Who Should Pay for Climate Change?
As global warming sweeps through our planet, destroys cities, and small island nations, one major question remains: Who will pay?
Fighting climate change is no small feat; it is going to take the collaboration of developing and developed nations to control the spread of rising sea-levels. Over the past few decades, there have been numerous agreements, policies, and acts signed that commit nations to reduce their carbon footprint. However, there continue to be challenges that these countries must overcome in order to achieve the set goals. There is a wide variety among countries of their contribution to climate change, how susceptible they are to its effects, and their ability to mitigate greenhouse gases financially. One major problem remains: how can countries work together fairly to reduce global warming and who should pay for mitigation, adaptation, and damages?
Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are admirable due to the ability to bring powers from around the world together to one table. International cooperation tells citizens and leaders around the world that this is a serious issue. Climate change conferences have accomplished a great deal throughout the past few decades, but progress comes to a halt when financial details appear. Unfortunately, the countries that are fueling global warming first are the ones who have contributed the least. The impact of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor persons within all countries. The population in developing countries is generally exposed to a relatively high risk of adverse impacts from climate change. (Sagar & Baer) Leaders realized that countries of a certain caliber could help more than others, and countries were split into two groups, Annex I and Annex II. Annex 1 countries (all developed countries) and Annex 2 countries (all developing countries) were created during the early years of international climate change negotiations. (Farber & Clarence). Dividing the countries into two groups based on financial status made sense at the time, but the economy has changed steadily since the groups were formed.
One of the most pressing issues facing the world today is who should pay for climate change mitigation. At the start, powerful countries such as the United States were completely on board with a fair division of debt-paying. In 1997, for example, through the leadership of Vice President Al Gore, the United States served as one of the key architects of the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. At the time, the United States was also the largest net Global greenhouse gas emitter. ( Farber & Clarence) This was a great start for the U.S. in terms of taking responsibility for its emissions and promising to put regulations in place to do better. As time went on, leaders changed and fossil fuels became increasingly popular in developing countries despite the agreements. Political climates shifted as the global market crashed. Former Vice President Al Gore aggressively supported the Kyoto Protocol; climate change was becoming an increasingly divisive issue back home. Right-wing politicians began to question and deny the legitimacy of human-caused climate change. Prior even to the adoption of the protocol, the Senate expressed opposition to any agreement that would harm the domestic economy or put the United States at an economic disadvantage in relations to its key economic competitors, including China and many of the other rapidly developing economies that have been excluded from legally binding emission reductions obligations under the terms of the protocol. ( Farber & Clarence). The opposition between China and the U.S. was the start of the challenges to fighting global climate change as a team. Estimates of mitigation costs vary but are steep. The IPCC report estimated that within an atmospheric CO2 concentration ceiling of 550 parts per million by volume could require up to 800 billion USD (in 1990 dollars) during the next century while meeting a tighter target of 450 ppmv would require between 350 and 1,750 billion USD. (Sagar & Baer) Since developing countries do not have the monetary resources to pay this debt, this cost will ideally be split between countries based on their emissions.
Another big question is who should pay for the transformation that will be needed because of climate change. It has become increasingly clear that largely populated countries such as the United States, India, and China contribute the most carbon emissions. But when the countries were divided into Annexes I and II, India and China were categorized into Annex II. Therefore, they are financially responsible for less than the United States, even though China surpasses the U.S. in carbon emissions. Critical challenges facing the United States and the global community are ensuring access to safe, reliable, and clean sources of energy. Energy use has been fundamental to human development, with fossil fuel consumption driving the Industrial Revolution and continuing to fuel patterns of human development and prosperity. Generally, access to energy is seen as critical to social and economic development worldwide. Further, with the energy sector continuing to account for an excess of $15 trillion of global GDP and international access to energy continuing to expand, the energy industry continues one of the pillars of the domestic and international economies. (Farber & Clarance ). However, adaptation includes a wide variety of options, from stagnation to feedback to creating a plan, and from the universal to the personal.
Liability is another huge financial issue that is already causing problems within agreements and policies. Damages are also a tricky subject because some of the disasters are inevitable. Researchers and scientists also think that liability to climate change will become a huge legal business. Lawsuits for climate damages will no doubt be complex propositions, given the intricacies of the issues, especially in attributing damages to climate change, and the application of existing legal practice and theory to such cases. (Farber & Clarence p. 254). The inequity and imbalance between countries causing and feeling the effects of climate change will most likely cause legal disputes. Damages also go beyond financial issues; global warming is going to cause extreme mental health issues to those who lose their lives, livelihoods, homes, and cultures. Those personal and emotional damages are unlikely to be fixed with monetary settlements.
When it comes to global cooperation and action on climate change there is one big issue that prevents plans from becoming progress. Who and how much money will be paid for climate change is the major challenge preventing the legal agreements from being successful. When both developed and developing countries need to work together to fight climate change there will be a substantial change.
References
Farber, D. A. & Carlarne, C. P. (2018). Climate change law. Foundation Press. (pp. 117–49).
Schneider, S. H., Rosencranz, A., & Mastrandrea, M. D. (2010). Climate Change Science and Policy. Island Press.
