From the desk of Hannah Owen, Sustainability Associate at Knowledge Bridge
It is a widely recognised truth that historically carbon emissions have been produced disproportionately between regions, countries and social groups. A recent study at the World Inequality Lab reported that the top 10% of global emitters contribute to 48% of global CO2 compared to the bottom 50% contributing only 12% (Chancel, 2021). These inequalities have persisted and grown ever since the industrial revolution. The consequence; environmental degradation disproportionately affecting people spatially and socially, leading to injustices. Even with this largely recognised, why are those making decisions regarding policy and the climate crisis not those most affected by it and instead, those who contribute the greatest?
Photo credits: (Dario Kenner, 2015)
The large carbon footprints of the very wealthy is a seemingly obvious fact that carbon policy should account for. Yet, disappointingly, it receives a lack of attention. Carbon taxation tends to be uniform with everyone paying the same carbon tax rate. Nevertheless, in societies where there is great disparity this de facto system enables the wealthy the freedom to pollute without proportional consequences. By 2030 the richest 1% are on track to contribute a larger share of global emissions that when the Paris Agreement was signed (Gore, 2021). If the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels is to be achieved, it is not just a question of cutting carbon emissions but of putting in place measures to decrease inequality.
Photo credits: (Disaster Displacement at COP26, 2021)
Article 6 was agreed at COP26 last year, essentially allowing countries to trade in carbon. This should, in theory, allow supply and demand laws to lead to the efficient allocation of carbon emissions. However, are we wrong to put a price tag on carbon? Creating a carbon market reduces this complex problem to its simplest term. By solely relying on economic considerations, it leaves out any ethical concerns of carbon trading.
There are a number of issues with carbon trading. Firstly, the reality is that not all stakeholders can participate. This often leads to community residents who are disproportionately affected by emissions and environmental degradation not having a say in policy. Carbon trading has the potential to lead to ‘sacrifice zones’, whereby a large carbon emitter continues to pollute in certain areas by buying carbon credits. This generally exacerbates inequalities with marginalised local communities bearing the brunt of environmental injustices. Critics have also questioned carbon trading as just another neoliberal mechanism that is intensifying disparities between the industrialised North and the pre- industrial South. Wealthier countries have the resources to transition to greener technologies and to buy carbon credits. This is a luxury that many countries in the Global South cannot afford despite contributing relatively little to the problem historically. This gap will only widen as we see the effects of climate change impacting poorer areas that are prone to natural disasters with many of the populations already living in precarious locations.
There is no obvious solution but taking out the ethical and moral debate is not the answer. The conversation needs to be less about a price tag and more about encouraging innovative solutions that recognise this may not be a problem that can be fixed with a classic neoliberal framework. The DEAR acronym, used to guide all work done at Knowledge Bridge, could provide a framework for companies and countries to address these inequalities. As the world works towards a goal of Net Zero Emissions, it needs to do so with Dignity. At Knowledge Bridge this means advocating for the equal worth of all people. The cost and responsibility of climate action needs to be spread equally across and within countries without unfairly burdening the already disadvantaged.
Whilst we enter and momentum builds for a new green phase we must do so with Empathy. We can do this by understanding different people’s perspectives and making informed policy based on a holistic understanding of the context. Recognising the different stages that companies, countries and individuals are at with decarbonisation and the different capacity they have to do so needs to be appreciated.
Having Authenticity as a core value invites knowledge sharing and learning in an open space where different perspectives are respected. Knowledge Bridge encourages companies, countries and individuals to have a conversation about how carbon reduction could be possible for them and what support they may need to do so. The reality is that a sustainable transition is going to have to involve cooperation between many complex systems, industries and peoples in order to ensure we really do leave no one behind.
By integrating Respect into net zero emission strategies, it ensures that policies cut emissions without having a negative effect on communities or by the burden being transferred elsewhere. Fighting the climate crisis should involve cooperation instead of industries and companies competing.
Photo credits: (Elika Roohi, 2021)
Too often we are too keen to commodify and categorise in order to input into economic equations and simplify markets. However, this ignores the context and the voices of those most affected and marginalised. Maybe it is time we take a new perspective when looking for solutions that do not revert back to systems that have long proved to create and reinforce existing inequalities and rely on the production of greenhouse gases. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Breaking current unequal development trajectories will involve systemic change and challenging the status quo. With COP26 having taken place in November 2021, this is a crucial time for climate response. The global community is united and there has been a call for action. At this pivotal time, the hope is that climate justice and equality will be at the forefront of our sustainable transition.
References
Chancel, L. (2021) Climate change & the global inequality of carbon emissions, 1990-2020. Available at: www.wid.world (Accessed: 26 January 2022).
Gore, T. (2021) Carbon Inequality in 2030: Per capita consumption emissions and the 1.50C goal. doi: 10.21201/2021.8274.