RSS

Should the Polluter Pay?

One of the policy recommendations of the Shadow G-8 was to establish the framework for a more equitable system of dealing with climate change. Among the aspects of this suggested framework was the incorporation of the so-called polluter pays principle: that those countries that have been doing the lion’s share of the polluting over the last 200 years, all of them in the West, should make amends by committing to stringent pollution caps and transferring technology to developing nations in the name of reducing carbon emissions.

Pro:

• It’s the West’s Mess:
  Those who have not caused the pollution should not be asked to pay for it now that it is a global problem. It takes around 50 years for the CO2 that is emitted today to reach the upper echelons of our atmosphere and cause damage. The CO2 that is causing the current warming is entirely the result of Western development. Even if China and India have been emitting increasing quantities of CO2 in the last 20 years, the effects will not be felt for another third of a century.
  
  
• Win-Win:
  If Western countries transfer clean technologies to developing countries, helping them to skip the “high pollution phase” of development, emphasis on emissions targets could be reduced on both sides.
  
  
• Luxury vs. Survival:
  The pollution per capita figure in developed nations is much higher than in developing nations (see graph below). The average German produces almost 10 tons of CO2 per year. A citizen of a developing country such as Cameroon produces 0.23 tons of CO2 per year. Even Chinese and Indians only produce 3.1 and 1.19 tons of CO2, respectively. Furthermore, most of the CO2 produced in developing countries derives from processes needed for survival, such as burning wood for cooking. In developed nations, most of the CO2 emissions result from processes that can be considered luxuries and, if stopped, would be no threat to survival.
  
  
• Efficient Implementation:
  Those that have derived the greatest developmental advantage from this pollution are now in a much better position to pay for it than those still undergoing development. Developed nations represent 50% of the world’s GDP. They also have easier access to new technologies, the industrial infrastructure to quickly make them operational and the social and political prerequisites (i.e. an absence of war or internal strife) for an expedient implementation.

Con:

• Competition:
  The biggest polluters of the developing world, India and China, are also on track to become the West’s greatest economic competitors. China has already overtaken the size of the UK economy. If long-time polluters such as the United States engage in mass-scale free-of-charge technology transfer, it will have serious impact on competitive advantage, ultimately affecting Western economies and labor markets.
  
  
• Global Recession:
  The drastic emissions reductions required under “polluter pays” guidelines are simply not feasible without causing major economic damage. The US faces looming trade deficits, and Europe has just begun a fragile recovery. Imposing such harsh measures now would inevitably cause a global recession and thus have severe negative consequences for all countries, not just those in the West.
  
  
• R&D:
  Free technology transfer would mean loss of revenue for the firms and industries that originally developed these technologies. Less money would be invested into research and development. The developed nations could choose to subsidize these industries, in order to make up for the loss in revenue and R&D spending, but doing so would put a drain on government funds and could result in significant tax increases. Further subsidies to industry could also have impact on competition, and would likely be met with opposition from developing countries for the trade and market-entry barriers they create.
  
  
• Infrastructure:
  We can transfer the technology, but making high-tech machinery operational on a large scale also requires highly developed infrastructure and highly trained personnel. The recipient nations often do not have the resources to meet such prerequisites, and therefore would not be able to apply the technology successfully in the first place.

Global distribution of CO2 emissions per capita.












Global distribution of GDP per capita

What do you think? You can view the results of the poll here . We would also appreciate your thoughts, comments and any additional policy recommendations you might have on this topic.

Niklas Keller holds an MA in International Relations and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Before joining the Atlantic Community in May of 2007, he worked in program management for a number of NGOs and as a Research Assistant for United Nations University, Tokyo.


Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Transatlantic Climate War Threatens G8 Summit
• IPCC Spells Out Course of Action on Climate Change
• Jeffrey Sachs on the Climate Change Revolution