Post 2 - Common but Differentiated Responsibility

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is the fairest way to address climate change (Najem, 2010). The principle states that those that primarily created the problem have the primary responsible to remedy it. Therefore, industrialized countries should take on the bulk of the financial and technical burden when it comes to climate change. While the industrialized countries, such as the global North, have and will continue to experience adverse effects of climate change, the global South as a whole is much more vulnerable to the impacts. The primary economic industry of many of these countries is agriculture. Byproducts of climate change such as salinization, desertification, heavier rains, and droughts are negatively impacting crop productivity and therefore reducing the only source of income for many citizens of the global South. Financially, the South is disproportionally affected by climate change. Even small climate differences have grave effects on their GDP’s, whereas the US and Europe have the technical capacity and economic resiliency needed to adapt.

Small island states, such as members of the Alliance of Small Island States, are experiencing extreme encroachment of coastlines by the ever rising sea level (http://aosis.org/). These countries, unlike some others in the global South such as India and China, do not have the economic or governmental capacity to adapt to sea level rise and increased frequency of natural disasters. Additionally, these small islands’ emissions are negligible when comparing them to both industrialized and industrializing countries. To me, the experience of members of AOSIS displays why the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is not only important but also morally right. Most of these countries are not contributing significantly, if at all, to climate change. Yet, they are experiencing the brunt of the impacts. The majority of the South should not be held responsible for mitigation when they barely have the resources to provide basic provisions, such as fresh water, electricity, and sanitation to all their people.

The problem that arises with the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is how we classify developing and developed in global environmental politics. As Najem explains, the US is not willing to take all the responsibility for climate change when economic competitors China and India are not held to the same standard. This poses an interesting dilemma, as China and India are classified as developing, yet have booming international economies. The UNFCCC distinguishes Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 in determining who must meet more stringent targets and who will receive help. China and India are considered non-Annex 1, despite their growing economies and large emissions.

I have mixed feelings about the classification. In theory these countries, particularly China, can afford to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts whereas other non-Annex 1 countries like Burundi or Haiti cannot. However, the wealth in India and China is not distributed in as equitable of a way as it is in many Annex 1 countries. The rural populations that rely on sustenance farming or live near coast lines and river basins, or the urban poor that are exposed to diseases with increasing areas of prevalence due to rising temperatures, are impacted greatly by climate change and cannot afford to do anything about it. Ideally, as China and India emit more in an effort to industrialize, that will increase the economic resiliency of the nations to adapt to climate change. However, emitting will only increase the severity and frequency of the impacts they are already experiencing.  

I morally agree that the industrialized nations should take responsibility for their part in inducing climate change. The Polluter Pays principle, a reflection of the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, is the fairest way for the international community to approach climate change. However, there are gray areas when it comes to who should bear the responsibility. AOSIS and many other non-Annex 1 countries barely contribute to global emissions and are especially vulnerable, and should therefore be protected by those that emit the most and can afford to quell those emissions. Yet countries that fall in between developed and developing, like China and India, are what makes the Polluter Pays principle or the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility unsuccessful in the international political context. True developing countries see China and India as partially responsible due to both their high emissions rate and comparative high level of wealth. The US sees China and India as competition, and does not want them to gain an economic advantage if they do not have to reduce emissions while the US does. Both sides seem to have an interest in China and India being treated as Annex 1 in environmental negotiations. Yet, these countries have large populations and influence and do not want the burden being considered “developed” would bring when it comes to dealing with climate change. They also have many human development problems that are consistent with other non-Annex 1 countries, such as high poverty rates and lack of basic sanitation for all people.

With both sides at a stand still, it seems doubtful any resolution will be made in the near future. While in theory the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is the most just way to address climate change, gray areas do exist that make it difficult for any principle to be applied broadly. In reality, there may be too many factors to tease out in order to determine who should be primarily responsible for fixing this global environmental problem.