Rich and poor nations clash at Copenhagen

Historic climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, this week have already 'enjoyed' more than their fair share of controversy, just a few days into the conference. Tuesday saw Bangladesh, a country widely regarded as one that will be worst hit by the predicted effects of climate change, demand that at least 15% of any climate adaptation fund be pledged to helping it deal with consequences of global warming such as rising sea-levels.

Bangladeshi Environment Minister, Hasan Mahmud Khondoker, said that since 20 million Bangladeshis would be displaced if sea-levels were to rise by just one metre, 15% of the estimated amount of US$600 billion Bangladesh intends to demand for the adaptation fund should be spent on the low-lying Asian nation's response. The US$600 billion should, according to Bangladesh, be raised by taking 1.5% of the GDP of each of the 29 Developed countries most responsible for producing gas emissions that cause climate change.

Such an amount may turn out to be overly optimistic, with UN officials only suggesting an amount of US$30 billion, in the short term at least. But the logic and moral force of the Bangladeshi arguments is hard to fault. As one member of the Bangladeshi delegation pointed out: "We are not begging any mercy from anyone. Rather we want justice as the worst victim of climate change."

But will wealthy, developed nations, most of whom are in the strong economic position they currently occupy partly because of long, intensive and polluting periods of industrialisation (and partly through enriching themselves at the expense of regions such as South Asia under colonial rule), meet the moral challenge? They have certainly shown themselves both willing and able to provide massive injections of funding in order to save, repair or shore up their own economies and capitalist financial institutions. But despite impressive rhetoric running up to the Copenhagen talks, wealthy nations' commitment to seeing a just deal done seems questionable.

This is particularly apparent when considering the most recent controversy to have rocked the talks, the leaking of an alleged secret deal, supposedly pre-arranged and being promoted behind the scenes by wealthy nations. Under the draft deal, revealed in leaks attributed to developing nations, agreements undertaken by developed nations would not be legally binding and the key issues of how much would be paid into the adaptation fund and critical emission reduction commitments are 'left blank', according to reports.

Environmental and development groups like Oxfam and the World Wildlife Fund have reacted angrily to the contents of the leak, suggesting that it amounts to poor countries being 'squeezed out of the debate' and that behind-the-scenes negotiations have focused on 'pleasing the rich and powerful countries, rather than serving the majority'.

Christians on the Left will no doubt want to pray that a fair deal, taking into account historical responsibilities and current and future needs will be reached, regardless of what plans may have been made ahead of the conference.

Jonathan Langley, 09/12/2009