The Comment Factory

Wilson Dizard reports live and direct from Copenhagen:

A novel political narrative is emerging at the COP15 in Copenhagen. It’s the idea that the rich, industrialized countries owe the developing world a “climate debt.” Right now, according Actionaid and Oxfam, the Global North sits about $200 billion in the red, a sum it must pay out per annum. That’s right, after years of dodging the Global North’s loan sharks, debt-ridden developing world has a reason to demand money from rich countries.

As a reader who may be living in a rich country, you might ask why you owe this money. The reason is simple. The industrialized countries got to where they are today by burning billions of tons of carbon dioxide. Once considered innocuous, this molecule has started to wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate, with the worst changes occurring in developing countries, especially Africa and South America, where severe droughts and rapid retreats of glaciers threaten livestock and water supplies. Indeed, climate change undermines all the development the developing world has done.

Squaring climate debt, or what Canadian author and activist Naomi Klein calls “reparations,” is a matter of making sure those at fault foot the bill. According to Klein, the “grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology — everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies — are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis.” Moreover, Klein contends, rich countries cannot simply siphon funding for their climate arrears from aid money, nor should they expect to see it repaid. “Funds must be provided as grants, not loans, since the last thing developing countries need is more debt. Furthermore, the money should not be administered by the usual suspects like the World Bank and USAID, which too often push pet projects based on Western agendas, but must be controlled by the United Nations climate convention, where developing countries would have a direct say in how the money is spent.”

Advocates of climate debt say that the $200 billion will go to both climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in the developing world. Mitigation means creating clean sources of fuel for these economies. Adaptation entails building irrigation networks, sea-walls, and compensation for arable land lost to desertification. Actionaid, an international anti-poverty agency, identifies the United States, the European Union, and Japan as the three countries deepest in climate arrears. According to an Actionaid report, the U.S. owes $88 billion, the EU $64 billion, and Japan $26 billion.

To promote their plan, Actionaid’s branch in Copenhagen has organized an batallion of volunteers to demonstrate outside the Bella Center, the location of the COP15, as well as Hopenhagen, a sort of World’s Fair for climate change advocacy groups. Wearing red-suits, sunglasses, and black hats, the demonstrators chanted “We are watching you/You know what to do/The number has been set/Pay your climate debt” at Conference attendees as they waited in line to enter the Center on Monday. Occasionally, the activists will pull out an oversized calculator and shout out “we are now calculating the climate debt” and then, after a few dramatic swipes at the keys, announce the $200 billion figure.

With 8 volunteers and two full-time interns, they call themselves the “Climate Debt Agents.” They’re a diverse group, hailing not only from Denmark but also Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, countries where Actionaid members assess the impact of climate change and informing residents of their right to compensation from the culpable parties to the North. The group began plans for these demonstrations in September, with a series of seminars and lectures held in preparation for the COP15.

Now their demonstrations are in full swing; the room where they meet each morning full of excited young activists busy preparing for “missions” out in the city. A red and white banner lays stretched across the floor, being painted prepared for the main anti-COP15 demonstration on Saturday. The volunteers and interns appear enthusiastic and optimistic. According to one Actionaid intern, Mette Halborg, the red suits and rhyming slogans have succeeded in drawing the attention of dozens of reporters and photographers. “We did fifteen interviews this morning at the Bella Center,” Halborg said. Indeed, at the COP15, Actionaid appears to have emerged as the flagship organization advocating for the UNFCCC’s (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change) to put climate debt on its agenda.

As successful as Actionaid’s performances may be, the idea of climate debt has a long way to go before the climate debtors will pay. This is especially true in the United States. The U.S. Congress, the legislative body that holds the strings of the public purse containing the $88 billion, will not cut the developing world a check any time soon. Indeed, if a bill proposing the payment of climate debt were before it, Congress would be extremely wary of shelling out this kind of cash, since many of its members hope to be re-elected. Voting for a measure that gives a number with 9 zeroes behind it to the UN, an organization regarded with distrust and suspicion on Capitol Hill as well as Main Street, would certainly end any Senator’s or Representative’s political career. Furthermore, keep in mind that a good half of the American public does not believe in climate change is even happening or, if it is, it isn’t humanity’s fault. Another theory, prevalent on conservative commentators’ rant hours, is that climate change is all a ploy to establish a ruthless global socialist government. The idea of America’s obligation to pay a “climate debt” doesn’t do anything to dissuade this delusion.

In contrast to the EU, public money in America does not come from the palms of experts in the Brussel’s sprawling Eurocracy, which does not answer directly to its 500 million strong constituency. The American system does not produce perfect results, but it’s not going to change any time soon. Just look at how Congress has dealt with providing healthcare to its American citizens. Congress has bent over backwards to please nefarious insurance lobbyists, thereby dooming millions of Americans to early, preventable deaths. Who should expect it to be any more generous with the problems foreigners suffer?

The moral logic behind climate debt, however, does make sense. Polluters should pay to fix the problems their pollution causes. That said, there remain a number of unanswered questions about climate debt payment. First of all, Klein’s confidence in idea that “developing countries would have a direct say in how the money is spent,” seems a little rosier than reality, frankly. So far, development aid to many developing countries hasn’t made it any farther than their leaders’ Swiss Bank accounts. And, if it does end up getting spent, the money rarely benefits everybody in the country, sometimes funding pogroms against a dictator’s rivals or maligned national minorities. Who is to say that climate debt dollars won’t go to waste in the same way?

And this isn’t a matter of any moral failing to people in developing countries. If an alien spaceship showed up tomorrow on the White House lawn, leaving behind a bag containing $200 billion in interest-free money, the United States wouldn’t be any more responsible than the Democratic Republic of Congo. The money would go straight to corporate tax breaks, boondoggle bridges to nowhere, jet fighters and assault rifles. Little would find its way into the hands of those who need it the most. Money that comes as a windfall rarely gets spent with discretion.

Clearly, if a scheme for climate debt were established, the UN would have to pay extra special attention to where it went, since the consequences of its misuse would be so dire, considering the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Unfortunately, the money can’t be disbursed at an individual, micro-level, a tactic that has shown real promise, since measures to respond to climate change require large, state-level investments in infrastructure and technology. And, since some developing countries stand to suffer more from climate change than others, some places deserve priority over others. Deciding who gets what when is a job for coming decades and future generations. Climate change isn’t going anywhere. It’s actually a problem humanity will deal with for the rest of time.

Finally, the current plan undercuts itself by not requiring contributions from countries that attain “rich, industrialized” status. Indonesia, Brazil, China have such aspirations, and, at least in the near future, it is impossible for them to do meet there goals without spewing even more carbon into the atmosphere. Of course, on a historical scale, their contribution to climate change is minimal, but that situation won’t last for long. At some point, they need to pay into the pot. Not only does this provide more money for adaptation and mitigation, it also will help ease the resentment of politicians and polities in rich countries, thus prolonging and ensuring the flow of funds.

And, in all of this, it is important to remember that the Global North’s crime isn’t the premeditated murder of the developing world through climate change, but rather more like an act of vehicular manslaughter. When Americans and Europeans in the 19^th century sent towering clouds of smoke over their soot-soaked cities, they did not intend for those gases to contribute to a crippling drought in Kenya (or California, for that matter) a century and a half later. The best tactic for climate debt advocates to take is one that doesn’t include indignant accusation, since that will discourage already reluctant politicians from providing money. That said, it isn’t ethically or scientifically sound to deny our culpability. The developing world deserves compensation for the catastrophes climate change causes.