Fighting climate change requires a basic condition: peace. Before the Russian invasion, Ukraine’s decarbonization efforts had progressed in the context of COP 26 as it submitted its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with a target of a 65% reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, a net-zero target by 2060 and an anticipated coal phase-out from 2050 to 2035. As of now, as the country faces war and a humanitarian crisis governance is no longer possible. The longer any aggression havocs, the worse will be the environmental degradation and the more challenging the battle against climate change.
Political, economic, and social stability are decisive factors for successfully mitigating climate change in the crucial coming decades – they are a climate solution. That said, the impact of both global warming and armed conflict limits the capacity to deal with the changing climate conditions and environmental disasters caused by war. This is particularly severe in the context of the recently launched IPCC Sixth Assessment Report alerting that political efforts are advancing too slow.
The world’s ecosystem is deteriorating, and climate risks are among the most pervasive risks of this next decade. The COP 26 illustrated the historical moment and the need to make structural decisions for the future of mankind and reduce the carbon footprint. And yet, military action is exempted from the Kyoto Protocol– even though according to Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), globally, the military, and the weapon supplying industry, are responsible for 6% of all global GHG emissions. Conflicts, their preparation and aftermath, cause environmental impact and require high intensity of energy use. The entire cycle of warfare has intense carbon footprints.
In 2020, there were more than 56 state-based conflicts globally, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Many of the countries facing armed disputes, most of them are developing countries, are simultaneously global warming “hotspots” – facing high exposure to climate-risks and low levels of resilience, as shown by the ND-Gain index. This is specifically dramatic because apart from the humanitarian crisis already in course, they are less prepared to deal with the side effects of emissions or environmental impacts. Conflict severely impedes the ability of a nation to implement governance mechanisms and deal with the direct or indirect consequences during or in the aftermath of a conflict.
Armed conflict leaves no room for climate change adaption and environmental protection. According to the IRCC, the Gorongosa National Park lost over 90% of its wildlife throughout Mozambique’s 15-year civil war. Adding to the severe damage to biodiversity, water ressources are already under threat due to climate change, but in the situation of conflict are either object of dispute or victim of pollution. An OCHA report identified water as a determinant factor in conflicts in over 45 countries. Its pollution creates wide-scale impact on agriculture and food security amongst others. Urban areas with interconnected services any sort of water pollution can have extensive health impact.
Maritime pollution, either as direct or indirect consequence of a conflict can be devastating. For example, warnings of an imminent environmental catastrophe concerning the deserted and uninsured oil storage tanker FSO Safer, which is anchored off the Red Sea coast of Yemen with over a million barrels of crude oil, has been repeatedly issued by NGOs and the media. Due to the Yemen conflict, the vessel remains uninspected, posing a significant danger of catastrophic damage in the region in the near future. More than that, maritime security in the context of military and naval activities must consider the fragility of maritime ecosystems and their interconnectedness.
The case of air pollution shows that the destruction of ecological resilience is not limited to borders or bound to the geographical scope of the conflict. In the context of the Ukraine crisis, the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) points out that Multiple Launch Rocket Systems have been employed to attack urban areas, and beyond the essential threat to human lives, have been causing pollutions due to their composition of asbestos and combustion material. Attacks on physical infrastructure of a country, its power grids, and transportation can be disastrous. Again in Ukraine, the Russian invasion is the first time a military conflict has erupted in the midst in nuclear energy facilities of that scale. Any escalation evolving these facilities can cause severe damage, able to cause devastating long-term impacts. Long-term consequences will also be felt in the context of the European dependency on Russian gas. Global energy price fluctuations could reinforce the reliance on fossil fuels for heating, transportation, industry, and electricity generation – until decarbonizing sources and technologies, renewables and energy storage are more available.
Climate change and environmental pollution are impacting the nature and contributes severity of humanitarian crises – take human displacement. It dramatically perpetuates already existing vulnerabilities and disparities, particularly in armed conflict. One must only take a glimpse at the Sahel region with its rapidly spreading displacement within and across the borders and the track record of environmental and climate change-related crises, with crisis with temperatures in the region rising 1.5 times faster than the global average, according to UNHCR – the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. As another indirect consequence of the Ukraine war, that increased fertiliser, food and fuel prices hit developing countries with a high risk of climate change exposure, reinforcing interruptions in food supply for example.
How to address harm to ecosystems and people? Countries have protected the natural environment against long-term, and severe destruction since 1977, thanks to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. It safeguards natural resources from extra conflict-related violence by forbidding assaults on ressources essential to the civilian survival, such as agricultural lands and drinking water. There are currently doubts, however, until which extend these safeguarding measures provide accountability of state and actors. For years, the UN’s International Law Commission has been elaborating a legal framework that safeguards the environment in the context of armed conflicts containing 28 draft principles, published in 2019. Nations will have the possibility to adopt the draft principles at the UN General Assembly in fall 2022.
With new types of active warfare, including cybersecurity, new layers of complexity are added. Targeted cyber-attacks carry the capacity to unable energy systems, for example electrical grids, and other systems in place for environmental and resource protection. Compared to other weapons, cyber-attacks are low-cost and easier to employ. On top of that, other than nuclear energy, there is no centralized controlling mechanism available for cyber crimes and attacks. Such novel relationships between conflict and climate change crisis are only beginning to emerge and will require a targeted strategy, knowledge and joined efforts respond.
Towards Climate Justice: Unmasking Climate Colonialism and the Hidden Costs of Green Capitalism
“The climate policies of wealthy nations are colonialism in green. Pursuing climate ambitions at the expense of the world’s poorest people is not only hypocritical but also immoral, unjust, and a prime example of egregious green colonialism.”
The present era, known as the Anthropocene according to geologists, acknowledges the significant influence of human activities on the Earth’s land, atmosphere, and oceans. This term recognizes that human actions have had a major impact on the climate and natural ecosystems. However, some scholars argue that it assumes the climate crisis is a result of inherent human nature, rather than the actions of a specific group of individuals, such as colonialists, capitalists, and patriarchs. Furthermore, the term implies that the Earth was stable until recently, around 1950, when the ‘Anthropocene’ is believed to have begun.
This perspective overlooks the history of exploitation experienced by marginalized communities over centuries under these systems. Indigenous scholars have also raised concerns about how the term represents colonialist ideologies that sever the profound connections between humans, plants, animals, and the soil. Instead of valuing the Earth as a precious entity that sustains life, Western colonial legacies often operate within a framework that assumes unlimited extraction of natural resources, with the expectation that the Earth will replenish itself.
Climate colonialism is an increasingly discussed phenomenon which has come to prominence due to the current climate crisis. It involves countries and corporations, mainly located in developed countries, imposing policies on African or other developing nations that damage their environment for economically motivated advantages such as resource extraction or generating cheap labor opportunities abroad. This not only increases inequality but also entrenches existing colonial relationships between global North and South even further. By perpetuating extractive economic practices, environmental exploitation through carbon-intensive industry operations intensifies both historic injustice (e.g., slavery) and ongoing neoliberalism of our world’s most vulnerable regions.
There are two main perspectives to consider when examining the intersection of climate change and colonialism. Making this connection involves understanding that historic injustices are not confined to the past – their impacts are still felt in the present day. The first perspective focuses on the historical causes of climate change. It emphasizes that the Global North, comprising developed nations, bears the primary responsibility for the current climate crisis. In fact, Global North countries are responsible for emitting over 92% of carbon emissions. However, it is the Global South nations, which also bear the brunt of poverty resulting from exploitative colonial activities, that suffer the most severe consequences of climate change, particularly in the form of extreme weather events.
A 2022 report from Greenpeace UK aptly stated, “The environmental emergency is the legacy of colonialism.” This injustice has sparked a growing movement calling for climate reparations. Essentially, it calls upon wealthy countries in the Global North, who have played a significant role in causing climate change, to financially support the countries in the Global South that bear the least responsibility for its causes but suffer the most from its impacts. This call for reparations has its roots in the recognition that the effects of colonialism continue to persist.
A commitment was made by wealthy nations in 2009 to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance to developing countries by 2020 through 2025. Regrettably, as of 2023, this promised funding has yet to be fully delivered in any given year. This delay raises concerns and frustrations, as it hampers the ability of the most vulnerable countries to respond effectively and address the consequences of climate change.
Climate colonialism is taking another form through the exploitation of resources in the Global South by countries of the Global North in order to advance their own climate agendas. The University of Oxford describes this as occurring under the guise of “development projects” and “carbon offsetting,” enabling Western countries and corporations to continue polluting while disproportionately affecting BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) communities in both developed and developing countries. Moreover, many of these solutions involve displacing Indigenous populations from their lands, leading to widespread violations of human and land rights.
A clear example of this exploitation can be seen in Global North-supported afforestation and reforestation projects, which have been found to involve human rights abuses, land seizures, and violence in various regions of Africa, Latin America, and Indonesia. As Vijaya Ramachandran, director for energy and development at the Breakthrough Institute, emphasized in 2021, pursuing climate ambitions at the expense of the world’s poorest people is not only hypocritical but also immoral, unjust, and a prime example of egregious green colonialism.
The acceleration of carbon emissions began with the process of colonization and the subsequent industrial revolution it spurred. However, ecological destruction did not come to an end with the decline of colonialism. The current global production system, still dominated by imperial powers and former colonial nations, continues to play a significant role in driving climate change and environmental degradation. The promotion of the so-called ‘green revolution’ in many former colonies, intended to enhance agricultural yields, heavily relied on the intensive use of chemicals that have had detrimental effects on soil quality and freshwater sources, leading to pollution.
While many world leaders are quick to criticize the populist government in Brazil for its thoughtless destruction of the Amazon Rainforest, it is important to recognize that large-scale clearances and burnings have been primarily driven by the logging industry and the clearing of land for livestock breeding, both of which cater to exports destined for Europe and the United States. Similarly, in Southeast Asia, extensive deforestation has been directly linked to the palm oil export industry. This reckless extraction of natural resources to supply raw materials to wealthier nations may benefit local elites monetarily, but it worsens the issues of food and water insecurity while exacerbating the marginalization of disadvantaged communities.
Scholars have highlighted the historical connection between colonialism and the mindset that allows land and oceans to be used as dumping grounds, regardless of their location. Although there are regulations in place to control pollution levels, certain levels of pollution are still permitted. In Canada, for example, the oil and gas sector, which extracts tar sands on Indigenous reservations, is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, this results in tribal communities losing access to clean water and facing high levels of air pollution. These commercial activities rooted in colonialism continue to encroach upon Indigenous land.
Furthermore, the extraction of oil and gas is driven by the production of plastics and other disposable products consumed primarily by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The burden of dealing with plastic pollution, through recycling or incineration, is often placed on developing Asian countries. Such practices stem from the inequitable international trade set up by former colonial empires, which exploit developing nations by compelling them to dispose of hazardous waste at a low cost. This unjust arrangement is commonly referred to as waste colonialism. Curiously, despite its reputation as the world’s largest plastic waste exporter, Germany has been hailed as the top recycler by the World Economic Forum. Each year, Germany exports more than one million tons of plastic waste, surpassing any other EU country. This contradiction raises questions about true recycling practices and underscores the need to address the systemic issues perpetuated by waste colonialism.
The climate policies of wealthy nations are colonialism in green. It is worth mentioning that during COP26, Nordic and Baltic countries proposed that the World Bank should fund clean energy solutions in developing nations, including technologies like green hydrogen and smart micro-grid networks. However, it is contradictory that Norway, one of these countries, continues to produce petroleum despite advocating for clean energy solutions.
Green hydro energy is often regarded as one of the most intricate and expensive technologies in the energy sector. In contrast, northern industrialized nations continue to prioritize the production of natural gas for Europe. To address price concerns, the United States has recently increased its oil production.
China and India frequently face criticism for their high emissions and reliance on coal to generate electricity for their populations. On the other hand, countries like Canada and the United States have the highest per capita emissions globally, primarily due to their heavy dependence on fossil fuels for personal luxuries such as private jets, yachts, and cars. Interestingly, the demand for private jets is soaring to the point where there is now a shortage, as evidenced by recent media coverage.
In a moment of great significance in 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made a notable inclusion in its sixth report, addressing the impact of global warming on our planet. For the first time ever in the history of the IPCC, the term “colonialism” found its place in the report summary. The IPCC highlighted that both past and present forms of colonialism have played a direct role in intensifying the vulnerability of particular communities and locations to the consequences of climate change.
Instead of challenging the flawed logic of excessive accumulation and commodification, the global environmental agenda has been overshadowed by the idea of green capitalism, which lacks the transformative capacity to effectively tackle the escalating climate changes that now pose a threat to the very existence of our planet. As we approach the forthcoming climate negotiations at COP28, it is crucial for nations to recognize that climate change is a problem that has been largely shaped by the industrialized north and the ongoing influence of imperial economic patterns on our way of life.
Merely continuing to pursue economic dominance through the same imperial industrial powers that contributed to the climate crisis will not address the monumental challenge of global warming. Unless we address the persistent legacies of imperialism and colonialism, we can hold little hope for achieving environmental justice and effectively mitigating climate change.
It is imperative that we collectively engage in a process of re-education centered around decolonization, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how our world operates.
Only then can we begin to envision and work towards a future that breaks free from the exploitative structures and institutions that currently bind us.
Sustainability in the Age of Climate Change: Demography, Resources, and Action
The effects of climate change are no longer theoretical; they pose a real and immediate danger to our world. We have reached a pivotal juncture as temperatures rise owing to the persistent growth in greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. Climate change has farreaching effects, disrupting ecosystems and threatening human populations across the world. This article examines how climate change, population growth, and the availability of resources all play a role in bringing about this dilemma. We’ll break down everything from the growing world population and fossil fuel use to the looming water problem and stress the need for decisive action on all fronts.
Climate change, fueled by the continuous increase in greenhouse gas emissions, is at the center of the environmental catastrophe. As with many other gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes to global warming by trapping heat above Earth’s surface. The consequences of global warming are starting to show. The track of Earth’s average temperature rises from 2011 to 2030 is concerning, with a 1°C increase already seen. Without fast and serious action, it is predicted that global temperatures would climb by an alarming 3 to 5 degrees Celsius between 2046 and 2065. A frightening 8-10°C temperature increase between 2080 and 2099 is possible, and may throw our world into anarchy.
Climate change is exacerbated by the rapid increase in the world’s population. The exponential increase in the global population is putting enormous strain on the Earth’s limited resources. This stress is made worse by urbanization since cities are the most voracious consumers of limited resources. This population transition will have far-reaching consequences, many of which are linked to the effects of global warming. Rapid population expansion is a key driver of current demographic trends, which in turn influence global warming. When people live in cities, they use more resources like food, water, and electricity. This urban expansion, in which large swathes of land are constructed to house the increasing population, is harmful to the environment and cannot be sustained.
The effects of globalization on climate change, which is defined by the interdependence of economies and cultures across boundaries, are mixed. One positive effect of globalization is that information about and access to renewable energy sources and environmentally friendly methods of production have spread more quickly and widely than ever before. However, technology has also facilitated increased consumption and the globalization of trade, both of which add to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental deterioration. Greenhouse gas emissions have been worsened by the fast growth of energy-intensive businesses brought about by the urbanization and industrialization associated with globalization.
The disappearance of glaciers is one of climate change’s most spectacular aesthetic effects. Glaciers are melting at an alarming pace as temperatures increase throughout the planet. There will be severe consequences for coastal and delta populations as a result of this phenomena. When glaciers melt, they help drive up river and ocean levels. Many people all around the world live in coastal areas, which are especially at risk. Extreme weather like hurricanes, typhoons, and tornadoes become more likely due to the higher water levels, which in turn causes more extensive damage and human casualties. Current rates of sea level rise are around 1 mm per year on average. There is a possibility that global sea levels might increase by 0.8 m to 2 m by the turn of the century (Jacob et al., 2012). The coastal settlements would be devastated, thus urgent and extensive adaptation and mitigation measures are needed.
The Albedo effect is an important concept in climate science because it demonstrates how effective reflecting surfaces are at maintaining a comfortable temperature. Reflection of sunlight by snow and ice helps to keep Earth’s surface cool by reducing the amount of energy absorbed by the planet. Because of its thin snow covering, Arctic Sea ice actually absorbs more sunlight than it reflects. As a result, Arctic Sea ice is melting fast, adding to the effects of global warming. Antarctica, on the other hand, reflects over 90% of incoming sunlight due to its huge glaciers coated in reflecting snow. There is no mistaking the implications: less Arctic Sea ice means more heat is absorbed, speeding up global warming. It is imperative that ice sheets be protected because of the vital function they serve in maintaining the planet’s average temperature.
Temperature increases are just one aspect of climate change, which has far-reaching effects on Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Satellite imagery shows that plant cover in the Arctic is “greening,” with trees becoming higher, tundra giving way to shrubs, and mammal populations shifting as they adapt to new circumstances. Due to these shifts, native species are being pushed out of their habitats and replaced with species from warmer areas. The greater white-fronted geese of Japan and the brown hare of Sweden, for instance, have both begun to invade mountain hare habitats. The extinction of arctic foxes has been exacerbated by the spread of red foxes.
Water is a crucial resource for human existence and agricultural production, and climate change is having a direct influence on its availability. (Peterson et al., 2002) contend that 97% of the water on Earth is ocean salt, making it unfit for human consumption or agricultural use. About 2.5% of the water on Earth is drinkable. The decrease in groundwater levels in extensively irrigated areas is a particularly worrying trend. Groundwater levels in some regions of the Indian subcontinent were found to be declining at an unsustainable pace of 4 to 10 centimeters per year in 2009, threatening the lives of around 600 million people.
The Ogallala Aquifer is an important supply of groundwater in Texas, and it was the subject of an in-depth research headed by Kelvin Mulligan, a professor of economics and geography at Texas Tech University. Their research revealed disturbing trends, including a yearly reduction of 1 foot in the aquifer’s water table on average and a shocking 3-foot decline in certain regions. The rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves highlights the critical need of making the switch to renewable energy sources (Mulligan et al., 2014).
The rising water shortage situation may be resolved via the use of virtual water trading. Virtual water is the unseen quantity of water used in the manufacturing and distribution of commodities. Countries may reduce their demands on their local water systems by importing items that need large amounts of water (Varis et al., 2013). The idea that countries may work together via commerce to lessen their own water footprints and better adapt to shifting climates is illustrative of the interrelated nature of global sustainability. Water-poor Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates purchase wheat from water-rich places like the United States, providing a real-world example of virtual water commerce. This helps these countries cope with the difficulties of water shortages brought on by climate change while also relieving demand on their precious freshwater supplies. Likewise, nations that have an abundance of water might use virtual water commerce to spread the word about the benefits of sustainable water management and build global resilience in the face of increasing environmental risks.
Nations must hasten their shift to renewable energy sources to counteract the persistent use of fossil fuels. Because they don’t rely on flowing water to produce electricity, renewable sources like wind and solar power provide an attractive alternative to hydropower. While hydropower is renewable, it uses quite a lot of water in the process. For illustration’s sake, one megawatt-hour of energy generated by hydropower requires around 30,078 gallons of water. This level of water use is really worrisome, especially in areas where water is limited to begin with.
The artery of hydropower, the Colorado River provides life-sustaining water to 27 million people in seven U.S. states and Mexico. The Colorado River’s flow, however, is expected to decrease by 10-30 percent due to climate change brought on by human activities. There is already a problem with the river’s water being overused, and this frightening drop in flow just makes it worse. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, two enormous reservoirs that get their water supply from the Colorado River, have been significantly below capacity since 1999. By 2005, Lake Powell had lost around two-thirds of its water and was dangerously close to being declared a “dead pool.” It was believed that Lake Powell may dry up totally within four years, which would be disastrous for future water supplies and sustainability.
Despite being written off as a minor political issue, climate change might spark dangerous confrontations. The “water war theory” argues that vulnerable areas may resort to war if upstream governments obstruct the supply of water to downstream ones.
Due to climate change different states are now working on construction of dams to store water many of the dams are being constructed on disputed water, like india’s new dam project on the Chenab river.
The agricultural economy of many states would collapse without access to water, which is necessary for human survival. Tensions may rise as a result of water shortages or supply outages, which can cause economic downturns and food poverty. Diplomatic engagements and conversations between governments to address disputes over water resources are essential to preventing crises from escalating. Particularly in areas prone to water-related disputes, it is crucial to get down and speak about how to share water resources fairly.
A whole new way of thinking about how to generate and use energy is needed to combat climate change. Policy initiatives that help nations become less reliant on fossil fuels and more open to sustainable alternatives must be given top priority. Particularly promising are wind and solar power. These power plants are perfect for places where fresh water is scarce since they produce energy without using any. The Canadian province of Prince Edward Island is notable for having converted to 100% wind-generated power. Biofuels are another feasible alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Major progress has been made in using biofuels as a mainstream energy source in places like the USA, the EU, and Brazil. Brazil grows sugarcane on a massive scale for biofuel production, whereas the US and EU use maize and sugar beets respectively. One of the most widely used biofuels, ethanol, has recently attracted attention across the world. The United States and Brazil are the two major ethanol producers in the world. In recent years, ethanol use in Brazil has even overtaken that of gasoline. To slow global warming, technological progress is essential. The transportation industry is on the brink of a transformation because to developments like vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology. V2G technology enables electric cars to both recharge from and contribute to the power grid. By using fewer fossil fuels, this invention lessens its impact on the environment.
Reservoirs, lakes, canals, and dams are all examples of infrastructure that governments should invest in to combat the problem of dwindling water supplies. These facilities provide for the safekeeping and control of water resources, protecting against water shortages and guaranteeing a steady water supply. In the western region of Xinjiang, China, for example, the government is making preparations to build 59 new reservoirs to store water from glacier-fed rivers. In areas where glacial meltwater is a major source of water, such measures are essential for the long-term supply. The benefits of technology extend beyond the realm of energy. They cover a broad spectrum of technological advances made to lessen the effects of climate change. Through its Recharge IT programme, Google Inc. is working hard to advance vehicle-to-grid (V2G) connectivity. As a result of this innovative technology, electric cars may now both recharge from and contribute to the grid. This breakthrough has the potential to drastically cut the transportation industry’s reliance on fossil fuels, cutting down on emissions and pollution.
Combating climate change is an international undertaking that calls collective cooperation. Some of the most influential worldwide organizations in the fight against climate change include the United Nations, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, Earthjustice, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Sustainable practices are promoted, awareness is raised, and governments and companies are held responsible via the work of these groups, which includes research, lobbying, and policy formulation. Their work is crucial to global climate change prevention and adaptation initiatives.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 give an all-encompassing framework for dealing with the effects of climate change and its accompanying difficulties. Clean energy, climate action, water resources, and ecosystem protection are just few of the many areas that are addressed by the SDGs. These targets provide a guide for nations and businesses to follow in order to achieve global sustainability goals. The SDGs stress the value of working together across borders to combat climate change and build a more just and sustainable global society.
In conclusion, the interaction between climate change, population growth, and sustainable use of resources is a complex and multidimensional problem that calls for swift and thorough response. The globe is already feeling the effects of climate change, from increased temperatures and melting glaciers to decreased water supplies and disrupted ecosystems. To overcome these obstacles, we must drastically alter our energy system, moving away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like wind and solar. There are some encouraging answers to the problem of emissions and pollution, and these include the use of biofuels and technical advances like V2G technology.
Moreover, nations throughout the world need to work together to find solutions to climate change. Resolving water issues and avoiding confrontations over scarce supplies need diplomacy and open communication. When it comes to pushing for climate action and bringing governments and companies to account, international organizations are indispensable. Global cooperation in climate change mitigation is emphasized by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which offer a road map for nations to match their efforts with global sustainability goals.
The stakes are tremendous; the future of our planet is at risk. Leaders and governments throughout the world, as well as ordinary individuals, have a responsibility to address and work toward mitigating non-traditional security concerns. The call to action is all the more urgent given the millions of lives, ecosystems, and our planet’s future that are at stake.
Dire Consequences in Failing the Climate Change Goals
It is not as if they have closely missed their goals; it is as if they have not even been trying. The new Oxfam report on climate change places the blame squarely on the rich countries , the US being the worst offender.
The goal has been to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45 percent before 2030. Instead, they are headed for an increase of 10.6 percent. As might be expected, these world’s largest economies, the G20, produce the most pollution.
On average, they emit between 7.4 and 7.7 tons of CO2 per person per year. To keep global mean temperature rise below 1.5 C above preindustrial levels as has been the goal, they need to come down to 2.9 to 3.8 tons.
The G20 and other countries will be submitting their nationally determined contributions or NDC’s at the UN Climate Summit in Dubai this November. These assessments there will reveal whether or not they are on track for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, namely to limit temperature rise to 1.5C.
Researchers accessing G20 plans using three different methodologies found these will reduce emissions only to 6.7 to 6.9 tons per person per year on average. That is nearly double what is required.
Oxfam’s work on emissions produced by the rich and the poor find them influenced by wealth and inequality — the 125 billionaires themselves produce through their investments and activities a colossal 393 million tons each year at a 3 million ton per person average — a half million times higher than the average G20 person and a million times higher than the bottom 90 percent by global wealth.
The US leads the high income countries with the largest deficit in not meeting the goals planned emissions reduction. Its shortfall is up to 24.6 tons of CO2 equivalent per person per year. Middle income countries are led by Russia at 10. China has a high of 3.4 and India merely 0.7.
If the world is serious about global warming, it has to persuade rich countries, particularly G7 the richest, and the rest of the G20 to ramp up spending to move to low-carbon alternatives, and also increase climate finance for the poorer countries. It is the only way as these countries simply do not possess the resources otherwise.
What happens if the rich countries ignore the possibilities? Well, we have seen the news within the last year — the latest being the catastrophic floods in Libya killing at least 5,300 while an estimated 10,000 remain missing. What is unusual will become the norm as the air heats up absorbing more moisture from the oceans.
Extreme weather like hurricanes and typhoons will increase with extended seasons. Recent examples are the wildfires in Australia and Canada and the Atlantic hurricane season. The latter runs from June 1 to November 30. Closely before or after would not be exceptional but this year we experienced a named storm in January.
So if no one is doing much about climate change except talk, batten down the hatches or move away from the coast, nice as it usually is.
Americas4 days ago
Quad foreign ministers meet in New York for the third time
World News4 days ago
India’s Canadian riddle
Defense4 days ago
Pakistan-Turkey Defense Ties and Policy Options
Green Planet3 days ago
Sustainability in the Age of Climate Change: Demography, Resources, and Action
World News4 days ago
UN: A divided world faces a huge number of problems
Terrorism3 days ago
Al-Assad -Xi Jinping: Confronting Turkestan Islamic Party and its relations with ISIS
World News3 days ago
The Alliance of Sahel States
Economy3 days ago
Uniqlo vs. Indonesia: A Battle of Bargaining Power Position