Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
International environmental politics is often characterized by a complex interplay of national interests, scientific uncertainties, and ethical considerations. A persistent feature of this landscape is the North-South divide, rooted in historical inequalities and divergent perspectives on development. This divide centers on the question of ‘historical responsibility’ – who bears the primary burden for environmental degradation – and differing ‘developmental models’ – the pathways nations choose to achieve economic growth. The recent COP28 summit in Dubai (December 2023), with its contentious debates over loss and damage funding, exemplifies the continuing relevance of this ideological rift. This answer will explore whether ongoing debates are indeed marred by this renewed North-South divide, illustrating with relevant examples.
Historical Roots of the North-South Divide
The North-South divide in environmental politics originates from colonialism and the subsequent industrialization of European nations and the United States. These nations benefited from exploiting natural resources and emitting greenhouse gases, driving economic growth while largely ignoring environmental consequences. Developing countries, often former colonies, argue that they are now facing the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing relatively little to the problem historically. This forms the basis of their claim for ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR), a principle enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
Divergent Developmental Models
The core of the disagreement lies in differing developmental models. Developed nations, having already achieved industrialization, often advocate for stringent environmental regulations and a rapid transition to sustainable practices. They emphasize the need for global cooperation to reduce emissions, sometimes framing environmental protection as a universal value. However, developing nations prioritize economic growth and poverty reduction, arguing that they need access to affordable energy sources, even if they are carbon-intensive, to meet the basic needs of their populations. They view stringent environmental regulations as potential barriers to development, fearing they will perpetuate existing inequalities.
Illustrative Examples
- Climate Change Negotiations (Kyoto Protocol & Paris Agreement): The Kyoto Protocol (1997) faced resistance from the US, a major emitter, due to its lack of binding targets for developing countries. The Paris Agreement (2015) attempted to address this by establishing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), allowing countries to set their own targets. However, debates continue over the ambition of these targets and the adequacy of financial support from developed nations to help developing countries achieve them.
- Loss and Damage Fund: The establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 (2022) was a significant victory for developing nations, acknowledging the irreversible impacts of climate change. However, disagreements persist over the funding mechanisms, the amount of funding, and the criteria for accessing the fund. Developed nations have been slow to pledge substantial contributions.
- Intellectual Property Rights & Technology Transfer: Developing countries often argue that intellectual property rights (IPR) held by developed nations hinder the transfer of environmentally sound technologies. They advocate for easier access to these technologies to facilitate their transition to sustainable development. Developed nations, however, prioritize protecting their IPR.
- Deforestation & REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation): REDD+ initiatives, aimed at incentivizing forest conservation in developing countries, have faced criticism for potentially infringing on the rights of local communities and for failing to adequately address the underlying drivers of deforestation, such as global demand for agricultural commodities.
The Role of China and Emerging Economies
The rise of China and other emerging economies has complicated the North-South dynamic. While these nations often align with developing countries on issues of historical responsibility, their own increasing emissions and economic influence have led to calls for greater responsibility and contribution to global environmental efforts. This has created a ‘South-South’ divide, with some developing nations advocating for a more differentiated approach based on current emissions levels rather than historical ones.
Current State of the Debate
The North-South divide remains a significant obstacle to effective international environmental cooperation. While there is growing recognition of the need for a more equitable and inclusive approach, deep-seated mistrust and conflicting priorities continue to hinder progress. The debate is further complicated by geopolitical tensions and the rise of nationalism. The principle of CBDR, while still relevant, is increasingly challenged by the changing global landscape.
| Issue | North's Perspective | South's Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Climate Change Mitigation | Rapid decarbonization, global carbon pricing | Prioritize development, access to affordable energy, financial assistance |
| Technology Transfer | Protect intellectual property rights | Facilitate access to environmentally sound technologies |
| Financial Assistance | Provide limited funding based on economic capacity | Significant and predictable funding for adaptation and mitigation |
Conclusion
The ongoing debates in international environmental politics are undeniably marred by a renewed North-South ideological divide over historical responsibility and developmental models. While the situation is complex and evolving, the fundamental tensions remain. Bridging this gap requires a fundamental shift in mindset, moving beyond narrow national interests towards a more collaborative and equitable approach. This necessitates increased financial and technological support from developed nations, a greater willingness to accommodate the development needs of developing countries, and a recognition that environmental sustainability is inextricably linked to social and economic justice. A truly effective global environmental regime must address the historical injustices that underpin the current divide.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.