|
Climate
change will hit Africa - a continent that has contributed
virtually nothing to bring it about - first and hardest.
Aside
from Antarctica, Africa is the only continent that has not
industrialised. Indeed, since the 1980s the
industrialisation that had taken place in Africa has by and
large been reversed. Africa has thus contributed nothing to
the historical accumulation of greenhouse gases through
carbon-based industrialization. Moreover, its current
contribution is also negligible, practically all of it
coming from deforestation and degradation of forests and
farmlands.
Yet
climate change will hit Africa hardest, because it will
cripple the continent's vulnerable agricultural sector, on
which 70pc of the population depends. All estimates of the
possible impact of global warming suggest that a large part
of the continent will become drier, and that the continent
as a whole will experience greater climatic variability.
We know
what the impact of periodic droughts have been on the lives
of tens of millions of Africans. We can, therefore, imagine
what the impact of a drier climate on agriculture is likely
to be. Conditions in this vital economic sector will become
even more precarious than they currently are.
Africa
will not only be hit hardest, but it will be hit first.
Indeed, the long-dreaded impact of climate change is already
upon us. The current drought covering much of East Africa -
far more severe than past droughts - has been directly
associated with climate change.
The
upcoming climate negotiations ought to address the specific
problems of Africa and similarly vulnerable poor parts of
the world. This requires, first and most importantly,
reducing global warming to the apparently inevitable
increase of two degrees Celsius, beyond which lies an
environmental catastrophe that could be unmanageable for
poor and vulnerable countries. Second, adequate resources
should be made available to poor and vulnerable regions and
countries to enable them to adapt to climate change.
Climate
change, which was largely brought about by the activities of
developed countries, has made it difficult for poor and
vulnerable countries to fight poverty. It has created a more
hostile environment for development.
No
amount of money will undo the damage done. But adequate
investment in mitigating the damage could partly resolve the
problem.
Developed countries are thus morally obliged to pay partial
compensation to poor and vulnerable countries and regions to
cover part of the cost of the investments needed to adapt to
climate change.
Various
estimates have been made on the scale of investments
required by those countries. One conservative estimate -
which has a reasonable chance of being accepted precisely
because it is conservative - calls for 50 billion dollars
per year as of 2015, increasing to 100 billion dollars by
2020 and beyond. A transitional financing arrangement would
be put in place for the period of 2010 to 2015.
Some
argue that developed countries cannot come up with such
sums, particularly given their current economic challenges.
But no one has so far argued that the cost of damage caused
to the development prospects of poor countries and regions
is less than the amount of compensation being offered to
cover adjustment costs. The reason is obvious - the damage
caused is many times higher than the compensation being
requested.
Nonetheless, it is argued, whatever the real cost of the
damage, developed countries currently cannot afford to
provide that kind of money. But we all know that these
countries and their national banks were able to spend
trillions of dollars in a few months to bail out their
bankers, who earned super-profits when the going was good.
When the good times ended, taxpayers and governments were
prepared to rescue them and to ensure that they continued to
receive their extraordinary bonuses.
If the
developed world is able to pay trillions of dollars to clean
up its bankers' mess, how is it possible that it cannot
afford to pay billions of dollars to clean up a mess that it
created, and that is threatening the survival of whole
continents?
Clearly, this is not about the availability of resources. It
is about the inappropriate priorities in how resources are
allocated. It is about moral values that make it appropriate
to rescue bankers who expect everyone but themselves to pay
for the mess they created, and inappropriate to compensate
the world's poorest people whose survival is threatened
precisely because of the mess created by developed
countries.
I
cannot believe that people in developed counties, when
informed about the issues, would support rescuing bankers
and oppose partial compensation for poor countries and
regions. I can not believe that they would let such an
injustice occur. If they are not expressing their outrage
over the injustice of it all, it can only be because they
are inadequately informed.
|
