Who should take global responsibility?

Historically, developed countries are responsible for 79% of carbon emissions and 63% of current carbon emissions based on studies from the Center for Global Development.

The EU alone is responsible for 10% of global CO2 emissions, according to data from the EU itself. Through habits like (over)consumption, international travel, and increased energy demands, the wealthy, mostly Western, world has been driving climate change for centuries while poorer countries account for only one-tenth of emissions.

Recently, there has been a trend where the most polluting industries, like manufacturing, have moved from developed countries to developing countries. Developing economies are countries largely situated in the global south, which rely mostly on resource extraction and manufacturing for economic growth. For example, Bangladesh has become a major hub for clothing production, while a significant portion of electronic manufacturing now takes place in China. In contrast, developed economies are countries largely in the global north, that mainly rely on the knowledge and service sector for economic growth. For example pharmaceutical development in Scandinavia or consulting services in the UK.  

This shift of manufacturing from the north to the south allows developed nations to focus on the less polluting steps in production instead. As a result, developed countries can reduce their domestic emissions, making it appear as though they are progressing towards greener economies because less polluting tasks like management, research, and service make up the biggest part of their economies.

This dynamic highlights a key issue in global climate responsibility: developed nations while shifting to cleaner industries at home, are essentially outsourcing their carbon footprints to poorer countries. This transition places a heavy burden on developing nations, which rely on pollution-heavy industries for economic growth and employment. These countries often have weaker environmental regulations, which leads to higher emissions and greater environmental degradation. This leaves developing nations to deal with the environmental impacts, while developed countries enjoy the benefits of cleaner industries without fully addressing their role in the global emissions problem.

The poorest countries have it far worse when it comes to the consequences of climate change. Firstly, they are typically located in areas that are more prone to droughts and floods. This includes countries close to the Sahara, such as Niger, Chad, and Sudan, which are all facing big water shortages which impact agricultural production, sanitation and overall health in these countries significantly.

Small Island nations such as the Maldives, Haiti, and Fiji are more prone to flooding and extreme weather events like hurricanes due to climate change. Natural disasters have destroyed people’s homes and livelihoods and disrupted key industries such as tourism, which had significant negative impacts on their economic growth and caused deflation and unemployment. At worst, rising sea levels will flood these islands and make them disappear for good, thus literally erasing entire countries.

Comparatively, developed countries are better off in three main ways. Firstly, many of them are located in less high-risk areas for floods and droughts, and the weather consequences they face tend to be milder. Secondly, when consequences from climate change do hit, they are typically contained to specific industries like farming, fishing, and tourism, which developed economies depend less on. The harms are isolated to certain sectors and do not cripple the entire economy like it would in a smaller, less developed country with a less differentiated economy. Thirdly, the wealth of developed countries makes them more able to adapt to climate change consequences in the first place.

It should be noted that developed countries will also bear a significant part of the consequences of climate change, regardless of their comparatively more privileged position. The harsh consequences of climate change hitting developing nations also have a spillover effect on the global north. Notably, large streams of climate refugees are projected to migrate to Europe in the coming years if climate change is not mitigated. As developing countries experience natural disasters, resource scarcity, and unsustainable living conditions, many are forced to leave their homes, creating a wave of climate refugees. Adapting to these large flows of migrants could pose humanitarian challenges as well as strain the social and economic systems of through pressure on infrastructure, public services, and the labor market can generate tensions and conflicts. Therefore, the consequences of climate change are negative for everyone.

The economic situation of countries matters in the climate change debate because the green transition is going to be expensive. Wether the aim is to decrease climate changre processes by significantly curbing emissions (climate mitigation) or to prepare adequate for the consequences of climate change (climate adaption), it will require significant policy and capital efforts.

To stop and reverse the consequences of climate change, governments, and businesses need to invest in and develop green technologies and also change their business models and governing platforms to become more sustainable. Most industries are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and phasing them out requires them to innovate or, for some industries, learn how to do without.

While industries like transportation have found viable solutions by now throguh electric vehicles,  heavier industries, like steel or cement making, cannot produce their product without fossil fuels and will have to invent new ways to make their product or entirely phase out these products and production methods.

The economic situation of poorer, less developed nations means that they have a harder time paying for the cost of this green development and the temporary risk mitigation. Furthermore, the outsourcing of manufacturing industries means that developing countries are dependent on high-polluting industries for economic growth.

Some climate change mitigation policies are a double-edged sword: The general idea is that developing nations have had the opportunity to benefit from years of emission-heavy development since their industrial revolution which has contributed greatly to their economic growth. Does this make it unfair when they ask less developed nations to sacrifice economic growth for lower levels of pollution?

Some economists have for years spoken about a global economic ‘core’ and a ‘periphery.’ This idea refers to the division of the world into wealthier, more developed countries (the core) and poorer, less developed countries (the periphery).

The core countries, like those in North America and Europe, have advanced industries, and strong economies, and consume a large share of the world's resources, often driving high levels of pollution and emissions.

Meanwhile, the periphery countries, often in regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America, have less economic power, rely more on agriculture, and contribute far less to global emissions. These countries suffer the most from climate change impacts like droughts and extreme weather. In short: the core makes climate change worse while the periphery bears the brunt of its effects, highlighting the need for the core to support the periphery in addressing these challenges.

Proponents of the free market economy argue that climate change is best solved through a “green growth” strategy. This means that rather than decreasing consumption and pollution-heavy industries, the focus is on allowing the market to make these industries sustainable in a profitable way. The general idea is that countries can grow their economies while also protecting the environment.

Proponents of green tech focus on using sustainable practices, like investing in renewable energy and green technologies, to create jobs and boost economic growth without harming natural resources. The goal is to reduce the link between economic growth and environmental damage, ensuring that we can have a strong economy and a healthy planet at the same time.

The regrowth movement, in contrast to the ‘green growth’ movement advocates for a shift away from economic growth at all costs. Instead of focusing on increasing production and consumption, the movement promotes regenerating ecosystems, reducing resource extraction, and prioritizing sustainability.

Regrowth supporters argue that current economic models overexploit natural resources which contributes to environmental harm. They emphasize the need to restore ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, and adopt a more circular economy where waste is minimized, and resources are reused. The movement promotes a balance between human activity and environmental health by fostering ecosystems that can sustain life over the long term.

Climate justice is an ethical framework that argues for fair treatment of all people in climate policies, recognizing that those least responsible for climate change, often poorer nations, are the most affected by it.

It calls for a redistribution of resources and responsibilities to ensure equity in addressing climate impacts. It supports the idea that developed nations have a moral obligation to compensate and assist developing countries, both for historical emissions and to enable sustainable development pathways.

Many climate change activists argue that to stop climate change, western consumers have to change their current habits. Patterns like overconsumption, air travel, and online shopping not only pollute greatly but also rely on cheap manufacturing located in developing countries, which depresses the living standards of these people. Others argue that the goal should be to lift everyone’s living standards to those of developed countries through a green growth transition.

Some argue that it is exploitative that Western countries buy cheap goods from developing nations while they are enjoying much higher wages and opportunities.

Others argue that the differentiated economic situation of countries is optimal, as some countries will have a comparative advantage in the production of certain goods or services, meaning they can produce them better and cheaper. This benefits consumers globally and provides stable economic growth in manufacturing countries. Their economies adapt to lower wages through generally lower costs of living.

Many developing nations argue that to sustain their economic growth and development, they need to go through a phase of high-polluting manufacturing or resource extraction to build wealth in the country. For these nations, ensuring employment and growth are more politically important to the average citizen than climate change policies, whose impacts might seem quite intangible.

Other nations argue that this is short-term thinking, as these industries will only harm the countries more in the long run and make the green transition even more expensive later on. By implementing sustainable practices in their growth strategies from the beginning, these nations can avoid harming their environment and thus better shield their citizens from environmental degradation. It might however be more expensive to do this in the first period.

From a climate standpoint, resituating more manufacturing in Western countries could help reduce global emissions by enforcing stricter environmental regulations and using cleaner technologies, which many developed nations are better equipped to implement. This could decrease the overall carbon footprint of production compared to developing countries, where regulations may be weaker and cleaner technologies less accessible.

On the other hand, the higher wages and more regulations in developed countries also increase the cost of production, making these manufactured goods significantly more expensive. Additionally, a reshoring of these industries might disrupt the economies of developing nations that depend on manufacturing, complicating global efforts to balance economic development with emission reductions.

Proponents argue that green growth is possible by making economies more sustainable through the use of renewable energy, green technologies, and recycling. This approach suggests that we can continue to grow our economies while reducing pollution and protecting the environment.

However, others argue that endless growth is not sustainable on a planet with limited resources, as it still requires constant use of energy and materials, which leads to environmental damage and biodiversity loss. They point out that many green technologies still depend on resource-intensive processes and that increasing production and consumption will eventually strain the planet's ecosystems. Therefore, they believe that instead of focusing on growth, we should aim to reduce consumption and move towards a more balanced and sustainable way of living to truly tackle the climate crisis.

Some argue that accepting all climate refugees from developing nations is a moral responsibility, as these countries often contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most from its effects, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. This approach acknowledges the global nature of the climate crisis and promotes shared responsibility and solidarity.

Critics argue that taking in all climate refugees may be impossible due to limited resources, economic strain, and potential social tensions in host countries. They suggest that efforts should instead focus on helping vulnerable communities adapt in place and addressing the root causes of climate change to reduce the need for mass migration. Simply pledging to take in climate refugees might lead to complacency in other areas. Instead of helping to stop or adapt to climate change in these nations, developed nations will focus their resources on taking in refugees. In contrast, citizens of developing nations focus on immigrating rather than putting pressure on officials to solve their climate change issues.

United Nations (2007)

How climate change threatened the further economic development of poorer nations.

World Economic Forum (2023)

A further explanation of the disproportionately worse ways in which climate change affects poorer nations.

The Brookings Institution (2023)

How developing nations and their input are crucial for global climate action to function and be widely adopted.

General resource

"The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) is a treaty-based international, inter-governmental organization dedicated to supporting and promoting strong, inclusive and sustainable economic growth in developing countries and emerging economies."

Point 1

Developing countries have less economic power, putting them at a disadvantage in global decision-making processes. Giving them veto rights can help balance this inequality and ensure their needs are adequately represented.

Counterpoint 1


It is undemocratic to give some nations more power in decision-making, especially if these nations are smaller and represent fewer people, such as small island nations. Equal voting respects the principle of equality in international affairs, which is fundamental to fair international cooperation.

—

Point 2

Developing nations face more urgent consequences of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea-level rise, which pose greater risks to their populations. This greater risk should translate to a greater say in how climate change is addressed globally.

Counterpoint 2

Developed nations are likely to bear the majority of the financial burden for the green transition, and their higher economic involvement should be reflected in greater influence over climate decisions. They have a significant stake in how funds are used and how strategies are implemented.

—

Point 3

Without the right of veto, developing nations may feel ignored in these forums, leading to decreased buy-in for the green transition. Enhancing their influence could foster greater global cooperation and commitment.

Counterpoint 3

If developed nations feel they are not treated equally, their commitment to climate initiatives may weaken. Their buy-in is crucial because they possess the economic power and technological resources needed to drive the green transition effectively.

Point 1

Colonialism severely damaged the economies of many developing nations, making it harder for them to finance the green transition and leaving them reliant on less developed industries like agriculture, which are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Counterpoint 1


Former colonizers taking control over policy areas in their former colonies resembles neocolonialism, as it interferes with the democratic mandate and sovereignty of these nations, undermining their independence.

—

Point 2

Reparations are justified because former colonizers benefited greatly from exploiting their colonies, contributing significantly to their current wealth. Thus, they have a moral obligation to support these countries in the green transition.

Counterpoint 2

The involvement of former colonizers in policy decisions could lead to a backlash in these countries, with negative optics potentially reducing public support for the green transition and fostering resentment.

—

Point 3

Developing countries have access to more advanced knowledge and resources, which can enable them to devise more effective strategies for the green transition, benefiting both the developing nations and the global climate effort.

Counterpoint 3

Developed countries are unlikely to understand the local context and needs of former colonies well enough to create optimal green transition plans. Without a democratic mandate or a deep understanding of life on the ground, their involvement might lead to ineffective or poorly received strategies.