Explainer Series: Climate Equity

Introduction

Climate change affects various stakeholders differently. Our focus here is on its uneven impact on different nations that are not equally placed. Some have better resources and are developed, thereby enabling them to meet their citizens’ needs in a more climate-friendly manner. The same is not always true for less developed countries which might not be able to cope with their citizens’ requirements in a climate-friendly way and also work towards development. Recognising the need for equitable responsibility in taking action for climate change, the Rio Summit of 1992 stated, “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” Countries that are industrialised are likely to emit more greenhouse gases and the effect of this will be borne by poorer countries who barely contributed to it. Moreover, they are not equipped to deal with this, unlike industrialised ones which have the capacity to change behaviours and use technology to offset the effect of Green House Gas emissions.

What is climate equity?

Equality and justice, or lack thereof, permeate nearly every aspect of public discourse and climate action is no exception. Climate change does not affect everyone equally. Its varied effect on people is marked quite significantly based on historical inequalities, geographic vulnerabilities, and the socioeconomic conditions of countries. Therefore, there is a need to ensure countries involved in climate action are not hindered or negatively impacted in working towards the climate action goals. There must be distributive justice among participant States. The importance of taking steps to recover from the effects of climate change and ultimately stopping future damage to the climate is unequivocally vital. However, some countries might regress in other ways if they were expected to contribute with the same intensity and by using similar processes as developed countries. The sharing of responsibilities equally by turning a blind eye to these socio-historical factors would not render an equitable outcome. It has been suggested that four major types of equity must be considered while undertaking climate action goals.

One example of the successful implementation of equity principles is the Montreal Protocol of 1987 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. It garnered the support and participation of developing nations as the protocol included concerns about such nations about equity, economic constraints and flexibility. This makes it clear that widespread participation, which is vital to tackling this issue, can be sought by incorporating principles of equity.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which consists of the legal framework and principles to help deal with climate change by stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also incorporates equity principles, giving particular notice to the differences between developed and developing countries. The UNFCCC requires developed countries to aid developing ones to cope with the costs of adapting to the adverse effects of climate change and abating it. It acknowledges that the emissions of developing countries, though lesser than developed ones, will have to increase to meet the developmental requirements of the country.

Mitigation of Emissions through Equitable Methods

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which conducts research on the science behind climate change to help governments formulate climate policies also recognises the importance of climate equity. In its fifth assessment report, it notes that adaption and mitigation strategies are important to address climate change and effective decision-making in this regard should be informed by equity and diverse perceptions to risk and uncertainty, among other factors. The rationale behind this is the fact that climate change is a “collective action problem on a global scale”.

One of the suggestions put forth to mitigate emissions is to set targets. Instead of fixing an equal cap on emissions in all countries, it would be better to consider the contribution of the countries to emissions in the past and present, its per capita emissions and its capability to act and fulfil the basic needs of its citizens and set a cap on the emissions. Another, perhaps more equitable possibility would be to set a relative target which is a ratio between emissions and an indicator of economic performance. The latter would be a better method to go about curtailing emissions as it is the criteria that need to be judged the former method is variable, complex and subject to change, making it difficult to come up with an accurate number to cap emissions that would suit each country.

Conclusion

Countries vary in terms of population, resources and wealth and also in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, vulnerabilities to climate change, having more urgent priorities than climate change and institutional strength to deal with it. The substantial differences between developed and developing countries mean that ignoring equity principles would be harmful in the long run as there would be low participation from developing countries and disaffection for the low participation from the developed ones. These perceptions would only cause inefficiency in climate change action.

To achieve full participation in climate change efforts, it would be prudent to first acknowledge the existence of a discrepancy in the contribution to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and other factors, and the disproportionate impact it produces. The inclusion of all nations would ensure the implementation of solutions that would be more productive and efficient. This will ensure that equity in climate change should be a guiding principle rather than a desirable consequence.

Image Source: unsplash.com