Politics: “Is it unacceptable to hold back the growth of developing countries in the name of climate change?”
DGS ran a Philosophy, Politics and Economics essay competition in summer 2023. Our students were tasked with answering a question that probed into one of the areas of PPE. The best essays were ones that argued clearly and concisely. To see for yourself, please read on below!
Winner of the Politics category: Hugh N, 12D
Climate change within the International Community is a widely discussed topic among both Global Politics and Economic scholars, made prominent especially since the first World Climate Conference in 1979[1], and further emphasised as a global agenda by the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by the UN[2]. This essay will directly address the concept of development, defined by the IB as the “sustained increase in the standard of living and well-being of a level of social organisation.”[3] Development often refers to different factors of these social organisations and/or states, such as the incomes of employed citizens, the unemployment rate in a state, the ease of access to public goods and services and necessities (such as education and healthcare) to name a few.[4] .Therefore, in order to properly evaluate the statement “it is unacceptable to hold back the growth of developing countries in the name of climate change”, we must consider the current state of both the country, the international community as well as the historical development of states in regards to their contributions and efforts to combat climate change.
One argument for the statement is that developing countries have varying development priorities. The development of a state within international anarchy is believed by scholars as part of their internal sovereignty - the ability of a state to have control of its population and borders[5]. By exerting boundaries onto states in various different forms, such as hard power realised by economic sanctions or soft power in the form of social media exposition, global actors marginalise the sovereignty of the state. Particularly in weaker states such as less economically developed countries and newly emerging economies, the exertion of power in the name of climate change can further catalyse political and economic instability, halting their opportunities to develop. In order to maintain their development and sovereignty, states must arguably be independent in international anarchy to prevent economically deterrent power exertions from IGOs and NGOs. In India, there has for the past 10 years an average Growth rate of 6-7%[6], making it one of the fastest-growing major economies globally, yet there has been a funding crackdown by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the NGO GreenPeace, who critiqued India’s plans for a nuclear power plant construction, and coal mining techniques. GreenPeace, as with other NGOs, have utilised their soft power and pressure onto India using social media to spread international awareness. While from the NGOs perspective, India would be damaging the global commons through unsustainable energy, Thomas Hobbes, author of the Leviathan and values the global system of international anarchy, would say from a realist perspective and on behalf of the Indian government that they acted rationally, and as a unitary unit, as they acted in their self interest to protect inhibited economic growth. From a macroeconomist’s perspective too, the development process for using renewable energy may be more costly, and as India’s debt crawls up to 100%. Therefore the government might choose to simply prioritise maintaining their national debt as opposed to prioritising sustainability. Therefore, the dichotomy between the actions of global actors such as IGOs and NGOs, against states and their development could have implications on their sovereignty and statehood in the form of an inhibited economy, and therefore unjustified the actions undertaken to hold back the growth of states in the name of climate change.
On the other hand, the statement is justified on the grounds of encouraging international cooperation. The UN argues that the cooperation of states worldwide is essential for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as achieving the aims of the UNFCCC to combat man-made interference with climate change, endorsed by 197 states.[7] One example of this would be China in the Belton Road Initiative. Constructed as a method of economic development by China through the construction of a global scale trade route, connecting countries through Asia, Europe and East Africa. While China’s project would be more efficient with cheaper, non-renewable resources, their energy-saving effect of 34.5%[8]; while the emissions-reduction effect is 36.4%. As a result, the ratio of countries involved within the BRI acts as an influence for developing countries to switch to a less financially efficient, but more sustainable method of development. From an economist’s standpoint, this switch from the cheaper non-renewable energy sources (due to ease of processing and accessibility than renewable) limits the development by incurring higher variable costs, causing revenue per unit of output to decrease. However, with this international cooperation in the BRI, global carbon emissions can be significantly reduced, and both the domestic and global markets can internalise negative externalities of production and consumption of goods that utilise high amounts of energy, such as the $14.4 billion infrastructure investment by China in Djibouti[9].
This agenda also directly addresses the issue of climate injustice. Climate injustice is the concept that there is a conflict between those who largely contribute to climate change versus those who experience the consequences. For example, while China produced 10,432,751,400 tonnes of CO2 in 2016, ranked first in the world[10], the countries that have been affected the most by climate change have been the countries located in Central Africa, such as Yemen and Somalia, through food insecurity and extreme weather patterns[11]. To combat this, collaboration and equality within the international system have been valued by IGOs, and brought to the forefront of the climate agenda through the idea of global commons - defined as nature shared between all states. Due to this, states arguably have a moral obligation to protect their resource pools as part of the international system. In contrast to realist perspectives on conserving national interests for economic development, liberalists such as John Locke would argue that the move to switch to a more expensive energy source would indeed limit their development, but in the long run merit the global commons, and benefit individuals and the international community. Similarly, Alexander Wednt, would argue that from a constructivist perspective, that the industrialisation from developing countries who act alone, who preserve national interests of development by burning affordable fossil fuels, is one source of the global climate change crisis. One example would be India with the aforementioned nuclear power plant, who burnt 2,533,638,100 tons of CO2 in 2016, third globally[12]. Therefore the limiting of developing countries development is justified by protecting the global commons through the use of costly yet renewable energy.
In contrast to this, there are historical responsibilities and actions of states that make this claim unacceptable. It can be argued that primarily, power is being defined as being in possession and having the ability to manipulate resources. It outlines the ability of the state to utilise resources for efficient deliverance of states interests economically domestically and internationally. Periphery states and semi periphery states try to bridge the development gap through the industrial process that core states have already undertaken. This presents their economic hard power to be inferior to those of the core states, who have faced industrialisation at a much earlier stage, and will find it difficult to adjust to global climate agreements. On the other hand, while these core states have contributed more so to the climate crisis than currently developing states, they may cope with the climate agreements due to their developed economies. For example, the industrialisation of the UK throughout the 19th and 20th Century has resulted in 500-600 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted annually.[13] However, China has only recently so started their development period, with economic reforms starting just a year before the first UNFCCC[14]. Cultural marxists such as Herbert Marcuse, would argue that the core states such as the UK and USA, who critique the development of India (who was critiqued at COP26 due to coal usage[15]) and China through industrialisation, as they themselves have in earlier decades, serves as hypocrisy and an illegitimate imposition of restrictions onto the less developed periphery and semi periphery states such as India and China. Therefore, due to the historical actions of core states for their own development, who have ultimately contributed significantly to the climate crisis, it is unacceptable to prevent the development of NEEs and LEDCs in the name of climate change.
In conclusion, while the global crisis of climate change is a prevalent issue, and climate injustice unfairly affects different people, the primary ability of states to care for its own, as well as historical contribution from currently highly developed countries, only encourages global inequality. Therefore, it can be argued that it is unacceptable to hold back the growth of developing countries in the name of climate change to a large extent.
References:
[1] Zillman, W. , “A History of Climate Activities” 2009 World Meteorological Organization, Available at: https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/history-climate-activities#:~:text=The%201979%20World%20Climate%20Conference%2C%20now%20usually%20referred%20to%20as,February%201979%20(Figure%202). [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[2] LSE, “What is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?” 2022 LSE Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-the-un-framework-convention-on-climate-change-unfccc/ [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[3] International Baccalaureate Organization, “Global politics Guide First assessment 2017” 2017 IBDP, Available at: http://www.cosmopolitanschool.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/dp-global-politics-guide.pdf [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[4] ibid
[5] Levy, M. , “Sovereignty” 2006 Britannica, Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[6] Kashafi, I., “India’s GDP Growth Rate Chart, GDP of India in Last 10 years” 2023 StudyIQ, Available at: https://www.studyiq.com/articles/indias-gdp-growth-rate/#:~:text=from%202009%2D2023-,India's%20GDP%20Growth%20Rate%20Last%2010%20years,6.6%20per%20cent%20in%202021. [Accessed: 19/06/2023]
[7] United Nations Climate Change, “Ratification and Current Status of the UNFCCC” United Nations Climate Change Website, Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/status-of-ratification-of-the-convention#:~:text=Currently%2C%20there%20are%20198%20Parties,Framework%20Convention%20on%20Climate%20Change. [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[8] Jiang, Q, “How does the one belt one road initiative affect the green economic growth?” 2021 ScienceDirect, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988321003224 [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[9] Baldridge, H. “China in Djibouti: A Future Uncertain” 2022 OCC Available at: https://crisesobservatory.es/china-in-djibouti-a-future-uncertain/ [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[10] World Meter, “CO2 Emissions by Country” 2017 World Meter Website, Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[11] IRC, “10 countries at risk of climate disaster” 2023 International Rescue Committee Website, Available at: https://www.rescue.org/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster [Accessed: 19/06/2023]
[12] World Meter, “CO2 Emissions by Country” 2017 World Meter Website, Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[13] Wikipedia, “Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom” 2023 Wikipedia Website, Available a: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File%3ACO2_emissions_UK.svg [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[14] World Bank, “The World Bank in China” 2023, World Bank Website, Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#:~:text=Results-,Since%20China%20began%20to%20open%20up%20and%20reform%20its%20economy,services%20over%20the%20same%20period. [Accessed 19/06/2023]
[15] Ellis-Petersen, H., “India criticised over coal at Cop26 – but real villain was climate injustice” 2021 The Guardian, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/14/india-criticised-over-coal-at-cop26-but-real-villain-was-climate-injustice [Accessed 19/06/2023]