Latin America must cut emissions too |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/10/latin-america-emissions-climate-change
When it comes to climate change negotiations, rich countries receive the brunt of the criticism. Some heat has been applied to the emerging heavyweights – China, India and Brazil – too. In contrast, there seems to be a consensus that the poorest countries, mainly in Africa and Asia, shouldn't have to make emissions cuts.
But what about non-heavyweight, middle-income countries, like most of Latin America? Their arguments for rejecting emissions cuts are two-fold: first, they're not responsible for climate change, so it's not their job to fix it; and second, they lack the resources to take action, as their priority is fighting poverty.
These arguments are not as strong as they might seem. First, it's true that middle-income countries' emissions are small in absolute and relative terms. But small does not mean insignificant. According to the latest figures on energy use, developing countries generated just over half the total CO2 emitted in 2007. Even if you take out China, India and Brazil, the remaining developing countries are still responsible for a quarter of global energy emissions. This share cannot be ignored if a global deal is to be effective.
In any case, emissions statistics don't fully reflect Latin America's role in climate change. On the one hand, deforestation emissions are underestimated due to a lack of satellite surveillance. On the other, the primary exports of countries such as Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico are fossil fuels. Latin American governments have long survived on royalties from oil and coal exports; they must bear some responsibility for the resulting emissions beyond their borders.
Developing countries' second argument implies that a line can be drawn between climate change and development. In fact, climate change is a poverty issue – it will affect the poorest and impede efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The Global Humanitarian Forum estimates that 99% of climate change deaths (more than 300,000 a year) occur in poor countries. Latin America will suffer from food and water insecurity, and the increased spread of malaria and dengue fever. Fighting poverty means helping to bring about a strong climate change agreement.
Moreover, reducing emissions need not be expensive. Energy efficiency measures in buildings offer significant cost savings. The problem is that markets need to be encouraged to exploit them. Other measures to reduce emissions – such as reforestation – generate jobs, along with other social benefits. And there is no doubt that rich countries will finance some foreign emissions reductions. Middle-income countries can commit to the principle of mandatory emissions targets without ruining their economies.
In other words, developing countries are overstating their case for not accepting emissions targets. By doing so, they miss the political imperative. The current diplomatic gridlock means that the Copenhagen summit is likely to produce a skeleton agreement at best. This is a bad outcome for Latin American countries; it jeopardises funding for adaptation to climate change and support for the transfer of green technologies. It also raises the possibility that global emissions will rise to even more dangerous levels. Projections of Amazon dieback are still much debated, but should countries like Argentina, dependent on the forest for their rainfall, really take the chance? Even if Latin American governments believe that rich countries are the global arsonists, their priority should still be putting the fire out. Accepting mandatory cuts would facilitate a stronger, quicker global agreement.
Of course, there's an argument for diplomatic brinkmanship. Perhaps, by holding out on cuts until the last minute, Latin American countries will get more concessions from rich countries. But that strategy has a cost. Right now Latin American governments are sending a message to their own publics: you only have to cut your emissions when you're paid to. Instead they need to start sending a less welcome message: that the priority is a strong international agreement, that cuts will have to be made if the worst impacts are to be avoided and that some of the cuts will involve sacrifices.
How much should developing countries cut their emissions? That depends on the country involved, and what rich countries pledge. For now, developing countries need to reverse their opposition to the principle of mandatory cuts. That opposition has been a gift for rich countries – justifying their own stalling. The sooner developing countries stop talking about voluntary targets or reductions in "carbon intensity", the more the US and others will have to strengthen their own commitments. The longer developing countries reject the possibility of binding cuts, the more they threaten the climate change deal they need.
|
