Developing nations and the fossil fuel dilemma
Developing countries are expected to transition to renewable energy as quickly as developed countries. However, they often rely on fossil fuels to maintain any economic power and viability on the global stage and to improve the standards of living for their citizens to be comparable to people living in the global north. They’re also being forced to rely on fossil fuels to repay their debt to nations in the Global North.
Some argue that developed nations should rapidly scale back fossil fuels to allow developing countries to use our remaining carbon budget to create a higher quality of life for their citizens. Unfortunately, developed nations continue to burn more than their fair share while poorer countries, who did the least to cause global warming, are suffering the negative effects of climate breakdown more immediately. Developed countries also committed to pay for poorer countries transition to renewables, but they have failed to follow through.
Meanwhile, some climate scientists argue that we don’t have a remaining carbon budget because of the aerosol effect and climate sensitivity.
Read below for more information:
“Wealthy countries have promised to pool billions of dollars every year to help developing countries transition to cleaner energy, but have failed to live up to their commitments. One pledge in particular aimed to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, which still hasn’t been met. By one estimate, developing countries will need $2 trillion per year by 2030 to address the causes and effects of climate change.”
Vox, Who gets to keep burning fossil fuels as the planet heats up?
“This COP, we must shift the conversation from futuristic net-zero ambitions toward practical and equitable emissions trajectories. The rich and overall high emitters have to reduce emissions aggressively, while the low-emissions poor must lower their growth rate of emissions on a credible path toward zero.
Development from a very low base inevitably means the poor must increase their emissions in the short term. The good news is this should still fit within global emissions targets if high emitters reduce emissions quickly up front. Unfortunately, the push toward zero has been interpreted as a prohibition on public support for new unabated fossil fuel energy. This is both unfair and unviable.”
Brookings, It is unfair to push poor countries to reach zero carbon emissions too early
“Instead of all countries following the same path to zero emissions, we need a framework that is fair and practical and recognizes differences across countries. Poorer countries should dramatically reduce most — but not necessarily all — of their prospective emissions as soon as possible, similar to how the Pareto 80/20 rule helps maximize bang-for-buck.
This is analogous to “flattening the curve,” a phrase popularized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Poorer countries can reduce emissions growth faster up front and then plateau their emissions, even if a small emissions tail lingers beyond the notional date of 2050, keeping the area under the curve the same (or even lower).
In contrast, high-emissions nations cannot leave an emissions tail as we don’t have the global carbon space. They can also afford to aggressively move to zero emissions by or even before 2050. Their efforts to reach zero emissions will help the poor by innovating and paying the early adopter premium for new technologies like green hydrogen and battery storage, the benefits of which would trickle down to everyone.”
Brookings, The poor should control carbon emissions, but the rich must eliminate them
More Reading
World Resources Institute, To Shift Away from Oil and Gas, Developing Countries Need a ‘Just Transition’ to Protect Workers and Communities
Debt Justice, Rising debt locks globalsouth countries in fossil fuel production
New York Times, The World Needs to Quit Oil and Gas. Africa Has an Idea: Rich Countries First
The Guardian, Rich countries ‘trap’ poor nations into relying on fossil fuels