Climate Justice In The Climate Change Debates:  Paradoxes Of Global North Vs Global South Perspectives? – Analysis

As the globe confronts the intensifying effects of climate change, the discourse has progressed from simple scientific investigation to a crucial analysis of global justice. Climate justice has become a crucial framework, highlighting the significant disparities that define the connection between the Global North and the Global South.

Although industrialized nations have traditionally been the principal contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, it is the developing countries who disproportionately endure the repercussions of climate change. This paradox prompts critical inquiries regarding accountability and fairness in addressing a catastrophe that endangers the fundamental structure of our world.

This discourse centers on a complex interaction of power relations, past injustices, and divergent goals that hinder the pursuit of an equitable solution to climate change. The Global North, characterized by its developed economies, is increasingly called upon to assume responsibility for its historical acts by offering assistance to the Global South, which frequently lacks the resources to adequately address climate-related issues. Nevertheless, the pursuit of climate justice is laden with obstacles, as countries grapple with the ambiguous implications of equitable burden-sharing. In the context of the Global South

Climate justice recognizes that those countries which have benefited most from industrialization need to bear an inequitable share of responsibility for the emission of greenhouse gases and, subsequently, used to leave drastic impacts on climate change. There is growing consensus that the developed countries are responsible for climate change, while the world’s poorest and most marginalized communities, often endure the most severe consequences. Climate change used to affect more persons with low incomes, indigenous groups, or communities of color, differing by country and environment (Kofi Annan October 1, 2009). The ‘triple injustice’ of climate change denotes the phenomenon wherein individuals most affected by climate change, despite their minimal contribution to its causation, also endure adverse effects from the measures implemented in response to climate change (Jafry, Tahseen, ed., 2019).

Rationales of Climate Injustice

Climate injustice arises from economic disparities, particularly between capitalism and socialism. Conservative environmental organizations attribute climate change to the excesses of neoliberalism and promote market-oriented changes, whereas leftist groups identify capitalism’s exploitative characteristics as the fundamental cause of climate change (Mitchell, 2011).

Political accountability is essential in combating climate change, as it entails upholding and reinforcing current frameworks that sustain carbon-intensive practices and institutions. This occurs notwithstanding the possibility of alternate models established on innovative technologies. The global politico-economic system, which facilitates the exploitation of individuals and the environment, frequently serves as the principal criterion for assessing accountability for climate change. Climate justice can be addressed through established economic frameworks, international organizations, and policy procedures, by recognizing the fundamental issues that have obstructed the global implementation of measures such as emissions trading schemes (Sardo, Michael Christopher, 2020, September 14).

Climate Change Issues and Debates

The core concerns in the climate justice and equity discourses encompass historical accountability, contemporary emission patterns, adaptation and susceptibility, climate financing, equitable transition, loss and damage, and the creation of a Loss and Damage Fund. The discussions are grounded in historical emissions, economic inequalities, and the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” (CBDR-RC), as acknowledged in international climate accords such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. 

The Global North prioritizes present and future emissions, innovations, market strategies, and advocates for emerging economies to assume increased responsibility owing to their rising emissions. The Global South underscores historical accountability, the ethical duties of developed countries to spearhead mitigation efforts and furnish financial and technological assistance, the promotion of equity in climate negotiations, and the reproach of developed countries for not fulfilling their climate finance and emission reduction pledges. 

Recent developments in equity discussions encompass the Paris Agreement (2015), the Glasgow Climate Pact (2021), and the establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 (2022). Reconciling the disparity necessitates inventive financial strategies, technology transfer , and customized objectives. Innovative finance mechanisms, such as debt-for-climate swaps, can alleviate the financial limitations faced by the Global South. Technology transfer is crucial for facilitating the South’s advancement to sustainable energy systems. Customizing climate objectives to align with national contexts while preserving global aspirations helps harmonize equity with efficacy. This discussion highlights that the principal North-South equity arguments emphasize the necessity for ‘Climate Justice’ in climate initiatives, correcting past injustices, honoring financial promises, and facilitating sustainable development in the Global South. Only by authentic partnership can the global community establish a climate-resilient future for everyone.

Asymmetry of Global North and South’s Emission 

The Global North nations constitute a substantial share of historical carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and are key contributors to climate change. Sinan Ülgen (October 6, 2021) emphasized that the United States has produced highest carbon emissions than any other country, constituting 25% of total emissions. The EU nations, in conjunction with the UK, constitute 22% of world CO2 emissions. Currently, China’s contributions are projected to be around 12.7%. Conversely, India (3%) and Brazil (0.9%) have not made substantial contributions to global emissions historically. The aggregate contributions of African nations, being about 3 percent, are significantly negligible in relation to the continent’s population size.

Moreover, the Global North continues to have far greater per capita emissions than the rest of the globe. In 2019, the United States distinguished itself among post-industrialized nations by registering 16 tons of CO2 emissions per capita. This figure positioned it immediately behind Australia, which had 16.3 tonnes per capita, and ahead of Canada, which had 15.4 tonnes per capita. The per capita estimates for Europe generally fluctuate between 5 and 10 tonnes, depending on the country. Hydrocarbon-dependent economies like Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, including Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, achieve significant rankings, with some exceeding those of Global North countries.

Richer developed countries emit more CO2 per person than poorer developing countries. The responsibility for climate change differs substantially among individuals and groups, with the most affluent citizens responsible for most environmental impacts. The article of Pearce & Richard (2023) found that if there were a 2°C temperature rise by 2100, roughly 1 billion primarily poor people would die due to primarily wealthy people’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate justice issues emerge from the disparity between countries’ emissions and their corresponding responsibilities to address climate change, encompassing the expenses of emissions reduction, adaptation, and other associated impacts and climate challenges. The majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions originate from economic activities conducted in or by the developed countries, but developing countries endure a disproportionate share of climate change consequences. Less developed economies and small island nations seek prompt responses from post-industrialized and developing countries.

Paradoxes of Global North

At the end of the COP29 Summit, the Global North and Global South had very different points of view. The paradoxes of COP29 begin with people in the Global South being disappointed and asking whether the current ways of negotiating are working. The Global North was happy that a climate finance goal of “at least $300 billion per year by 2035” was set-forth. However, the Global South in general and India in particular, had expressed their dissatisfaction by arguing that this obligation wasn’t even close to the $1.3 trillion that was committed. The meeting brought to light the persistent gap between rich and poor countries as the latter felt betrayed when their long-standing calls for fair climate action were not met. Moreover, majority of the $300 billion pledged will be provided through debt-creating loans and “private finance, rather than public funding. This will result in financial burden for the Global South countries which have already been struggling with debt. As the climate crisis escalates, billions of individuals will lose their homes, livelihoods, and lives, and the necessary funds to address climate disintegration will not be available.

India’s rejection of the deal underscored concerns about the lack of focus on historical responsibilities and per capita emissions, as well as the hasty adoption process that sidelined their voices. The EU and UNFCCC hailed the agreement as a significant step forward, citing an increase in contributors and potential benefits for nations like Afghanistan. However, the geopolitical context, including the war in Ukraine, has strained the financial capabilities of developed nations, leading to scepticism about their commitment to climate finance. 

The United Nations has projected that the Global South would require a minimum of $5 trillion annually in non-debt creating funds to rectify historical injustices and tackle impending climate crises. Global North has not been going by their commitments, rather the money is being spent on military expenditures and campaigns, backing fossil fuels, instead of addressing their climate obligations. The Summit also revealed underlying tensions within the developing world regarding definitions of “developing countries,” with calls for economically stronger nations like India and China to contribute more to climate funds. 

COP 29 had left a record of disappointment regarding its central agenda — climate finance. Against this background, the conference has been characterized as a “lost opportunity” by the Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), which alleges that the Global North has ignored their responsibilities and diluted their obligations. Indian negotiator Chandni Raina described the agreement as an “optical illusion” that fails to address the enormity of the climate crisis. This sentiment was echoed by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who staged a walkout in protest. The significance of climate-related trade policies, such as Europe’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and potential U.S. tariffs, was another point of contention. Developing nations contend that these measures disproportionately burden their economies, thereby impeding their capacity to transition to low-carbon pathways.

The discussion and discourse on climate justice highlights the stark disparities between the Global North and South in addressing climate change. Industrialized nations, historically the largest greenhouse gas emitters, are increasingly pressured to support developing countries that suffer the most from climate impacts despite their minimal contributions. This paradox raises questions of accountability and fairness, as the Global South calls for recognition of historical injustices and equitable climate financing. Recent negotiations, such as COP29, reveal ongoing tensions, with the Global North’s commitments falling short of the Global South’s needs, exacerbating feelings of betrayal and highlighting the urgent necessity for genuine partnerships and innovative financial solutions to achieve climate resilience.

Conclusion 

The paradoxes emerging over the climate change debates have been impacting the climate justice of the Global South. The stark disparities in historical emissions and responsibilities between the Global North and South highlight a systemic inequity that leaves the latter vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The Global North’s failure to fulfil its financial and technological commitments exacerbates the plight of marginalized communities in the Global South, who are already grappling with the consequences of climate change despite their minimal contributions to its causes. Recent climate negotiations, particularly COP29, have underscored the frustrations of developing nations, revealing a persistent gap between the pledges made by the Global North and the actual needs of the Global South, estimated at $5 trillion annually. This inadequacy not only undermines the potential for effective climate action but also perpetuates existing inequalities, as the Global South continues to bear the brunt of climate impacts while receiving insufficient support. As the climate crisis escalates, the urgency for equitable solutions and genuine collaboration becomes paramount to ensure a sustainable and just future for all affected communities.

About the authors:

• Prof.  Bawa Singh, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India) 151001. 
• Mr. Koche Jay Manik, PhD Research Scholar, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda (India) 151001.