Empowering the Global South to Fight Global Warming: the Importance of Addressing the Geographical Inequality of Climate Change Impact
The term “global warming” is an effective moniker to convey the cross-border nature of an environmental problem. By emphasizing that the planet as a whole is becoming hotter due to human impact, it begs people from all nations and all corners of the globe to solve the problems that they all face as residents of the same planet. The power of the moniker is such that it has largely become a common belief among the believers of global warming that the issue is neither caused by nor can be solved by one particular group of people located in a specific place on Earth. Yet, a closer look at how the world has approached the issue of global warming reveals a gaping discrepancy in how it impacts different countries in different parts of the world.
Some empirical examples can help to illustrate how global warming is inherently “unfair,” targeting certain countries and locales more than others. The resulting geographical discrepancy in global warming at the grassroots level can greatly impact how the issue is perceived and addressed. For instance, the past years have seen the publication of multiple scientific studies that link the rise in sea levels to global warming, affecting coastal areas. The impact of coasts being flooded with seawater is most significantly felt in small island states of the Pacific and the Caribbean, many of which are facing the existential crisis of losing a large portion of sovereign territories to rising oceans.
Damage from rising sea levels is not the only consequence of global warming felt unequally across different countries. Tropical Africa and Latin America will face more severe damages to agricultural production compared to more northerly regions. The damage felt by many tropical states is only compounded by the comparative importance of agriculture to their respective economies. Global warming, while affecting every part of the globe, also contains an element of geographic inequality.
By examining the contrasting fortunes of small states most affected by global warming and big states that use most of the world’s fossil fuels, it is possible to split the world into two camps on the matter of global warming. On one side is the “global South,” consisting of countries that consume a tiny portion of the world’s fossil fuels yet have to be the primary victims of global warming simply due to their unfortunate geographical situations. On the other side is the “global North,” major industrial powers home to the biggest fossil fuel firms and markets, and dominating global institutions that can affect both the use of fossil fuels and the course of global warming.
A gap in attitude toward global warming opens up as Northern countries benefit more from the underlying causes and even effects of global warming while Southern countries bear damages that are often not their fault. Even as the media and the general public profess a belief in global warming impacting humans everywhere, the reality on the ground reveals that Southern countries, unfortunately, have borne the brunt of global warming’s detrimental impacts, often without even contributing greatly to the phenomenon itself. Without addressing the North-South gap in understanding global warming, it is difficult to see how a productive international conversation can be carried out to mitigate it through policy-mandated curbs on the use of fossil fuels.
International mainstream media and the general public in many places around the world are increasingly converging on their views on global warming. There is an emerging consensus, in both the global North and the global South, portraying global warming as an issue that requires international solutions and globe-spanning platforms with participation from people around the world. Unfortunately, a survey of international organizations today shows that these globe-spanning platforms remain dominated by Northern countries, with the global South systematically and structurally underrepresented.
A productive conversation on the threat of global warming, and the fossil fuel use that causes it can only be possible when the power imbalance between the North and the South can be resolved on a systematic level. Policies must be put in place at the international level to both stipulate and incentivize greater participation by Southern countries that are most harmed by the impact of global warming, to ensure that any global solutions prioritize solving the problems of those who suffer the most. If Northern countries, potentially benefiting from more fossil fuel usage and armed with technology to mitigate the detrimental impact of global warming, control the conversation, there is an inherent danger that the Southern concerns are blindly ignored.
The shift of power from the North to the South in talking about global warming is and will continue to be extremely difficult. The economic power and institutional control held by the North cannot be wrestled away by the South in the foreseeable future. Of particular note is the grim reality of Northern energy firms securing fossil fuels in the South but only answering to governments and consumers of the North. Such firms will use their financial resources and lobbying skills to dilute any multilateral efforts to limit fossil fuel use if the limit is set only for the benefit of their Southern non-consumers. Southern countries will need to think of other ways to secure a bigger voice in the global discussion of climate change.
But on the issue of global warming, the North-South split is not the only David vs. Goliath story. Its impact on a warmer planet is felt in different ways at different magnitudes by different communities, even within each country. Subnational social groups are thus also split and have to fight their own David vs. Goliath battles. Rising sea levels from global warming will harm coastal areas more than inland ones. Higher temperatures and drier climates affect rural economies more than urban ones. The poor in each country has fewer resources to fight off the detrimental impacts of fossil fuel use and global warming than wealthier citizens. Such inequalities concerning global warming deserve just as much attention as the geographical inequality between the North and the South.
As such, empowering the global South at the expense of the North is a case study for other disadvantaged groups in their separate attempts to increase agency in the fight against global warming. As the global South seeks more equal participation to find more inclusive solutions, other disadvantaged groups are watching and hoping to emulate the same strategies. Hence, empowering the global South in solving global warming is not only about helping countries overcome harms that they did little to help the cause, but also about inspiring other groups to do the same. The creation of a more egalitarian community to fight global warming, both at the international and subnational levels, depends on the success of the global South.
Damage from rising sea levels is not the only consequence of global warming felt unequally across different countries. Tropical Africa and Latin America will face more severe damages to agricultural production compared to more northerly regions. The damage felt by many tropical states is only compounded by the comparative importance of agriculture to their respective economies. Global warming, while affecting every part of the globe, also contains an element of geographic inequality.
By examining the contrasting fortunes of small states most affected by global warming and big states that use most of the world’s fossil fuels, it is possible to split the world into two camps on the matter of global warming. On one side is the “global South,” consisting of countries that consume a tiny portion of the world’s fossil fuels yet have to be the primary victims of global warming simply due to their unfortunate geographical situations. On the other side is the “global North,” major industrial powers home to the biggest fossil fuel firms and markets, and dominating global institutions that can affect both the use of fossil fuels and the course of global warming.
A gap in attitude toward global warming opens up as Northern countries benefit more from the underlying causes and even effects of global warming while Southern countries bear damages that are often not their fault. Even as the media and the general public profess a belief in global warming impacting humans everywhere, the reality on the ground reveals that Southern countries, unfortunately, have borne the brunt of global warming’s detrimental impacts, often without even contributing greatly to the phenomenon itself. Without addressing the North-South gap in understanding global warming, it is difficult to see how a productive international conversation can be carried out to mitigate it through policy-mandated curbs on the use of fossil fuels.
International mainstream media and the general public in many places around the world are increasingly converging on their views on global warming. There is an emerging consensus, in both the global North and the global South, portraying global warming as an issue that requires international solutions and globe-spanning platforms with participation from people around the world. Unfortunately, a survey of international organizations today shows that these globe-spanning platforms remain dominated by Northern countries, with the global South systematically and structurally underrepresented.
A productive conversation on the threat of global warming, and the fossil fuel use that causes it can only be possible when the power imbalance between the North and the South can be resolved on a systematic level. Policies must be put in place at the international level to both stipulate and incentivize greater participation by Southern countries that are most harmed by the impact of global warming, to ensure that any global solutions prioritize solving the problems of those who suffer the most. If Northern countries, potentially benefiting from more fossil fuel usage and armed with technology to mitigate the detrimental impact of global warming, control the conversation, there is an inherent danger that the Southern concerns are blindly ignored.
The shift of power from the North to the South in talking about global warming is and will continue to be extremely difficult. The economic power and institutional control held by the North cannot be wrestled away by the South in the foreseeable future. Of particular note is the grim reality of Northern energy firms securing fossil fuels in the South but only answering to governments and consumers of the North. Such firms will use their financial resources and lobbying skills to dilute any multilateral efforts to limit fossil fuel use if the limit is set only for the benefit of their Southern non-consumers. Southern countries will need to think of other ways to secure a bigger voice in the global discussion of climate change.
But on the issue of global warming, the North-South split is not the only David vs. Goliath story. Its impact on a warmer planet is felt in different ways at different magnitudes by different communities, even within each country. Subnational social groups are thus also split and have to fight their own David vs. Goliath battles. Rising sea levels from global warming will harm coastal areas more than inland ones. Higher temperatures and drier climates affect rural economies more than urban ones. The poor in each country has fewer resources to fight off the detrimental impacts of fossil fuel use and global warming than wealthier citizens. Such inequalities concerning global warming deserve just as much attention as the geographical inequality between the North and the South.
As such, empowering the global South at the expense of the North is a case study for other disadvantaged groups in their separate attempts to increase agency in the fight against global warming. As the global South seeks more equal participation to find more inclusive solutions, other disadvantaged groups are watching and hoping to emulate the same strategies. Hence, empowering the global South in solving global warming is not only about helping countries overcome harms that they did little to help the cause, but also about inspiring other groups to do the same. The creation of a more egalitarian community to fight global warming, both at the international and subnational levels, depends on the success of the global South.
Comments
Post a Comment