The Limits of Climate Change for Small Island States
It is entirely unfortunate that the recent Pacific Islands Forum
was held only days before Australia’s lackluster prime minister, Tony Abbott,
was ousted from power. Not that the new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, would
necessarily have had a radically different impact on the outcome of the Forum,
but one can hope that he would have at least listened to what Pacific islands
were saying: the internationally ‘agreed’ two degree limit in the rise in global
temperatures is far too much. In the Pacific, the maximum temperature increase,
resulting in rising sea levels, would be 1.5 degrees, otherwise, the very
existence of Pacific islands is at stake.
Sadly, though, neither the Government of Australia, nor New
Zealand for that matter, felt the need to listen or act (See http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pacific-island-leaders-agree-to-disagree-on-climate-change-20150910-gjjzmb.html).
One must assume that the governments of these much larger countries had
self-interest at heart, with views of sending extra money to the Pacific
islands in the future for ‘adaptation’ activities to ease their concerns and
silence their critics. This assumption is not too far a stretch from the global
approach to climate change – more money (USD 100 billion worth, in fact) for
adaptation and mitigation and we can assuage our carbon-soaked consciences.
But this entirely misses the point. For countries which have had
little or no impact on the climate, such as Pacific island countries, there is
little they can do to mitigate climate change. This leaves them with the single
option of adaptation. This is all fine and well as the initial impacts of
climate change have become apparent and the tools needed to adapt are available
– for now. But as the global temperature keeps rising – and it will – Pacific
islanders cannot anticipate what the effects will be, and thus cannot
anticipate if the tools currently available will be adequate. Moreover,
adaptation is not an infinite process. At some point there will be a winner,
and a loser. Which is why the Pacific islands are lobbying so intensely for a
limit to a 1.5 degree increase in global temperatures. That is the point at
which they know they can manage adaptation – after that, climate change will
push the islands to the very edge of their existence.
So, it begs the question as to why Australia and New Zealand would
not view the Pacific islands position as also in their best interest. With a 2
degree rise in global temperatures, climate refugees from the Pacific will
become the norm. And we already know just how receptive the Australian
government is to refugees. Imagine when they become swamped (no pun intended)
by Pacific islanders with literally no place to be returned to (or detained –
Nauru and Manus Island are very much at risk from global warming as well).
This whole story just goes to show how outnumbered the Pacific
islands really are. In a previous post here (http://aidleap.org/2015/04/20/the-asia-pacific-concept-is-ridiculous/)
I discussed the perils to the Pacific islands due to the propensity of the
international community to ‘regionalize’ development, and in particular the
massive disadvantage to the Pacific islands due to its unfortunate grouping
within the ‘Asia-Pacific’ region. Their voice is never heard. Their neighbours do
not care enough about their challenges because their combined population is
miniscule compared to others in the region. Even when faced with only two
neighbours – Australia and New Zealand – their opinions and concerns are easily
overridden.
How can we demonstrate to the international community – at the COP
in Paris and on every available soap box – that climate change mitigation
shouldn’t just be about money and who to give it to but rather about our wider
social and moral conscience and ensuring that we are not sacrificing the most
vulnerable to economic self-interest.
Comments
Post a Comment