By Almami Fanding Taal
Pity would be no more, if we did not make somebody poor; and Mercy no more could be, if all were as happy as we – William Blake.
In all cases where the evidence presented to a court is clear and incontrovertible judgement in favour of the plaintiff or conviction of the accused is the inescapable conclusion of the case.
Apparently not so where environmental crimes that have caused the planetary crises are concerned. Those responsible for the destruction of the earth support systems now wish to disregard the overwhelming evidence of their unsustainable models of development.
The 29th edition of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Baku, capital of Azabajan on Saturday 23 November 2024; on a sour note with the poorest countries expressing huge disappointment over the size of the global resources required to deal with climate change and the 300 billion offered by the richest countries who are primarily responsible for global emissions that has imperiled the world.
According to the evidence 5 Trillion dollars is required to meet the existential challenges of “the age of global boiling”.
For far too long the existential crises of climate change have been framed as a rich versus poor countries matter: on the one hand rich countries have reluctantly accepted in vague terms that they bore the greatest responsibility for man made climate change but at same time emphasising that the poorest countries have a ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ to restore the planet.
This zero sum game approach to the poly crisis engulfing the world is a losing strategy. Mainstreaming the’ Polluter Pays Principle’ as the touchstone for good faith negotiations on the climate crisis is the urgent need for small states instead of the current approach of common but differentiated responsibility principle preferred by the rich countries.
PM Mia Mottley has rightly called for global Strategic Moral Leadership in dealing with the poly crisis because climate injustice is ultimately a moral responsibility humanity have for holding and treating the environment as a Trust for Humanity.
But as in cases of historical injustice against poor people the benefitting heirs always quibble about their personal responsibility for the harm loss and damage caused by their ancestors.
This can be seen in the interminable discussion and debates about reparations for slavery but not in the payment of reparations to the victors of the World WarIII and for the genocide against the Jews.
Putting specific US Dollars amounts for mitigation and adaptation is not without merits but it must be taken as an incontrovertible historical fact that the Europeanisation of the world which started more than five centuries ago is a major contributory factor to the poly crisis that now confront the human race!
