The United Nations concluded its 2021 environmental discourse with a resolution, endorsed by a majority of the General Assembly members, deeming climate change a threat to world peace and security. However, the resolution was vetoed by Russia when presented to the UN Security Council. While it had strong support from rich and poor countries most affected by climate change, especially small island-states, the resolution was opposed by a group of developing countries, with China taking the middle ground and abstaining from voting.
Supporters of the project considered that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity, and addressing its effects requires binding decisions at the Security Council level. As for the opponents, they feared that the decision would turn into a pretext for imposing strict measures on developing countries to reduce their emissions, without providing them with sufficient support and the promised aid to enable them to make a smooth transition to a green economy that maintains the balance of natural resources and reduces emissions.
The Russian objection to transferring the climate issue to the Security Council was based on the assumption that the move might turn a scientific issue into a political one. But proponents of the resolution said that the recent political climate summit in Glasgow already settled the matter, when it adopted the findings of the scientific reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and left it to national politicians to make the implementation decisions. The summit agreed to take the necessary measures to limit the increase in global temperatures at 1.5 degrees, with all measures entailed to reduce emissions to zero by mid-century. While a large number of countries pledged to achieve this goal by 2045, China committed to 2060 at the latest. Rich countries also pledged to enhance their support for poor countries, so that they can achieve their development goals in parallel with reducing emissions. Compliance with these pledges, by rich developed countries, developing countries and China, embodies the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” in international environmental law, which puts a higher share of the responsibility for fighting climate change and its costs, at the door of countries historically responsible for the bulk of emissions and resource depletion.
The Chinese centrist position was a well-calculated political stand. It is as if China was saying: We acknowledge the scientific findings evidenced by facts, that the effects of climate change are huge and constitute an urgent danger that must be addressed with swift measures. We recognize the catastrophic effects of climate change on health, the spread of epidemics, the degradation of natural resources, droughts, fresh water scarcity, food production and rising seas that threaten vast regions and entire countries with extinction. However, any Security Council resolutions must be balanced, requiring rich and advanced countries to shoulder their historical responsibilities and abide by their commitments, before sanctions are unleashed on everyone.
The debate at the UN General Assembly and the vetoed draft resolution in the Security Council were the subject of a discussion I participated in, together with a US researcher in climate affairs, and a political consultant who was a senior member of former US President Donald Trump’s administration. While the university academic and I agreed that climate change indeed poses a threat to human existence and global peace and security, and is likely to cause famine, wars, conflicts and unprecedented waves of refugees, the former American official had a contradictory position, replicating the populist ideology led by President Trump. He considered that climate change does not enjoy a scientific consensus, despite reliable American studies that confirm that the proportion of skeptics of climate change among American scientific researchers themselves does not exceed 2 percent. He stated that the immediate effect on the climate and human health is from other gases than carbon dioxide. This is true, which makes it necessary to reduce pollutants such as sulfur, carbon monoxide, ozone, methane and dust particulates from the atmosphere, it is also true that burning fuel without proper controls is the main cause of these toxic emissions.
Reiterating President Trump’s accusations against the media that it is false and biased, he said the media is responsible for exaggerating the climate problem and blowing it out of proportion. Apparently, he missed the fact that the scientific reports of the IPCC are the basis of what is reported in the media, and that these reports are issued unanimously by committees that include the most prominent climate scientists in the world.
When populists fail to refute scientific facts, they turn to economics. The new US administration’s commitment to its climate pledges will lead, according to the former Trump adviser, to a decline in the United States’ competitiveness, vis-à-vis China. I had to remind him that what weakened US competitiveness was the Trump administration’s withdrawal from climate pledges and programs, which made China lead the solar industry and flood world markets with its products. Were it not for the continuation of major American companies to build their future plans for a post-Trump era, on the basis of the imperativeness of reducing emissions and transitioning to a green economy, the US would have completely lost its competitive edge.
The United States and European countries are pressing today to conclude binding agreements that lead to confronting the challenges of climate change, the latest of which was their failed attempt to pass a resolution in the Security Council that considers climate change a threat to global peace and security. It is comprehensible that some countries fear the possible consequences of such a decision, but it is the responsibility of the US and Europe to take steps designed to remove reservations and inspire confidence.
What is required, at the outset, is that the US and Europe set a role-model example and prove the seriousness of their promises and commitments, starting at home front. For example, they cannot call for a reduction in emissions on one hand, and demand that oil-producing countries raise the production ceiling to lower prices, on the other. Seriousness calls for rapid rationalization of consumption within the US and Europe. A country like Germany cannot demand drastic measures from the world to tackle the repercussions of climate change, while its government is still unable to set speed limits on its highways, under pressure from German manufacturers promoting their fast engines, knowing that the faster the engine, the higher the carbon emissions.
Second, developed countries should assist in science, technology transfer and training, so that developing countries can possess their own capabilities to make a transition to a green economy, by rationalizing the use of clean energy and balanced management of natural resources to ensure their renewal and sustainability.
Finally, it is required that rich developed countries provide financial support to developing countries to help them implement transformation programs, by focusing on investments, not just loans which squeeze poor countries with additional debts.
After achieving these fair conditions, no country will be able to oppose a UN resolution that considers climate change to be a threat to peace and security. Until then, poverty, including energy poverty, will remain the number one threat to global peace and security.