Climate Injustice: An Urgent Crisis

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Global Inequality and Emissions

The world we live in is deeply unequal, and this inequality is making our planet hotter at an alarming rate. When we talk about global inequality, we are not just talking about money. We are also talking about who is responsible for the greenhouse gases (GHG) that are trapping heat in our atmosphere. In fact, two-thirds of the differences in income around the world are due to disparities between countries (ipsnews.net). These same disparities show up in how much pollution each country produces. However, it is not only about the differences between nations. The way emissions are distributed within countries also plays a huge role. For instance, the differences in GHG emissions within countries now account for almost two-thirds of the total worldwide emissions inequality (ipsnews.net). This is a significant change, as it was only a little over a third in 1990.

Consider the situation in wealthy nations. The poorer half of the population in rich countries is already meeting, or is very close to meeting, their governments' 2030 targets for per capita carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (ipsnews.net). Yet, the richest 10% in North America are the biggest GHG emitters on the planet (ipsnews.net). Their average emissions are a staggering 73 times higher than those of the bottom half of the populations in South and Southeast Asia (ipsnews.net). This stark contrast highlights how wealth inequality directly translates into emission inequality, placing a heavier burden on those who contribute the least to the problem.

Historical Responsibility and Impact

When we look at the history of greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that wealthy nations and individuals carry a much larger burden of responsibility. From 1850 to 2011, developed countries were responsible for almost four-fifths of all cumulative GHG emissions (ipsnews.net). This means that for over a century and a half, these nations have been the primary contributors to the climate crisis we face today. In addition, countries classified as Annex I nations, which are mostly industrialized countries, were responsible for 90% of excess emissions (The Lancet). The Global North alone was responsible for 92% of these excess emissions (The Lancet). This historical context is crucial because it highlights who has benefited most from the industrial activities that caused climate change.

Despite this overwhelming historical responsibility, it is the poor regions and people who are suffering the most from global warming (ipsnews.net). Tropical zones, many of which are in the Global South, are much more vulnerable to rapid climate change (ipsnews.net). Most countries and communities in the Global South have contributed very little to the GHG emissions that are worsening global warming (ipsnews.net). Yet, they have the fewest resources to cope and protect themselves (ipsnews.net). This creates a profound injustice where those least responsible bear the heaviest consequences. Furthermore, wealthy countries have done little to fulfill their 2009 promises to provide US$100 billion annually to help developing countries (ipsnews.net). Most of this climate finance has been set aside for “mitigation,” which means reducing emissions, rather than for “adaptation,” which helps countries adjust to climate change, or for “loss and damage,” which compensates for irreversible harm (ipsnews.net). No UN climate conference has provided any funding for losses and damages to countries affected by climate change, despite decades of arguments from vulnerable and poor nations for compensation (jomoks.substack.com).

The Reality of Climate Hypocrisy

The concept of “climate hypocrisy” highlights a troubling inconsistency between what Western nations say they will do about climate change and what they actually do. For example, the commitment of the temperate West to urgently address planetary heating remains questionable (globalissues.org). Some sources have even suggested that there are significant benefits of planetary heating for the United States and, by extension, the Global North (globalissues.org). This raises serious questions about the true motivations behind their climate policies.

Furthermore, despite misleading statements, most carbon taxation is not progressive (ipsnews.net). This means it typically places a much heavier financial burden on middle- and low-income groups than on the rich, who are most responsible for emissions (ipsnews.net). This approach to taxation further exacerbates existing inequalities. Another example of this hypocrisy is the refusal of transnational corporations and Western governments to honor the Public Health Exception (PHE) to the World Trade Organization's (WTO) intellectual property (IP) rights agreement, known as TRIPS (ipsnews.net). This PHE was agreed upon in 2001 to restart WTO trade negotiations. However, rich nation governments blocked developing countries' requests for a PHE waiver to quickly produce enough affordable tests, treatments, equipment, and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic (ipsnews.net). This refusal suggests that significant IP concessions are unlikely to be made to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to planetary heating (ipsnews.net). This directly impacts the ability of African and other Global South nations to access crucial technologies and medicines, hindering their development and resilience in the face of global crises, including climate change.

Breaching the 1.5°C Threshold

The 1.5°C global warming threshold is a critical target set by the Paris Agreement. It aims to limit the most severe impacts of climate change. However, this threshold is projected to be breached much sooner than anticipated, highlighting the urgent need for climate action and the failure of current policies. Mark Carney, who was then the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, warned that average planetary temperatures would exceed the 1.5°C threshold above pre-industrial levels in less than a decade (globalissues.org). This warning came even before Donald Trump's re-election, which further accelerated planetary heating.

The most optimistic scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expected the 1.5°C threshold to be crossed by 2040 (ipsnews.net). However, current projections show that rich nations' emissions alone will use up three-fifths of the remaining global warming threshold for the world's “carbon budget” until 2050 (ipsnews.net). This makes it incredibly difficult to stay within the 1.5°C limit. The “carbon budget” represents the finite amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted globally while still having a reasonable chance of staying below this temperature limit. The remaining carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C is tiny, especially when compared to the vast amount of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation since the Industrial Revolution, which is around 2.5 trillion tonnes (carbonbrief.org). If carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current level, this carbon budget could be used up in approximately seven years (The Lancet). This dire situation underscores the urgent need for drastic emissions reductions and a fundamental shift in global climate policy, especially from those who have contributed the most to the problem.

The Unjust Burden on the Global South

The Global South, which includes many African nations, faces a particularly unjust burden in the climate crisis. These regions are often the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, even though they have contributed the least to the problem. For instance, poor regions and people bear the brunt of global warming, with tropical zones being much more susceptible to rapid climate change (ipsnews.net). This means that communities in Africa, who have historically emitted very little greenhouse gases, are now dealing with more intense droughts, floods, and extreme weather events.

Furthermore, the refusal of wealthy countries to honor their financial commitments and intellectual property waivers has a direct impact on the Global South's ability to cope. The lack of funding for adaptation and loss and damage means that African nations, for example, struggle to build resilient infrastructure, develop early warning systems, or recover from climate-induced disasters. The refusal to grant a Public Health Exception waiver during the COVID-19 pandemic, which would have allowed developing countries to produce affordable medical supplies, demonstrates a broader pattern (ipsnews.net). This pattern suggests that similar concessions are unlikely for climate-related technologies, further limiting the Global South's ability to mitigate and adapt to planetary heating (ipsnews.net). This perpetuates a cycle of vulnerability and dependence, hindering self-sufficiency and sustainable development in these regions.

Addressing Climate Injustice

Addressing climate injustice requires a fundamental shift in how we approach global climate action. It means acknowledging the historical responsibility of developed countries for the vast majority of cumulative GHG emissions (ipsnews.net). This historical context is not just about blame; it is about understanding the roots of the problem and ensuring that those who benefited most from polluting activities take the lead in fixing it. High-income countries, for example, bear a greater degree of responsibility for climate damages than previous attribution methods have suggested, based on their historical excess emissions (The Lancet).

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that most countries in the Global South, including India and China (though China is projected to overshoot soon), were within their fair share of the planetary boundary for emissions (The Lancet). This highlights the need for a just framework to attribute national responsibility for excess emissions and determine liability for climate change-related damages (The Lancet). This framework must prioritize the needs of vulnerable communities and ensure that climate finance is not only delivered but also allocated effectively for adaptation and loss and damage, not just mitigation. Only then can we begin to build a truly equitable and sustainable future for all, especially for our brothers and sisters in the Global South who are on the front lines of this crisis.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.