President Obama has been working hard to restore U.S. moral leadership after 8 years of Bush's inhumanity and depravity. Effective climate change legislation would show the world our humanity and morality because the target of how much warming we will tolerate will determine who lives or dies. Our troops in Afghanistan understand that 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere should be the target.
There is the related moral issue of who pays for climate change damages. Rich nations are not only primarily responsible for climate change, but also reaped huge economic benefits from placing poorer nations in vulnerable positions that worsened the impacts. Yet, now rich countries bicker about providing monetary "assistance" to developing nations to adapt to climate change impacts as if the payments were charity. Proposed assistance in the millions will not cover the billions of average adaptation costs that is still less than the estimated trillions of ecological damages caused by rich nations. Treating adaptation measures as charity continues the injustice and immorality of not taking responsibility for those external costs never considered or paid by corporations and governments over the years.
Cross-posted at DK GreenRoots
One issue on the global table of climate change chats is "international adaptation" or funding to improve the defenses of poorer countries that do not have the money, technology and human resources to address climate change, leaving them the most vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Sen. Kerry views "international adaptation" as the "part of the glue" that is key to "holding together negotiations toward a new global treaty" and "pledged to put into [the Senate bill] more U.S. money toward helping poor nations fight climate change." Indeed, many "developing countries have made it clear that they will not sign a treaty unless they get money to help them adapt to a warmer planet."
The "international adaptation" funding will pay for adaption measures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report - pdf file) to help countries adapt to climate change impacts by adopting measures or practices, such as "crop diversification, irrigation, water management, disaster risk management, and insurance." As noted by the IPCC report, the idea is to "enhance resilience or reduce vulnerability to observed or expected changes in climate," such as investment in coastal infrastructure to reduce impacts from storm surges and rising sea levels.
The phrase of "international adaptation" is a good example of framing to divert attention from the real issues. It is political speak for begrudgingly and partially taking responsibility for what we OWE developing countries.
A 2008 study placed a price tag of $2.3 trillion on the ecological damage caused by consumption of rich countries and this is larger than the "entire third world debt of $1.8 trillion". It is a matter of the high living standards of rich countries causing ecological damage to poor countries. That is, the rich nations have at least partially "developed at the expense of the poor" and now owe a huge debt for the damages sustained by poor countries. These damages are the environmental externalities or costs that were not included in the costs of projects when approved or the cost of goods when sold.
Using data from the World Bank and the UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the researchers examined so-called "environmental externalities" or costs that are not included in the prices paid for goods but which cover ecological damage linked to their consumption. They focused on six areas: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone layer depletion, agriculture, deforestation, overfishing and converting mangrove swamps into shrimp farms.
... The team confined its calculations to areas in which the costs of environmental damage, for example in terms of lost services from ecosystems, are well understood. That meant leaving out damage from excessive freshwater withdrawals, destruction of coral reefs, biodiversity loss, invasive species and war. So the researchers believe the figures represent a minimum estimate of the true cost.
For example, rich nations burden poor countries by overfishing and converting mangrove swamps to farming shimp that land on dinner plates of rich countries, but leaving the poor country with no storm protection. Restoration of mangrove forests has restored protections for some communities:
The injustice is enhanced by the fact that it is also the rich nations that have been the major emitters of greenhouse gases that caused the climate change impacts in the first place, as acknowledged by Sen. Kerry:
"Many countries that don't emit [greenhouse gases] or are marginally emitting are going to suffer the greatest consequences," Kerry said. Industrialized nations and "major emitters over the last 150 years who created the problem," he added, have an obligation to act.
The "responsibility for a whopping 80 percent of the world's emissions lies with just 20 percent of the inhabitants of the world's wealthiest nations (at the time this figure was calculated it only included Europe, North America and the former Soviet Union)." The disparity in average annual per capita carbon footprints between the rich and poor is incredible:
The average American's annual carbon footprint -- 20.4 tons -- is around 2,000 times that of someone living in the African nation of Chad. And the average Briton will emit as much carbon dioxide (C02) in one day as a Kenyan will in an entire year.
Morality and justice may fail as persuasive arguments but the economic angle is "perking up politicians' ears." Businesses actually want to flood Africa, Latin America, South Asia and other countries with money to enable them to "adapt" to rising sea levels, storms and drought because "climate change represents a direct business risk to our supply chain. You can't just grow coffee in Iowa"
Yet, ACES allocates 1% of emission allowances to global adaptation funding that will increase to 4% by 2027. This amounts to $500 to $700 million annually. The Kerry bill is "silent on precisely how much would be allocated to international adaptation," but Oxfam and business officials seek to raise the allowances to 3% to 5%.
However, a new major study by the World Bank reports that the average "annual cost of adapting to climate change in developing economies will reach between $75bn and $100bn over the next 40 years." (source) Another analysis by the International Institute for Environment and Development determined that the costs would be "double or even treble that amount." Even before ACES, an Oxfam report had estimated at least $50 billion each year in 2007.
Even looking at just a few of the climate change impacts shows the immorality of not providing long-overdue climate justice:
--While the annual per capita GHG pollution in Bangladesh is 0.9 and 27 in U.S., rising sea levels from climate change may create 30 million climate refugees in Bangladesh while retreating glaciers will create or enhance water shortages for 2 billion in Asia.
--Desertification and land degradation threatens 1 billion people "by depriving people their means of livelihood by taking away food, access to water, the means of economic activities , and even their homes."
--In Africa, there may be a 50% drop in agricultural crops, 70-200 million Africans may face water shortages and a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise may expose 40-60 million Africans to malaria (pdf file) while others face flooding from rising sea levels.
It's way past time to stop imposing death, illness, financial burdens, and social and cultural impacts on those least responsible for climate change:
The injustice is clear: Compare this map of the countries who have the largest emissions of GHG in 2000, and then compare to this map of the countries with the highest death rates from climate change in 2000.
To see how some communities are implementing local climate change adaptation measures now:
Sahel
Uganda
Malawi