West’s hypocrisy at COP29: Why Global South must draw the line
As we delve into the climate crisis, wealthy Western nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway, stand as embodiments of climate hypocrisy. While these countries preach the critical need to address climate change, their actions suggest otherwise. They are responsible for a staggering 51% of all planned expansions in oil and gas fields through 2050, a betrayal to global climate goals. The emission plans from these nations could unleash 173 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which equates to the annual output of 1,100 newly-built coal plants, or 30 years of total emissions from the United States.
This behavior ridicules the Paris Agreement and showcases an egregious double standard. Despite well-publicized criticisms of developing nations for insufficient climate action, these affluent countries continue perpetuating their fossil fuel dependencies, putting corporate gains over environmental sustainability. Simultaneously, they fail to fulfill their financial promises intended to support poorer countries in adapting to climate change. At the latest UN Climate Change Conference, COP29, the proposed $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035 is dwarfed by the $1.3 trillion needed by developing countries to achieve their climate ambitions, risking inadequate resources for the poorest countries to enhance their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2025.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2024, vast disparities in per capita and historical greenhouse gas emissions across different regions spotlight the imbalanced climate responsibility. For instance, in 2023, the United States produced per capita emissions of 18 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂e), nearly three times the global average and six times that of India, which stands at 2.9 tCO₂e per capita. In the same vein, the Russian Federation and the European Union have per capita emissions of 19 tCO₂e and 7.3 tCO₂e respectively, contrasting starkly with regions like the African Union at 2.2 tCO₂e and least developed countries at 1.5 tCO₂e.
Further examining historical emissions intensifies these disparities. The United States, with 527 GtCO₂ of cumulative emissions since 1850, bears responsibility for 20% of all emissions worldwide despite comprising only 4% of the global population. In comparison, the European Union accounts for an additional 12%, with 301 GtCO₂ emissions. Meanwhile, India’s cumulative emissions amount to just 83 GtCO₂, or 3% of the global total, even though it is home to over 1.4 billion people. Though China, now the top emitter worldwide, also has a cumulative history of 300 GtCO₂, its overall contribution is still only about half that of the United States. This unequal historical burden further underscores the obligation of developed nations to lead climate mitigation efforts.
These Western nations, having amassed wealth through rampant industrialization while pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, now impose measures such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on developing economies. Such mechanisms penalize developing nations for emissions starkly less than those historically recorded by the West. This is not genuine climate leadership; instead, it signifies economic imperialism masked by environmental language.
Policies like CBAM reveal the Global North’s blatant duplicity, claiming to encourage decarbonization but effectively serving as protectionist tools to obstruct industrial growth in developing regions. It’s akin to a scenario where a thief demands payment for resources stripped from the rightful owner. These tactics strip developing nations of their competitive edge, unfairly transferring the burden of the North’s climate negligence onto those least accountable.
India, alongside numerous other nations in the Global South, has rightly disapproved of the recent COP29 climate finance agreement, criticizing it as insufficient and misleading. The offered $300 billion annual pledge by 2035 has been slammed as a mere “optical illusion,” unable to meet the vast challenge posed by climate change. This weak commitment sharply contrasts with the substantial $1.3 trillion per annum demanded by developing countries to effectively mitigate climate impacts. This so-called agreement was pushed through with little opportunity for countries like India to voice their grievances, signifying a concerning erosion of trust in the UN framework.
This sentiment resonates across the Global South, with several nations expressing outrage over the minuscule financial commitments from affluent countries. Representatives from countries such as Nigeria, Malawi, Bolivia, and numerous island nations have voiced strong dissatisfaction, even walking out of negotiations to denounce the neglect of their urgent concerns. Such injustices not only tarnish the principles of climate justice but continue to afflict those least responsible for the climate crisis.
The urgent call for substantial financial support from the Global South has been met with hollow promises, underscoring a recurring narrative of injustice within international climate discussions where the voices from the south remain marginalized. Perhaps now is the time for these nations to assert their counter-narrative by establishing a South-South Carbon Adjustment Union (SSCAU). While not a direct revenue-generating strategy, such a union could convey a potent message: the Global South is neither silent nor powerless in facing global inequalities. By imposing reciprocal tariffs on imports from nations not meeting their climate obligations, the SSCAU could highlight the necessity for an equitable distribution of climate responsibilities.
This initiative would not aim for economic retaliation but strive to recalibrate the global climate dialogue, emphasizing the collective strength of the South. By challenging the West’s unilateral governance, such a union could pressure developed nations to adhere to their pledges under international accords like the Paris Agreement.
Leave a Reply