Reducing emissions is undeniably essential, but the pivotal question is whether the energy-secure Global North and energy-deficient South confront this challenge on equal grounds. Should countries with high emissions and those with negligible contributions be held to the same standard in cutting emissions? While every tonne of emission matters globally, it’s essential to understand that not all greenhouse gases are emitted equally.
Consider the recent scrutiny faced by Mexico and India for expanding their fossil fuel operations. Mexico’s power emissions increased by 11 per cent last year to more than 175 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the highest level in more than five years. Naturally, this surge has raised concerns among climate trackers.
However, when viewed within the broader context, Mexico contributed just 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. A substantial drop in hydropower output required it to increase fossil fuel-powered electricity generation as a response to an immediate energy crisis.
03:01
India’s coal dependence is why Modi’s net zero emissions by 2070 pledge surprised many at COP26
India’s coal dependence is why Modi’s net zero emissions by 2070 pledge surprised many at COP26
India has also increased its reliance on coal in the past year to meet its surging power demand, with the rise in coal-fired power output exceeding the growth of renewable energy for the first time since at least 2019. Although this might initially raise concerns, India’s situation is more nuanced than it appears at first glance. While India is the third-largest emitter globally, its per-capita greenhouse gas emissions of around 2 tonnes are lower than the world average of more than 6 tonnes.
Moreover, India faces a formidable challenge in providing energy to its growing population. What else should a country with a population of more than 1.4 billion people do in such a situation? Certainly, it will spare no effort to tend to the needs of its citizens. Pushing for emission reductions within the same energy mix could force these countries to accept structurally lower living standards.
This debate is also pertinent to Africa, where 43 per cent of the continent’s 1.4 billion people lack access to electricity. Here, leaving fossil fuels in the ground is more than merely impractical; it’s not even on the table. The situation is so fraught that some argue that wealthier countries should support Africa in the exploration and extraction of its fossil fuels, recognising their limitations in resources and technology.
The African predicament also underscores one of the most severe realities confronting the developing world: cyclical debt. The debt owed by the Global South has surged by 150 per cent since 2011. There are 54 countries considered to be in a debt crisis, spending five times more on repayments than addressing the climate crisis.
01:25
China-funded infrastructure across Africa force difficult decisions for its leaders
China-funded infrastructure across Africa force difficult decisions for its leaders
Take debt-stricken Pakistan, a country grappling with the aftermath of devastating floods in 2022 and recognised as one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. Recent elections saw major parties strategically leveraging climate change as a positive campaign tactic.
However, the incoming leadership will inevitably confront the harsh reality of choosing between allocating limited resources to climate adaptation or prioritising the overall development of the country. Alternatively, the government might prioritise paying down Pakistan’s debt.
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, there is the climate injustice manifested in the developed world outsourcing their emissions to the Global South. Nowhere is this practice more glaring than in China, which has the world’s second-largest population and highest emissions.
China, India set to increase emissions by 2030; all major economies to miss reduction goals
China has held the title of the world’s largest exporter since 2009, with the United States, Japan, South Korea, Germany and other developed nations among its top export destinations. As it happens, the emissions trajectory for most of these countries has fallen off in that time while China’s emissions continue to rise.
In essence, developed economies have relocated their high-emissions manufacturing to China and other developing economies while claiming to have taken action against climate change. Even Tesla, heralded for revolutionising climate technology in the electric vehicle space, operates one of the largest manufacturing plants in China.
The Tesla Gigafactory in Shanghai is seen in September last year. Photo: Xinhua via AP
Apple, a trillion-dollar company that presented its first “carbon-neutral” products through offsetting emissions last year, has had a significant presence in China’s manufacturing landscape for many years. It is time to debunk “net zero” illusions – emissions persist, just elsewhere.
The crux of the matter is that the 64 poorest countries, home to a quarter of the world’s population, together contribute only 4.5 per cent to total global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if these countries were to escalate their fossil fuel usage by 2035, their impact on global emissions would still be minimal. Penalising these countries for their carbon footprint is unfair.
Instead, the developing world should have flexibility in their approach, enabling them to focus on alleviating poverty. This doesn’t necessarily advocate for fossil fuels as the best option but rather underscores that imposing penalties, or even scrutinising their energy choices, is unjust.
Rizwan Basir is a sociologist who works as a climate finance specialist at the Climate Resourcing Coordination Centre (CRCC), based in Islamabad, Pakistan
Denial of responsibility! Web Times is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – webtimes.uk. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
