CAIRO: The world has come a long way in the politics of climate change. Even when the US wounded the movement by its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the world is optimistic that carbon emissions may be mitigated and the global warming phenomenon to be stabilized. However, it is notable that most of the legislative policy making to the benefit of the environment has been by developed countries. The challenge of the COP15 is to try to bind both the developed and developing countries into an agreement. In two decades of climate-change negotiations, a deep divide has remained between wealthy nations and developing ones. The issue of climate debt is one of the most controversial between the two sides, and in this article we would try to understand why. In order to understand the idea of climate debt, we go back to the eve of India's independence. Mahatma Gandhi was then asked whether India would follow the British model of industrial development. His response retained powerful meaning in the relationship between the human race and its surrounding ecology: “It took Britain half of the resources of this planet to achieve its prosperity. How many planets will India require for development?” This is the core principle behind the concept of climate debt. The developed, and thereby the wealthy, nations have amassed great deals of carbon in the atmosphere, leaving almost no space for developing countries to increase their greenhouse emissions if climate change is to be contained. Furthermore, not one example exists for a poor country which got rich without increasing its carbon emissions. The implications of this for the developing world are grave. This is not the sole reason for demands by developing countries for climate debt. Although wealthy nations are the number one accumulative producers of carbon emissions, the effects of climate change are most serious for the developing countries. Melting polar caps threaten the survival of poor coastal areas such as Bangladesh and the Nile Delta. Less rainfall means that the agriculture dependent developing countries, such as India, Brazil and even Egypt, may suffer decreased yields of their land. Deforestation would harm the tropical rainforests, which are solely in developing countries, and the source of income to these countries. For their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, developed countries owe a two-fold climate debt to the poor majority: * For their excessive historical and current per person emissions – denying developing countries their fair share of atmospheric space – they have run up an “emissions debt” to developing countries * For their disproportionate contribution to the effects of climate change – requiring developing countries to adapt to rising climate impacts and damage – they have run up an “adaptation debt” to developing countries So how would the developed countries repay their climate debt? African countries demanded 5% of the GDPs (literally trillions of dollars) of developed countries annually, with emission cuts of 65% (50% by 2017) in comparison to 1990 emissions by 2020, to be offered to combat climate change. In comparison, the EU has calculated the developing countries' total need for climate funding to 130 billion dollars (100 billion euro) annually by 2020. In the short term, between 2010 and 2012, they offered $3.6 billion a year, and also offered 30% emission cuts in comparison to 1990 levels by 2020. No wonder they cannot reach an agreement … However, even if we look at the numbers offered by the developed countries, they would far surpass the current funding by them to combat climate change. According to UNFCCC, grants provided for countries to combat climate change are a mere $545.8 million. This is far smaller than any of the numbers mentioned previously in this article, and personally I do find that there is substantial reason for optimism in the world of tomorrow. Eco Options Egypt
