Global Fund in Copenhagen should not be overlooked
By: Melissa Vargas
The United Nations’ climate conference in Copenhagen this month hopes to a find a new climate treaty to restore the Kyoto Protocol. Officials have 11 days to convince 192 countries to impede the growth of the global GHG emissions. Although the international goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are vital, the opportunity to establish a global fund to help poor nations fight climate change and the extreme environmental shifts that follow is of equal importance.
The unavoidable truth, is that the most economically and socially disadvantaged people are the ones that are the worst affected by climate change’s extreme weather patterns and its corollaries.
Scientific estimates claim that more than 300,000 people die each year because of climate change related events. The living conditions of an additional 325 million people are significantly affected by the extreme weather patterns that have doubled in the past 20 years; more frequent and more severe rainfall, more intense heat waves and extended droughts.1 The unavoidable truth is that the most economically and socially disadvantaged people are the ones that are the worst affected by climate change’s extreme weather patterns and its corollaries.
Environmental Injustice at Home
According to Kyung-wha Kang, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Climate change is related not only to environmental factors but also to poverty, discrimination and inequalities,” thereby linking climate change to the human rights issue.3
Though the U.S. is comparatively less vulnerable to the effects of climate change than other countries, there are injustices within its borders as well. Americans from Alabama, California and Louisiana are still fighting to have the basic human rights of fair treatment. I will define “fair treatment” in the following section.
While coal comprises nearly 20 percent of global GHG emissions, the U.S. continues to be a major international coal producer and consumer. Coal generated electricity comes hand in hand with environmental injustice.
Since July 2009, the nation’s largest public utility, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been transporting over 8,000 pounds of coal ash waste daily to Perry County, Alabama. 4 Perry County is in a sad state of affairs, it’s unemployment rate in September was almost 20 percent,5 it is the state’s second poorest county, and 70 percent of the county is African American. However, it has become a willing recipient of the coal ash waste and politicians claim bringing the toxic waste will create as many as 50 new jobs.
Just one year ago, TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant spilled over 5 million cubic yards of toxic coal ash into the river and countryside when the earthen dikes collapsed. The highly contaminated coal ash waste contained significant levels of 14 toxic substances including mercury, arsenic, lead, and radioactive elements. The public utility attempted to send the waste to a more affluent state like Pennsylvania, but was denied because the waste was deemed too unsafe.6
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states, “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the publics contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.7
Many individuals within the community declare the only meaningful involvement that has taken place is between a select group of elected officials.8
Environmental Injustice Abroad
The top carbon emitters are, for the most part, the least vulnerable to climate change and its shadow of environmental injustice: China, the United States, Russia, India, and Japan 2. Adding to the environmental inconsistency, the 50 least developed countries, which contribute less than 1 percent of global carbon emissions, will be worst affected by climate change. The 2009 -2010 Climate Change Risk Report conducted by Maplecroft,9 rated 166 countries on their capacity to assuage risks to society and the business environment posed by changing patterns in natural hazards, such as droughts, flooding, storms and sea level rises and the resulting effects on ecosystems.
The continent of Africa emits 1,091 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, out of the estimated global 30,000,10 and accounts for 22 of the 28 at high-risk countries. Scientific research has demonstrated how carbon dioxide emissions have altered weather patterns in Africa and attributed to ruthless droughts and killing crops. Seventy percent of African workers are employed in the agriculture industry; as a result of desertification, an approximate 10 million people in Africa have been displaced within the past 20 years. Gallup poll data from 2008 reports 87 percent of participants from Kenya feel the threat of global warming to them and their family is very/somewhat serious.11
India is the only major carbon emitting country at high risk (56), due to its high population, poor resource security, and growing security risk. Countries like Japan (164), the United Kingdom (155), the U.S. (152), and Russia (127) are more financially stable, and therefore can better cope with natural problems due to their economic resources. China, which makes up 20 percent of the world’s population, has the third highest Gross Domestic Product, and emits over 6,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, is at medium risk (110).
The Environmental Justice Foundation predicts 150 million people will become climate refugees by the year 2050, as a result of climate change. The global population in 2008 grew 1.17 percent,12 in 2011, the global population is expected to be 7 billion, where the majority of growth will come from developing countries.13
The U.S.’s proposal for a global fund is an essential step in guiding global leaders to become more accountable for climate disasters. The proposal for a new global fund would direct billions of dollars to create an insurance mechanism for disasters and crops in poor countries. The fund would also help the countries adjust to a low-carbon economy. Copenhagen’s climate talks are expecting the U.S. to offer $1.3 billion with the purpose of reaching a target of $10 billion. 14
Since climate change will continue to ravage communities and areas least able to adapt to the environmental stress, it is critical to reach a consensus in lowering global GHG emissions and setting up a global fund this month in Copenhagen. If our political leaders fail to do so, they will be abandoning those less fortunate and punishing them with our carbon pollution. Global leaders must ascertain that there is a real unifying goal to fight this universal human rights issue – climate change and its shadow of environmental injustice.
