November 2007
The Polluter Pays Principle
Neither a new concept, nor a controversial one, the polluter pays principle has found a firm foothold amongst EU nations. This is fine in theory, but it has been a principle that is very much absent in wider practice around the world, something that charities have been seeking to address.
Oxfam released a paper earlier in the year calling for at least $50bn a year from rich countries to help with adaptation to climate change costs that will be facing developing nations in the coming years. The Oxfam "Adaptation Financing Index" calculated that the USA, EU, Japan, Canada and Australia ought to contribute over 95% of the finance needed, above and beyond their UN agreed targets of 0.7% of GNP for international aid. But with less than 1% provided for in mid 2007, prospects do not seem promising.
Thus it may be surprising to learn that Christian Aid have released a new report on the issue, demanding not a meagre $50bn in sum total from industrialised nations, but far in excess of half a trillion dollars.
Taking a robust approach to the issue, the charity has echoed the principle articulated by environmental author Andrew Pendleton. That is, "nations that have grown rich in part by polluting without facing the costs of doing so must now repay their carbon debt to the developing world."
An argument that has long been advocated by developing nations, the timing of this paper has been set to precede a meeting in December of the United Nations" environment ministers in Bali, where hopes are based of beginning talks on a new global climate protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012, and as yet, has nothing to replace it. Dismissed in 2002 by the United States as "economic suicide" in a world where the protocol would be non-binding and China is effectively building a coal-fired power station each week to support its growing economy, the report is aimed at providing an impetus for a new push in the climate change agenda.
Based on the Greenhouse Development Rights framework and the mathematics behind Sir Nicholas Stern's report stating that immediate action would cost 1% of gross world product per year, the bill as proposed by Christian Aid would fall as follows:
| Country | % of Bill | Value |
| USA | 34.3% | $212bn |
| EU | 26.6% | $164bn |
| China | 7.0% | $43.25bn |
| India | 0.3% | $1.85bn |
However, recent surges in oil prices and the potential economic fallout from the US sub prime crisis mean that even Oxfam's proposed $50bn contribution will probably be seen as aspirational by ministers attending the Bali meeting.
Environmentalists are keen to point out though, that when issues of climate change affect industrialised countries, they are quick to respond, and with sufficient funds. For example, the Netherlands is spending $2.9bn on flood dykes in anticipation of the effects of climate change. Obviously the Dutch government owes a duty of care first and foremost to their own citizens, but they represent the forefront of climate change support, the only country as of May 2007 to commit to provide climate change finance over and above the 0.7% UN GNP aid marker.
Where similar low lying developing nations such as Samoa and the Maldives can find such money, or indeed the technology, to prevent their countries from being completely submerged is both an ethical and financial dilemma facing the global community. It is this concern that Christian Aid's report hopes to prompt action over. And in spite of the huge dollar figures cited by experts, Janos Pasztor of the U.N. Environment Program insisted that the figures were reasonable, and addressed the issue in a more measured way: "It will not cost the earth to save the Earth - as little as 0.1% of the gross global product for 30 years."
Print this page