In the 1700s, as Great Britain was ramping up its manufacturing, it realized it was sitting
on a seemingly endless supply of cheap energy that burned better than trees: Coal.
All this black stuff in the ground was a game-changer, kicking off a new age called the Industrial
Revolution.
You may have heard of it.
Over the past few centuries, a handful of countries reaped the benefits of fossil fuels
and developed their economies, emitting a lot of greenhouse gases along the way.
We now know these gases have changed the climate.
But since the mid-2000s, an interesting shift has occurred.
The majority of greenhouse gas emissions are now coming from large developing countries,
who are looking for cheap energy sources to drive their own economic growth, just like
rich countries before them.
So who's responsible for fixing this mess?
The rich countries who have played the biggest role in causing it?
Or the poor countries who are currently emitting the most carbon?
[OPEN]
As the world has awakened to the downsides of coal and other fossil fuels, developing
countries have found themselves in a catch-22.
They also want to grow their economies and infrastructure, and the easiest -- and cheapest
way -- to do that, is by burning fossil fuels.
But that will exacerbate climate change, which will hit many developing countries the hardest
and quickest as they deal with increasingly intense and deadly heat waves, droughts, and
tropical storms.
The thing is, developing countries don't want to put their economies on pause while they
invest in low-emission energy sources that may cost more.
That’s where international climate agreements come in!
In the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world’s countries all set goals to reduce their emissions,
and a crucial part of the deal is that wealthy countries are contributing money to help developing
countries pay for the costs of cutting emissions.
They’re supposed to do it through the Green Climate Fund.
That fund will also help poor tropical nations, who don’t contribute much to climate change
at all but will be among the hardest hit.
Small island nations, for example, collectively contribute less than one percent of global
emissions, but generally lack the resources and infrastructure to bounce back from the
impact of rising sea levels and stronger tropical storms.
So, why should rich nations pay the price when developing nations are the ones currently
emitting the majority of greenhouse gases?
That’s the million dollar question…
well, actually the 30 TRILLION dollar question.
What that means is climate change will be terrible for rich countries too.
If fossil fuel emissions continue at their current rate, summer temperatures in many
places will spike by more than 4˚C degrees by 2100.
That may not seem like a lot, but it’s about the same difference in temperature between
this year and the last ice age.
But that ice age thawed over the course of several millennia -- not a century.
Adding that amount of heat will cause havoc in a variety of ways: More of the world’s
population will be exposed to heat stress.
Tropical diseases will spread to new regions, water will become more scarce, and crop yields
will take a major hit.
And this will cost a TON of money - 30 trillion dollars in damages globally from just 2 degrees
Celsius.
On the other hand it’s estimated that for big emitters to make the necessary changes
to cut fossil fuel use, it will cost about half a trillion dollars, which is a lot.
But half a trillion dollars, 30 trillion dollars… you do the math.
The quicker we act to reduce emissions, no matter who’s making them, the more effective
our efforts will be and the better chance we have to avoid some of the most disastrous
effects of climate change.
So, climate change hits our bottom line, and speed is of the essence, and practically speaking,
rich nations can act faster and do more right now.
Nations that have more stand to lose more from climate change, which is why it’s also
in developed nations’ best interests to lead the charge in cutting their own emissions
while at the same time helping other countries do the same.
Paying now will save trillions of dollars by preventing global destruction, displacement,
and loss of life in the future.
No one wants to be the country responsible for screwing things up for everybody.
Fixing climate change would be a far more satisfying legacy.
And that’s something that every nation on Earth, rich or poor, should be able to agree
on.