-2.7 C
Monday, December 11, 2023
HomeActivismActivism"Colonizing the Atmosphere": How Rich, Western Nations Drive the Climate Crisis

“Colonizing the Atmosphere”: How Rich, Western Nations Drive the Climate Crisis


Related stories

The Cradle of Humanity

What reading Georges Bataille could teach you about the...

Deadly Diseases Stalk Millions in War-Torn Sudan

As the war in Sudan continues into its eighth...

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” An appeal for today’s world

by Eliane Perret, psychologist and curative educator   Living in peace...

Comparing How the West and China Offer Loans to Developing Countries” by John P. Ruehl.

Established Western economic institutions are facing a formidable challenge...

The cli­mate dis­as­ter fuel­ing unprece­dent­ed fires across the west­ern Unit­ed States, threat­en­ing to swal­low the Mar­shall Islands into the ocean, and unleash­ing peren­ni­al hunger crises on South Sudan is a glob­al cat­a­stro­phe. But the glob­al respon­si­bil­i­ty is not born equal­ly. An analy­sis pub­lished in the Sep­tem­ber issue of The Lancet: Plan­e­tary Health shines new light on the out­sized role of the Unit­ed States, Euro­pean Union and the Glob­al North in cre­at­ing a cli­mate cri­sis that, while felt every­where, is dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly harm­ing the Glob­al South.

As of 2015, the Unit­ed States bore respon­si­bil­i­ty for 40% of ​excess glob­al car­bon diox­ide emis­sions,” finds the analy­sis, authored by Jason Hick­el, an eco­nom­ic anthro­pol­o­gist, author and a fel­low of the Roy­al Soci­ety of Arts. The Group of Eight (the Unit­ed States, the Euro­pean Union, Rus­sia, Japan and Cana­da) is respon­si­ble for 85% of such emis­sions. And the Glob­al North (defined as the Unit­ed States, Cana­da, Europe, Israel, Aus­tralia, New Zealand and Japan) is respon­si­ble for 92%.

In con­trast, the Glob­al South — which is by far bear­ing the brunt of cli­mate droughts, floods, famines, storms, sea lev­el rise and deaths — is respon­si­ble for just 8% of excess glob­al car­bon diox­ide emissions.

While oth­er researchers have cal­cu­lat­ed coun­tries’ cur­rent annu­al emis­sions, as well as cumu­la­tive his­toric ones, Hick­el tells In These Times ​none of this tells us how much nations have con­tributed to emis­sions in excess of the safe lev­el.” His method­ol­o­gy starts from ​the posi­tion that the atmos­phere is a com­mon resource and that all peo­ple should have equal access to it with­in the safe plan­e­tary bound­ary (defined as 350 parts per mil­lion atmos­pher­ic con­cen­tra­tion of CO2),” he says.

Hick­el cal­cu­lat­ed the ​nation­al fair shares of a safe glob­al car­bon bud­get.” Then he sub­tract­ed these fair shares from the his­tor­i­cal emis­sions of coun­tries — ​ter­ri­to­r­i­al emis­sions from 1850 to 1969, and con­sump­tion-based emis­sions from 1970 to 2015.” This cal­cu­la­tion was then used to deter­mine ​the extent to which each coun­try has over­shot or under­shot its fair share,” states the analysis.

In oth­er words,” says Hick­el, ​this method allows us to answer the ques­tion: ​Who got us into this mess?’”

The analy­sis is meant to not only mea­sure nation­al respon­si­bil­i­ty for glob­al emis­sions, but to iden­ti­fy those coun­tries that are col­o­niz­ing the atmos­phere. ​The results show that the coun­tries of the Glob­al North have ​stolen’ a big chunk of the atmos­pher­ic fair-shares of poor­er coun­tries, and on top of that are respon­si­ble for the vast major­i­ty of excess emis­sions,” Hick­el explains. ​In oth­er words,” he adds, ​they have effec­tive­ly col­o­nized the glob­al atmos­pher­ic com­mons for the sake of their own indus­tri­al growth, and for the sake of main­tain­ing their own high lev­els of ener­gy consumption.”

The study finds that, in con­trast to Glob­al North coun­tries, ​most coun­tries in the Glob­al South were with­in their bound­ary fair shares, includ­ing India and Chi­na.” This is despite the fact that Chi­na, with more than four times the pop­u­la­tion of the Unit­ed States, is present­ly the top over­all emit­ter of green­house gas­es, although the Unit­ed States is the top emit­ter per capi­ta. Accord­ing to the analy­sis, ​When it comes to cli­mate change, how­ev­er, what mat­ters is stocks of car­bon diox­ide in the atmos­phere, not annu­al flows; so respon­si­bil­i­ty must be mea­sured in terms of each coun­try’s con­tri­bu­tion to cumu­la­tive his­tor­i­cal emis­sions.” Yet, the study notes, ​giv­en that Chi­na’s annu­al emis­sions are rough­ly 9 bil­lion tonnes per year, it will soon over­shoot its fair share.”

The fact that the Unit­ed States and Glob­al North bear dis­pro­por­tion­ate respon­si­bil­i­ty for dri­ving the cli­mate cri­sis does not let Chi­na off the hook for cut­ting emis­sions, says Hick­el. ​If Chi­na does not reduce emis­sions, and fast, then we are all doomed,” he under­scores. And indeed, cli­mate activists have argued that in order to curb the cli­mate cri­sis, the Unit­ed States and Chi­na must over­come their con­fronta­tion­al foot­ing and coop­er­ate to dra­mat­i­cal­ly cut emissions.

How­ev­er, Hick­el makes the moral argu­ment that ​clear­ly the coun­tries that have con­tributed the most to excess emis­sions must cut emis­sions fastest, with the Unit­ed States and Europe lead­ing the way. They have a respon­si­bil­i­ty to get to zero as soon as is phys­i­cal­ly pos­si­ble — in a mat­ter of years, not decades. This can be fea­si­bly achieved, and we should all demand it.”

Oth­er stud­ies and analy­ses have point­ed to the dis­pro­por­tion­ate respon­si­bil­i­ty of the Glob­al North, and wealthy coun­tries, for dri­ving the cli­mate cri­sis. A study released by Oxfam Inter­na­tion­al in 2015 found that the poor­est half of the world’s pop­u­la­tion — rough­ly 3.5 bil­lion peo­ple — are to blame for just 10% of ​total glob­al emis­sions attrib­uted to indi­vid­ual con­sump­tion,” yet they ​live over­whelm­ing­ly in the coun­tries most vul­ner­a­ble to cli­mate change.” In con­trast, the rich­est 10% of peo­ple in the world are respon­si­ble for rough­ly 50% of glob­al emissions.

2015 paper pub­lished in Sci­en­tif­ic Reports iden­ti­fies ​free rid­er” and ​forced rid­er” coun­tries. It explains, “‘Free rid­er’ coun­tries con­tribute dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly to glob­al [green­house gas] emis­sions with only lim­it­ed vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to the effects of the result­ing cli­mate change, while ​’forced rid­er’ coun­tries are most vul­ner­a­ble to cli­mate change but have con­tributed lit­tle to its genesis.”

Yet, even as acute effects of the cli­mate cri­sis are being felt in the Unit­ed States, the Repub­li­can Par­ty con­tin­ues to embrace cli­mate denial, and the lead­er­ship of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty shows reluc­tance to curb the fos­sil fuel pro­duc­tion dri­ving the cri­sis — and hos­til­i­ty to rad­i­cal solu­tions like the Green New Deal. The Unit­ed States has con­tributed only $1 bil­lion to the UN’s Green Cli­mate Fund, meant to help ​devel­op­ing coun­tries reduce their green­house gas emis­sions and enhance their abil­i­ty to respond to cli­mate change” (for­mer Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma pledged $3 bil­lion, but Pres­i­dent Trump lat­er reneged on $2 bil­lion of it).

What­ev­er hor­rif­ic price U.S. res­i­dents in the direct path of harm­ful fires are forced to pay for politi­cians’ inac­tion, the costs to the Glob­al South will be greater in scale. ​We know that the Glob­al South suf­fers more than 90% of the costs of cli­mate break­down, and 98% of the deaths asso­ci­at­ed with cli­mate break­down, due to fires, floods, droughts, famine, dis­ease, dis­place­ment and so on,” says Hick­el. ​So, just like under colo­nial­ism, the North is ben­e­fit­ting at the expense of the South.”

SARAH LAZARE is web edi­tor at In These Times. She comes from a back­ground in inde­pen­dent jour­nal­ism for pub­li­ca­tions includ­ing The Inter­ceptThe Nation, and Tom Dis­patch. She tweets at @sarahlazare.

Source: In These Times

Latest stories