[Image-1]
The agreement that comes out of the Paris climate negotiations will include commitments to cut carbon pollution from both developed and developing countries. In the world of United Nations climate change talks, this is a real big deal.
The Kyoto Protocol was the first international agreement that required countries to commit to reducing carbon pollution. It placed the responsibility for reducing emissions on industrialized nations. Developing nations were exempt from mandated reductions.
The setup was trying to account for two truths: 1) some countries are more responsible for historic climate pollution than others; 2) the same countries generally have more capacity to deal with the problem—because burning up all those fossil fuels has helped them to industrialize and create wealth—than those less responsible for the pollution.
Basically, it reflects a rough attempt at justice within the global climate change framework.
Here’s a cool map that depicts cumulative carbon emissions 1950–2013
[Image-1]
The problem is, the world can’t get to where it needs to be when it comes to addressing climate change if developing nations stay out of the equation. So they—pretty generously—have agreed to get on board with setting targets.
And that brings us to Paris.
Now that developing nations are offering to work on reducing carbon pollution, there are a million questions that need answering. How can countries like India, where 300 million people are without access to electricity, industrialize as they need to while acting on climate change? Britain burned millions of tonnes of coal for well over a century through its industrial revolution. Is it fair to tell India it can’t do the same?
The Kyoto Protocol also set up an imperfect arrangement that asked rich countries to provide money for climate action in developing nations. How will the Paris agreement ensure that wealthier nations contribute their fair share to climate finance, particularly to help those already suffering the impacts of climate change?
Human beings are pretty preoccupied with fairness. But as we all know, the world isn’t fair.
This map shows us one face of the climate gap—the disproportionate impacts climate change has on those with the least responsibility for causing it. The map depicts the global distribution of climate-related deaths.
[Image-2]
The climate gap exists at the global level and it exists within our own communities. It follows lines of ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status. It is responsible for a lot of suffering, and mounting tension.
Early this year, a groundbreaking study linked drought resulting from climate change to the mass migration of Syrian farmers from rural to urban centres. This migration coincided with an influx of refugees from Iraq. Together, these pressures created the context for the rise of a conflict that is currently consuming headlines, fomenting military action and fuelling endless political rhetoric across the world.
Last night, on my walk back to the apartment I’m renting in Paris, I passed several clutches of police officers and soldiers armed with shotguns. Their presence is ubiquitous throughout the city these days. They stand in small groups near key landmarks, so quiet and casual you quickly forget to notice them.
As I followed my phone’s directions to Canal St. Martin, I found myself in the broad courtyard of several tall buildings. Under the awnings, dozens of people were making their beds for the night. Their conversations were full of laughter as they tucked into plump sleeping bags. Nearby, a handful of visitors gathered grocery bags from a car and delivered them, smiling.
Fairness will be elusive in these climate negotiations, as it is in life. But if it is going to work, the agreement must offer its own best attempt at justice. In an increasingly unjust world, a global agreement that seeks to alter the world order – as this one must—will have justice at its heart.
Related Stories
Talking Paris: We’re in serious need of some cultural evolution
Talking Paris: Whatever happens, we’re already winning
This article appears in Dec 3-9, 2015.
James Hansen has the answer – nuclear power is the #1 priority
Ho hum…