Even if the world celebrates a Paris climate deal on Dec. 11, the process will still have to be regarded as a failure. Let me explain why.
The basic reason is that the unequal distribution of carbon emissions is not even on its agenda. The historical responsibility of the West is not on the table, nor is a method of national carbon accounting that looks at how the emissions a country consumes rather than produces. Instead, what is on the table are expanded and new mechanisms that will allow the rich, Western countries to outsource their emission cuts so they can paint themselves green.
When the figures are in, 2015 is likely to be the warmest year on record, and weâve just reached one-degree Celsius temperature rise since the industrial revolution, halfway to the two-degree Celsius widely agreed to be the upper safe limit of global warming. Itâs the fastest surface temperature increase in the worldâs known geological history. We are now entering âuncharted territory.â
The dangers of global warming have been knownâeven to oil company executivesâsince at least the early 1980s. Yet, despite 25 years of the United Nations-led climate talks, the world is burning more fossil fuels than ever.
This is not simply the fault of big emerging economies such as China, India, or Brazil. Instead, what we are dealing with is the fundamental failure of neoliberal capitalism, the worldâs dominant economic system, to confront its hunger for exponential growth that is only made possible by the unique energy density of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
Historical responsibility
A glance at global history reveals how closely energy is linked to economic growth. The Netherlands was the first country to get a taste for exponential industrial growth back in the 16th and 17th centuriesâand the Dutch empire was built on the availability of cheap domestic peat as well as timber from Norwegian and Baltic forests.
One reason the British took over the Netherlandsâ imperial leadership was its vast reserves of cheap coal, which started to be burned at the end of the 18th century, exponentially growing in the 19th century. Then came oil and gas, which helped make the US the imperial master from the early 20th century onwards.
So, there are more than 300 years of massive fossil fuel burning by the so-called West to account for. And while this historical responsibility still played a significant role at Kyoto in 1997âresulting in emissions cuts that were only legally binding for industrialised countriesâit has gradually been pushed into the background.
Now in Paris it seems almost forgotten. But the fact that about 80% of historical carbon emissions have to be attributed to the developed countries cannot simply be wished away.
The rapid rise of emissions, particularly in China and India, is often cited as the reason for why these rapidly industrialising countries now also have to curb their emissions. Iâm not saying that they shouldnât. Both countries clearly have their own imperial ambitions, which they hope to achieve by stimulating massive industrial expansion.
But letâs bear in mind that Indiaâs carbon emissions per capita are still 10 times lower than those of the US. And Chinaâs rapidly rising emissions are to a great extent driven by export-driven industries, producing consumer goods for the West.
Creative carbon accounting
In fact, if a consumption-based approach to carbon accounting is taken, the UKâs national carbon emissions would be twice as high as officially reported. This is also true for most Western European countries and the US, which have experienced increasing rates of deindustrialisation over the past two decades with not only jobs but also carbon emissions being offshored to developing countries. In return, the West is receiving cheap consumer goods without recognising the responsibility for the embedded carbon emissions that come with them. A clear form of carbon colonialism.
Of course, some of the exponential growth in carbon emissions by India and China is also due to increases in homegrown consumption. China apparently now has the largest middle class in the world. However, if we take a consumption-based view, then even Chinaâs emissions per capita will not reach the USâs current rate for a long time, and Indiaâs lag further behind.
Yet, rich countries continue to be eager to outsource their responsibilities. Carbon offsetting will see an unprecedented growth in the coming years. Countries such as Norway and Switzerland will continue to strike bilateral deals with poor nations desperate for cash. Emissions trading systems (ETS) will allow maximum flexibility for companies to offset their emissions.
These are all mechanisms designed to cement the status quo. The European Union ETS has not made a significant impact on the trading blocâs carbon emissions since its inception in 2005, allowing Shellâs CEO Ben Van Beurden to insist even in 2015 that: âThe reality of demand growth is such that fossil fuels will be needed for decades to come.â
Nothing significant has changed since Rio 1992 or Kyoto 1997. Paris 2015 will be no different. The talking will continue until we realise climate change is a failure of a system, whichâon the back of fossil fuelâis geared towards exponential economic growth. Nobody who sits at the negotiation table in Paris has the mandate nor inclination to ask fundamental, systemic questions of the logic of the dominant economic system and the way we consume the resources of this planet.
Source:Â https://qz.com/562417/stop-blaming-india-and-china-for-the-wests-300-years-of-destroying-the-environment/
The Paris Climate Accord was economic and climate colonialism and it deserves to go to hell.Â
The fucking West has for centuries fueled global warming by industrializing, all the while enslaving people of color in their own lands, and now they want people of color to curb their own development to pay for the Westâs sins? FUCK RIGHT OFF.Â
If the West wants developing countries to curb their emissions then it needs to compensate in trillions of dollars to account for the economic growth lost in achieving those reductions. Thatâs economic and climate justice.Â
[To the crackers whoâll no doubt show up in our inbox complaining about this: No. This is not an endorsement of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement. This is saying that the US should be one of the core countries that should be bound by an emissions-curbing agreement.]
