The Hidden Agenda of the Climate Battle

Outside the circle of rich countries, there is broad agreement that developed countries are attempting to unload an inappropriately large share of the burden to reduce greenhouse gas emissions onto their less affluent neighbors, says Danish foreign policy expert Jørgen Østrøm Møller.

In the West, climate change is seen as a global problem that demands a global solution. Even in China, owing to the fact that the country is feeling the effects of pollution first hand, the government has long since realized the wide-ranging negative impact climate change will have on the future of the nation, Møller, a former Danish ambassador, recently wrote in a commentary for the weekly, Monday Morning.

But, even after accounting for the recognition of a need for action, in developed and developing nations alike, Møller asks why it is precisely now that rich countries have chosen to mobilize global support for the climate battle. His answer: It has to do with hiding the financial burdens.

"From the point of view of the less affluent nations, it appears as if the rich part of the world is trying to evade its part of the burden – and perhaps even to divert other problems that have nothing to do with the climate to other countries," he says.

According to Møller, the resulting "credibility divide" that separates developed and developing countries is visible in at least three areas: security, support and trade policies.

Security policy supplementary gain

Among the expected implications of a rapidly changing climate are changes to living conditions that uproot populations, turning them into potential breeding grounds for new terror threats. According to a June report in the Washington Post cited by Møller, the U.S. intelligence services view these climate change-induced disruptions as a security threat. But, because U.S. armed forces are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not available for military actions that climate change may necessitate. In other words, believes Møller, "deflecting the issue of climate change would relieve the United States of an appreciable need to invest in measures to deal with a change in the security policy threat situation."

Another aspect of the conflict, Møller says, is the belief among developing countries that the climate agenda is diverting attention from the fact that wealthy countries have reduced development aid, and is pushing the fight against global poverty off the political agenda. He notes that the 2005 promise from the G8 countries to contribute more than U.S. 25 billion in aid to Africa through 2010 has produced just U.S. 3 billion so far.

"It is comforting for rich countries to highlight climate change as the dominant global issue that is swallowing resources that could be put to good use elsewhere," Møller says.

Uneven playing fields

What concerns developing countries most, Møller says, is that the global effort to tackle climate change will hamper their economic growth and limit trade. International regulations to protect the environment or ensure worker health and safety have been grudgingly accepted, Møller says, but "emerging countries...have always viewed such regulations as a poorly disguised attempt to hinder growth, and to prevent them from exploiting their competitive advantages," and, "the entire complex circus surrounding CO₂ quotas is interpreted as an attempt by Western nations to neutralise competitive advantages."

Møller goes on: "If container traffic becomes more expensive," for example, "then competition is weighted markedly against the interests of China and India. The outsourcing of production to India and China rests on an assumption of cheap transport that reduces the importance of geographical proximity as a competitive parameter. If a special duty is added to the already higher oil prices, the benefits available through outsourcing will be significantly reduced.

If global agreements are to be achieved, it is absolutely essential to bridge the credibility divide. And you do not have to be psychic to see what is needed: comprehensive and systematic input, where the Western countries demonstrate genuine commitment to the climate issue, along with the will to shoulder a significantly larger share of the burdens."

*Editor's Note: This is an abridged version of a commentary that originally appeared in Monday Morning weekly.