From Climate Concerns to Climate Justice
Posted on : February 5, 2009
Author : Nitin Desai
Going back to the basics, let us recapitulate the definition of sustainable development, given in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (better known as the Brundtland Commission): 'Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'
The definition, especially the second part that talks about the need for equity here and now, brings to the fore the reasons behind unsustainable development—addiction to the dominant economic growth model; failure by planners to factor in the full economic and social costs of their decisions; the continuing marginalization of the poor and the way inequities remain entrenched; and a system of governance that is not up to internalizing social and environmental costs.
As we move to a sustainable development model, we have to decide the levels we should reach and be prepared for the trade-offs required. How do we devise systems to achieve this? It is a big question today. In this regard, we have to reconcile the competing visions of sustainable development while focusing on maintaining a delicate balance between its economic, social, and environmental dimensions. We have to do all this keeping competing stakeholders in mind.
Scientists have made it clear that carbon imposes limits on certain forms of energy generation and use. But where those limits hurt depends on social organizations. It is because of the way societies are organized now that there are fears in countries like India and China that the climate change debate may be used by industrialized countries to constrain the growth of developing countries and for trade protectionism. We need to get beyond this and convince all participants in the global debate that cooperation is better than confrontation.
This approach will not work just through some form of majoritarian rule or international power play. We have to bring a set of ethical principles into this global debate, projecting upwards from the successful cooperation models related to village common property resources.
There are various governance challenges in the field of climate change today. First, how to adapt to a temperature rise of 2 ºC, which seems inevitable. Second, how to ensure that a 5 ºC rise (with its catastrophic consequences) does not happen. And finally, how to factor in the dimensions of ethics and equity in the global debate on burden sharing between industrialized and developing countries.
These challenges can be met through an explicit recognition of intergenerational equity in public policy decisions by setting the pure rate of time preference to zero, by using the precautionary principle in the face of uncertainties, and by distributing the burden on the basis of the polluter pays principle and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
The problem is that the idea of culpability is getting eroded in the West, and that is why we are stuck in global negotiations. Even the best current offers by industrialized countries are not very fair. We are in a bad shape for Copenhagen. But we have to find a way forward.
The definition, especially the second part that talks about the need for equity here and now, brings to the fore the reasons behind unsustainable development—addiction to the dominant economic growth model; failure by planners to factor in the full economic and social costs of their decisions; the continuing marginalization of the poor and the way inequities remain entrenched; and a system of governance that is not up to internalizing social and environmental costs.
As we move to a sustainable development model, we have to decide the levels we should reach and be prepared for the trade-offs required. How do we devise systems to achieve this? It is a big question today. In this regard, we have to reconcile the competing visions of sustainable development while focusing on maintaining a delicate balance between its economic, social, and environmental dimensions. We have to do all this keeping competing stakeholders in mind.
Scientists have made it clear that carbon imposes limits on certain forms of energy generation and use. But where those limits hurt depends on social organizations. It is because of the way societies are organized now that there are fears in countries like India and China that the climate change debate may be used by industrialized countries to constrain the growth of developing countries and for trade protectionism. We need to get beyond this and convince all participants in the global debate that cooperation is better than confrontation.
This approach will not work just through some form of majoritarian rule or international power play. We have to bring a set of ethical principles into this global debate, projecting upwards from the successful cooperation models related to village common property resources.
There are various governance challenges in the field of climate change today. First, how to adapt to a temperature rise of 2 ºC, which seems inevitable. Second, how to ensure that a 5 ºC rise (with its catastrophic consequences) does not happen. And finally, how to factor in the dimensions of ethics and equity in the global debate on burden sharing between industrialized and developing countries.
These challenges can be met through an explicit recognition of intergenerational equity in public policy decisions by setting the pure rate of time preference to zero, by using the precautionary principle in the face of uncertainties, and by distributing the burden on the basis of the polluter pays principle and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
The problem is that the idea of culpability is getting eroded in the West, and that is why we are stuck in global negotiations. Even the best current offers by industrialized countries are not very fair. We are in a bad shape for Copenhagen. But we have to find a way forward.
0 Comment(s) | 637 hit(s)
