COP26: Another tax for the world’s poor

From Copenhagen to Paris to Glasgow – climate talks have always been the spectacle of global cooperation and conflict. On the one hand, it is a breakthrough demonstration of our capacity and determination to strive towards a common goal – for the reduction of emissions and to limit the effects of climate change. On the other hand, it highlights the failures of the international order – putting the inadequacies of our global institutions on public display.

When we look into the core of these issues, we find a common problem that has plagued climate talks over the past 30 years: it is the fact that rich and poor countries have inherently conflicting interests in how we ought to achieve climate goals. Many in richer countries (most of which have already invested considerable sums in green technology), see the developing world as slowing the progress for climate action and constantly resisting motions to limit the use of highly pollutive sources of energy like fossil fuels.

For poorer nations, however, they see it as just more neo-colonialist drivel. The rich are holding the poor accountable for use of fossil fuels, despite themselves relying on these very same energy sources to industrialise and modernise not so long ago. This was also pointed out by the Indian delegate in the COP26 conference, who noted that “Climate justice is the key to solving climate change”. Other developing nations such as Iran, South Africa and China have all objected to the complete phasing out of fossil fuels; each citing the worsening of global inequality if developing countries are left without fuel to develop.

The truth of the matter is: they are right. Developed countries cannot reasonably expect others to follow in their ways without any form of assistance. Every time a developing country proposes to scale back a plan they can’t afford, a reactionary wave of “disappointments” flood in from wealthy nations; they want action against climate change, just not if they have to pay for it.

The reality is that green technology is expensive, and while the rich will gladly invest within their borders, they not as enthusiastic to do so abroad. Many wealthy countries have fallen short of the $100bn a year pledged in aid for their less wealthy counterparts. Moreover, much of these have been offered as loans to be paid back rather than grants, further punishing the already stifling countries.

This is not even to mention the failures to establish a “loss and damage facility”, which is a mechanism to deliver funds to countries affected by climate disasters. This only serves to demonstrate the indifference of the developed world towards affected regions. One could explain this apathy as a result of political systems in place in most developed democracies, whose leaders are afraid of commitments that are expensive, high risk and over long time frames.

Philosopher Stephen Gardiner proposed this as part of his theory on why climate change agreements often fail. He writes that that in climate change, the dispersion of cause and effects hampers a country’s ability to commit to a climate plan. This means that unlike other possible environmental problems a country could invest in resolving, the effects of climate change are not only realised at its source but dispersed all around the world. A politician or leader may very well prefer to campaign for, and invest in other endeavours, with greater and more immediate returns to electorates. This increases the risk for politicians, and it is therefore unsurprising when we see ambitious plans being watered down to mere weak promises.

While slowing the effects of climate change is important, the cost must be borne by all us collectively. We shouldn’t have to pick between global inequality and climate disaster. Therefore we (in developed countries) should hold our representatives accountable not just for emissions within our borders, but abroad as well. Otherwise, we too will be complicit in the destruction of our planet.