divide between rich and poor are expected to dominate discussions in Durban. That is reasonable and fair. There is, indeed, a political and economic side to environmental issues and it is futile to argue otherwise.
Still, it does sound like a good idea to remember that our politics have real affects on our planet. And things are getting pretty heated out there.