Should Countries Be Responsible for High Greenhouse Gas Pollution - Essay Example

Global Inequality and Climate Justice: Should countries responsible for high greenhouse gas pollution be open to prosecution in the International Court of Justice? Reason and defend your answer Introduction The issue of climate has been addressed largely from different angles. This includes the causes of climate change and the impacts of human activities on the environment, the effects of climate change on humanity and the ecosystem and the possible measures to address the dangers or rather mitigate the impacts of climate change. At this moment however, there seems to be no specific way forward on handling the issues of climate change (Bretherton, 1998). As different nations and corporations continuously pursue technological advancement and exploit the earth’s resources towards enhancing national wealth, the damages on the environment and thereby the climate become more and more. There is generally an imbalance among nations with regard to greenhouse emissions, with developed countries having the most percentage of emissions. However, the impacts of their activities definitely affect the whole world including nations that understand little about such emissions. While the UN has suggested various guidelines to reduce such emissions and thereby control their impacts, there is little progress in terms of abiding to the same guidelines (Roberts, 2001). Perhaps the law could be looked upon to force nations to adopt policies that can regulate emissions, with a possibility of suing nations that breach such laws. However, this approach is quite difficult given the fact that the same nations with the highest percentages of emissions play an important role in influencing UN decisions on climate change. This paper however argues for adopting legal structures that shall see nations with unchecked greenhouse emissions sued in an effort to control the effects of climate change. There is a general global imbalance when it comes to impacting on the environment and influencing climate change. Different nations across the world undertake different actions on the environment and exploit natural resources in different ways and at different levels ( ). This implies that while the effects of climate change may affect the entire world, they are greatly generated by a few powerful nations which exploit the natural resources in hazardous ways. Based on this, less powerful nations suffer consequences of activities they have been less involved and which may not benefit them directly. This is naturally unfair and such actions have to be checked to establish a fair balance and to ensure nations take responsibility of their actions and their impact on the climate. The UN recognizes that the main responsibility of mitigating the effects of climate change lie with developed nations as they contribute to the highest percentage of carbon emissions (Paavola & Adger, 2002). Additionally, the UN recognizes that in the context of climate change and its effects, nations hold the responsibility to make sure that activities within their jurisdiction should not affect the people within and beyond their borders. While this is the case, there has been no legal provision to ensure that all the nations observe these requirements. Consequently, there is an urgent need to draft global policies under the umbrella of the UN which shall see vulnerable nations able to sue developed countries that do no observe the specific standards of emissions. This shall push such nations to be more responsible and take actions that shall ensure that the specified standards by the UN are strictly observed. While this is a clear case, the question becomes quite tricky and complicated as both the poor and developed nations differ on how and who should take the sacrifice (Paavola & Adger, 2002). The debate on who should sacrifice and who is supposed to take action is quite precarious as varying views on climate justice portend chances for any agreements on the issue. Poor and apparently more vulnerable nations fear policies that shall limit their efforts to enhance their economic growth in an effort to meet the needs of their people. On the other hand, powerful and industrial nations, with the U.S included, are reluctant to curtail their own excesses if developing nations cannot make similar sacrifices (Bond). However, statistics indicate that while industrialized nations account for over 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, poor countries suffer first and worst impacts of disasters related to the climate. These include floods, droughts and storms that affect developing nations due to their geographic locations. The law is established to create a balance such that the powerful cannot take advantage of the less privileged (Miller, 2008). In this case, the same is required to offer poor nations a legal ground to defend themselves against the climatic hazards caused by actions of much developed nations. According to Roberts & Parks (2001), the inequality between the poor and rich nations plays a significant role in the negotiations of the global climate standards agreements. It dampens the corporative attempts through reinforcing the structural perceptions and the casual beliefs of most poor nations, thereby eroding conditions of general candor and enhancing particularistic ideas of fair solutions. This has apparently become the main hindrance behind the establishment of legal measures to hold nations responsible for their actions regarding change. Nations instead develop new measures of inequality related to climate change, which analyze homelessness and fatality rates from climatic disasters and patterns of inequality in emissions and participation in global environmental regimes. Reaching a global climate pact calls for addressing bigger issues of inequality and striking a bargain on development and environment (Miller, 2008). This shall ensure that both the rich and poor nations understand their position and role in climate change and lay a foundation to script policies that shall fairly address such issues and hold every nation responsible for their actions. Most developed nations have silently worked hard against the formation of any legal frameworks necessitating compensation or suing of nations that contribute to higher percentage of emission of greenhouse gases (Newell, 2005). This would make any concerned parties sense malice in the commitment of such nations towards control of greenhouse gas emission. The climate talks of UN in Qatar which were held in 2013 were almost inconsequential as it may be expected as the host nation which chaired the event had the highest per capita emissions in the world. However, at least for the first time, it was agreed that developing nations which are especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change may be entitled to redressing from main polluting nations for whichever resulting damages and losses. This conference later instructed to conduct studies on the ways to ensure the redress (Chatterton et al, 2013). This seems a more calculated solution which seeks to cushion developed nations, which apparently emit the most percentage of greenhouse gases, from being responsible for their actions. Setting such laws will definitely push such nations to check their actions and invent new and environmentally friendly ways to enhance their wealth. The deliberate actions of specific nations, to oppose the establishment of such laws, raise concerns regarding their commitment towards environmentally friendly actions. The U.S delegation in Qatar for instance worked hard to ensure that there was no mention of either litigation or compensation to vulnerable nations with regard to greenhouse emissions. However, based on the actions of various nations in Qatar, nations agree that the damaging effects of change of climate are bring closer the day when vulnerable countries shall seek in refuge in courts for losses made by climate change by other nations. Additionally, these events make it likely for citizens to sue nations and companies to compel them to be responsible for their specific contributions to climate change. Climate diplomacy has continuously failed despite various meetings on the same. This implies that developed and industrialized nations are unwilling to adjust their policies to contain levels of emissions thereby allowing a continued rise in such levels even after the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. This implies that there is need to initiate coercion towards upholding such standards through a law that would see then sued if they failed (Paavola & Adger, 2002). However, it is clear that this shall remain obviously difficult as the same nations play a significant role in talks that are expected to deliver such agreements. Negotiators are currently focused on how to respond to loss and damage caused by climatic changes, a fact that indicates how the climate change diplomacy has failed. In the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was initiated at the original Earth Summit in 1992, nations promised to make sure that there is a stabilization of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level which would prevent precarious atmospheric effects on the climatic system. There is however no clear criteria to ensure that nations commit to the promise. A continued fail in such diplomatic talks implies that there are no specific standards upon which national activities and policies should yet be guided. This could explain why the levels of greenhouse gases and carbon emissions are continuously rising as nations responsible for the highest percentage of emissions walk away scot free. The promised mitigation of carbon and greenhouse emissions has not happened up-to-date. After seventeen years, with only a weak 1997 Kyoto Protocol as a sign of progress, negotiators admitted, at the most anticipated conference which occurred in Copenhagen, that mitigations were failing. Such failures and outright admission could hint that nations need a more direct approach to the issue such as litigation and compensation measures (Ciplet et al., 2013). However beautiful and well-structured the negotiations may be, they may continue to fail until the nations finally consider what they have been silently avoiding: laws that permit litigation and compensation. It is definitely difficult and quite unconvincing to promise to uphold particular requirements while at the same time openly dismissing and fighting policies that are aimed at seeing to it that you commit to your promises. This is particularly the game being played by the industrialized countries, and if it is not changed, nothing constructive should be anticipated. To ensure that the mitigation promises are achieved, the Copenhagen convention accord added an extra element. Governments pledged, besides mitigation, to set aside funds to assist poor nations to adjust to the almost inevitable climate change. This implies that the developed nations understand the effects of climate change on such nations and how vulnerable they are. At the same time, this indicates that such nations are quite unwilling to adjust their actions and would rather have poor nations adapt (Chatterton et al, 2013). Yet even with this, after three years, a new global agreement to mitigate the greenhouse emissions seems to be as far as ever before. As they added a third element in Qatar to allow research on how nations should respond to damages and losses, the only message to the world are that neither adaptation nor mitigation will work. The steps taken during the Qatar convention may be viewed as just talks in the meantime, but as floods spread, droughts intensify, heat waves kill, islands disappear and seas rise, such steps will eventually mean a big deal. Given the fact that big continuously fail to meet the legal requirements to avoid the precarious climate change, it may not be until poor nation choose to invoke the disputes procedures which are outlined in article 14 of UNFCC. In these procedures, countries are allowed to sue nations that fail to take responsibility as outlined in the convention in the UN international court of justice (Ciplet et al, 2013). While this article does not specify compensations, such actions are likely to lay a foundation for more direct legal provisions that should coerce industrialized nations to take responsibility of their climate related actions. Given the events in climatic changes and the growing effects, the legal floodgates are long overdue. In fact, the world should not wait for the catastrophic events related to climatic changes to intensify before suing the states responsible. Conclusion The issue of climate change and its precarious impacts is a concern for every state or country in the world. Different nations in the world agree on the activities that lead to such changes and understand the need to check such activities towards achieving a more stable climate. However, it remains challenging, hitherto, to adopt policies that shall ensure that the effects of climate change are mitigated. The challenge is founded on the global imbalance with regard to climate change with countries hesitant to take the necessary sacrifices to achieve the desired standards. Industrialized nations contribute to the highest level of greenhouse emissions while the poor nations suffer the most adverse effects of the same. However, while the poor nations push for policies that shall see developed nations be held responsible for their actions that affect the climate, they want to be exempted from policies that shall limit their efforts to enhance their economic growth. On the other hand, developed nations look for policies that shall apply to both sides. Whichever the case, the impacts of climatic change are continuously affecting poor nations and they certainly need protection. To establish this, there is need to design laws that shall allow lawsuits on the nations that fail to adhere to legal requirements in relation to climate change. References Bond, P. (n.d). Justice: Critical environmental politics, London: Ruotledge. Bretherton, C. (1998). Global environmental politics: putting gender on the agenda?. Review of International Studies, 24, pp 85-100 Chatterton, P., Featherstone, D., & Routledge, P. (2013). Articulating climate justice in Copenhagen: antagonism, the commons, and solidarity. Antipode, 45(3), 602-620. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T., & Khan, M. (2013). The politics of international climate adaptation funding: Justice and divisions in the greenhouse. Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 49-68. Harris, P. G., & Symons, J. (2010). Justice in adaptation to climate change: cosmopolitan implications for international institutions. Environmental Politics, 19(4), 617-636. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York, 102. Miller, D. (2008). National responsibility and global justice. Critical review of international social and political philosophy, 11(4), 383-399. Newell, P. (2005). Race, class and the global politics of environmental inequality. Global Environmental Politics, 5(3), 70-94. Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Working Paper, 23. Roberts, J. T. & Parks, B. C. (2010). Climate change, social theory and justice. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 134-166. Roberts, J. T. (2001). Global inequality and climate change. Society & Natural Resources, 14(6), 501-509. Read More