Climate Change: the Real White Man’s Burden
By Elena Colonna

Countries that are achieving economic growth through greenhouse gases emitting practices such as fossil fuel use, will be the ones to face fewer consequences from the resulting climate change, while countries most vulnerable to climate change are the least responsible for its genesis.
If we don't decrease the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) we emit in the atmosphere, and the average temperatures were to rise by 2°, we would be in trouble. This is something that, by now, we have heard in all kinds of ways and that we all hopefully agree on. The more fossil fuels used, the more GHG emitted, the higher the temperatures and the sea level, the more trouble ahead of us. We have heard how with a 2 degrees increase in temperatures, the arctic would disappear and our cities would drawn: we would literally be up a creek without a paddle. Pretty terrifying, but pretty straightforward. While this logic clearly highlights what the main sources of climate change are, namely our usage of fossil fuels and the other production practices which increase the amount of GHG in the atmosphere, it doesn’t create an accurate depiction of the consequences: real life is not as straightforward. It’s true that all of us, no matter where we come from, will in one way or another be affected by the consequences of climate change. However, some of us would be much more screwed than others, and not because some countries or people contribute more to climate change will they suffer from worse repercussions. Actually, it’s quite the opposite.
A study carried out by the University of Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society reports in fact a dramatic global mismatch between the countries responsible for the highest greenhouse gases emissions and the ones which are most vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. As the impact of climate change on countries is highly variable, and can be much stronger in some regions than in others, some countries contribute more or less to causing climate change than is proportionate to their vulnerability to its consequences. This is what the researchers define an issue of environmental equity on a global scale. "This is like a non-smoker getting cancer from second-hand smoke, while the heavy smokers continue to puff away" said the researchers. 20 of the 36 countries with the highest levels of greenhouse gases emissions, including the United States, Russia, Western Europe and China, are in fact among the least vulnerable to negative impacts of future climate change; while 11 of the 17 countries with lowest emissions, most of them located in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, are the most vulnerable. As the high-emitting countries would face less serious consequences, they thus have few incentives to meaningfully reduce their GHG emissions. The results are shown in the map below, where countries with per capita GHG emissions in the highest quintile and vulnerability in the lowest quintile are shown in dark red (climate free riders), and those countries with per capita GHG emissions in the lowest quintile and vulnerability in the highest quintile are shown in dark green (climate forced riders). The data is from 2010.
Not only countries’ greenhouse gases emissions are negatively correlated to their climate vulnerability, but GHG emissions are positively correlated with economic output. This means that the majority of the countries least responsible for climate change, such as Small Island States or countries in sub-saharan Africa, will have to face the most drastic consequences but won’t be able to implement effective measures against them, as they have fewer resources available and lower GDP. While the United States does have the material resources to cope with the rising sea level in Florida, and Italy will manage to save Venice from drowning, those countries that did not contribute to climate change as much as the United States or Italy did, will face much more serious environmental changes, such as natural disasters or human health implications, with much fewer means.
​
As a result of it, inequalities among developed and developing countries without means to adapt will deepen even further, and entire populations will face the impossibility of living in regions exposed to constant inondations, droughts, floods, food insecurity or violent conflicts over natural resources. From 2008 to 2014, already more than 150 million people were forced to migrate due to extreme weather conditions. These environmental migrants, or climate refugees, who are more than likely to keep increasing in number over the upcoming years, are not actually considered refugees from a legal point of view. The term “climate refugee” does not in fact exist in international law, and people displaced due to the consequences of climate change struggle to find a more secure place in which to re-settle, especially considering the hard line on migration which is being adopted by Europe and the US. An example of the extreme consequences that climate change can have is the Syrian Civil War. Many have in fact argued that the social, economic and political factors at the root of the conflict have been strengthened by the most intense drought that the country had experienced in 40 years. This drought, made more likely thanks to global warming, caused food shortages and internal migration from rural to urban areas, which then contributed to the discontent at the root of the 2011 uprisings and the civil conflict. Even if the drought was only one among many different causes of the upheaval, we have to realize that we live in an interconnected reality in which our actions, or better our inaction, can cause terrible consequences for other people to face, and we have to take responsibility for it.
"We are calling for the smokers to pay for the health care of the non-smokers they are directly harming”, conclude the researchers of the study previously mentioned, who demand the implementation by the largest emitting countries of policies to achieve emissions reductions on an international level, while helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.
From our relatively privileged position, as people living in countries which will not have to carry the heaviest burden of climate change, such as to be forced to flee our homes or being involved in violent conflicts over scarce resources as drinking water, it’s important to acknowledge the effect of our production and consumption patterns and act to change them. Only if we realize how our actions, and our inaction, have consequences on people so far away from us, as the impacts of GHG emissions go beyond a country’s border, and only if we develop a sense of responsibility towards these people, we will feel the sense of urgency necessary to take action. And only by taking action we can create a more fair world.