Imagine the following scene in the Old West: A bunch of tired, thirsty cowboys ride up to a desert waterhole. Seeing cool water, they whoop in delight, springing from their horses to drink deeply. Once their thirst is quenched, they water their horses and wash the grit from their bodies. Several get carried away and start water fights, flinging hatfuls of water at each other.
Only after the fun has gone on for some time do they note that the remaining water has diminished considerably. Ceasing their roughhousing, they set up camp. As they do, another tired group rides up.
The newcomers also are parched and drop to their bellies, eagerly lapping up the precious liquid. But the first group views the newcomers with alarm. “Hey you jerks,” one cowboy calls out, “take it easy with that water, there isn’t a lot left.”
A similar situation is playing out now as countries try to address global environmental problems. Rich nations often tell poorer ones to stop doing things that they themselves did for decades or centuries. In many cases, the now-taboo practice contributed to the rapid economic growth of the richer nation and is the basis for much higher levels of income for its citizens. Poor nations resent such instructions.
Greenhouse gas emissions are an example. The Bush administration has resisted taking action to limit releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, arguing that any limits are foolish unless developing countries such as China also cut their emissions.
The administration is correct that emission reductions by the wealthy countries may be largely offset by increased emissions from industrializing poorer nations such as China and India if they continue the upward trend they are on.
What is questionable is the president’s view of fairness: that everyone has to do their part by making similar percentage reductions, starting from a certain date. Such reductions may seem eminently fair to many people in wealthy countries – indeed, the Kyoto Agreement is set up this way – but they do not seem fair at all to those in poorer ones.
While emissions from industrializing nations in Asia are growing rapidly, total emissions per person remain much below those for rich nations. If the United States, European Union, China and India all reduced greenhouse emissions by, say, 10 percent below 2000 levels, the absolute amount of releases per person in the U.S. and Europe would remain several times higher than for the two poorer nations.
When war or other emergencies bring about food rationing, nations never impose equal percentage reductions on everyone. Yes, a 15 percent reduction in calories would mean that a glutton taking in 4,000 calories a day would have to give up 600 calories. A person eating 1,800 calories would have to sacrifice only 270, less than half as much. But the glutton could still consume 3,400 calories, an ample diet indeed, while the restrained eater would be cut to 1,530, not enough to sustain a man doing hard physical labor.
Ration systems instead provide specified amounts of bread, meat or sugar per person. The fact that someone consumed lavishly before the emergency does not give him the right to greater portions than others who consumed less.
There is an interesting kicker in the specific case of climate change. Increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 and other gases depend on cumulative emissions over the past few centuries, and not just on current emission levels. Since the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany developed large coal-burning industries well before most other nations, they released most of the gases now causing problems.
These industries propelled us and the British and Germans to high levels of income and household consumption. Much poorer people in countries that started industrializing much later rightly see that equal percentage reductions in carbon use probably will leave them permanently poorer than citizens of rich nations.
Why does this all matter? It does because we still live in a world of nation-states. There is no global government to force any nation to adopt a specific environmental policy. Newcomers to the industrialized world like Brazil, China or South Korea will not spontaneously adopt policies their peoples think unfair. Nor will any other poor nation where incomes are only a fraction of those in North America or Europe.
If we want those nations to cut carbon emissions, we will have to use carrots or sticks or both. But they are not going to see an arrangement as fair just because Bush or Australian Prime Minister John Howard says it is.
© 2007 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.