This is just how unfair climate change is

We're all living through the climate crisis. But we're not all in it together. So what exactly does climate change have to do with social injustice? And how can we fix it? This is climate justice explained.

We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What can we do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.


► Want to see more? Make sure to subscribe to Planet A!

#PlanetA #ClimateChange #ClimateJustice

READ MORE





Reporter: Ajit Niranjan
Camera: Henning Goll
Video editor: Frederik Willmann
Supervising editor: Joanna Gottschalk

[weareparamore]

Basically they're saying stop using coal and stop progressing to developing countries while they already throw tons of emissions in totality out there.. Good for you rich countries.. Poor countries need to sacrifice progress to save the earth that been destroyed by rich countries... What a fair idea

[tomf]

The best way to end climate injustice is to put ALL life at the center of every decision and action we take. It's not simply a matter of making sure we all share in the costs and misery of climate chaos equally. It's to address the challenges fairly.

[TedApelt]

I love the idea of paying countries each year for the amount of co2 absorbing rainforest they maintain.

[oldgaffer]

I bet all the changes make the mega rich more money

[Rnankn]

The historic North-South divide is significant. But then within countries there are equally significant divisions of responsibility. There is also corporate-societal responsibility, which many would point to a sectoral delineation (energy, production, agriculture, transportation, shipping). Implicated with the relative poverty v wealth, is ownership as shareholders have profited from GHG. I personally think the most powerful claim of injustice is generational. This unforgivable harm was done largely in the global North, by a prosperous middle class and wealthy elite, who were members of a single generation. They now hold nearly all of the power, wealth, assets and opportunities. This is the largest demographic cohort in history, and has determined the outcome of elections since ww2. Anyone who challenges them is quickly undermined. Imminently they are retiring, so the financial markets are being artificially inflated causing the propagation of further emissions to preserve and grow the savings of one generation. They will continue to delay a transformation of the global economy away from carbon while they spend money and enjoy the final decades of a liveable planet. They will expect everyone else to work on their behalf, pushing the biosphere beyond repair. Then they will die, having consumed 10 thousand years of energy and resources, taking no responsibility, and leaving chaos, death and destruction behind.

[madinamir]

i love the way reporter is entertaining himself 🙃😂😂😂

[Mephistophilex]

thank you for using carbon emission per capita rather than total. I am fed up with the average Reddit users and Youtubers blaming China for emitting double what the U.S. does just to hide the fact that they themselves are the biggest problem on this planet.

[SqArno]

0:27 I see the bundling of such disparate concerns as being as harmful as the bundling of concerns such as fossil fuel interests with religion, immigration and anti-abortion.

It is this kind of political bundling that is truly the sickness in politics. On the one hand they might garner more support for a single topic by association, on the other hand they might garner opposition to a political concern simply yet again by association. And this is not how it should be. A conservative religious person for example should not be predisposed to oppose climate justice simply because the opposition party has it bundled with other political concerns they feel threaten their way of life. Nor to support the the unchecked devastation of the global environment by the fossil fuel industry simply because they have bundled their interests with that of such individuals. Make no mistake - Human induced climate is a test for the entire human race. It won't matter who you are, who you love, who you worship, how you make your money, how much money you make, or any of that if we don't meet our climate goals this century. We will all suffer alike. I try to remain moderate, and yet I believe climate justice to be a vital component for an effective response to climate change, which I see as a ultimate priority, and should otherwise, in theory, enjoy widespread support purely on a reasonable moral basis.

Also the figures are somewhat misleading. In 2017 North America's cumulative historic emissions was 29% of the global cumulative emissions. Europe's was 33%. Asia's was 29%. South America, Africa and Oceania have indeed emitted a very small portion altogether. It's just that the 8% figure mentioned for Asia seems to ignore several very large emitters. Among which of course is China. And what's more... Russia is generally included for figures involving Europe. This while Russia is responsible for 6% of cumulative emissions, and is predominantly in Asia. Include Russia in Asian emissions and suddenly Europe is responsible for 27%, and Asia a whopping 35%. Then, while North American and European emissions are falling; China has already become the largest yearly emitter. And... Around early 2030-2040 China will become the largest historic emitter of all countries. If trends continue, then eventually it will end up being the largest historic emitter by a very, very large margin. Meaning of course that in the end, when the worst of the effects make themselves felt - China will be mostly responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Unequivocally...

All that said. There seems to be some political will for climate justice in the West, but on the other hand the sentiment from China seems to rather push the narrative that they should be beneficiaries of climate justice. Which is preposterous.

The discussion is important. However the discussion needs to be kept objective. Speaking to bias will not serve to facilitate useful solutions.

[admiralsnackbar]

There's 15 gigatons of co2 😱
If only there was a natural way of converting co2 into oxygen???

[DaveE]

I’m so far gone that I laughed out loud when he said “aren’t we in this together?”

[cmichaels]

Technology was different back then. We can't blame America and Europe for co2 if they didn't have alternative technology. India and China, like the rest of the world, have more viable alternative technology today such as wind and solar. The developed countries are moving away from carbon based energy faster than the developing countries.

Policies and corruption is also a major issue in shit hole countries as well. I live in South Africa, and here for example, governments make huge money from coal through taxes and under the table bribes to use certain coal companies. We hardly have electricity because the power utility (which is 99% state owned) is in financial ruin and cannot keep the lights on. 4 new coal power planets were built in the last 15 years and billions were stolen. If you as an individual household or business want to install solar panels, government will tax you and impose penalties because they'll lose revenue that they can't use to keep the lights on or steal.

The poor black people get electricity completely free while the white people have experienced a rise in cost of electricity by 800% in the last 20 years, that's 40% per year. What incentives does the poor black have to conserve this carbon based electricity?

[maisun-fnow]

Is it really fair that, in the G8 agreement, 44 per cent of the emission rights should go to 1.1 billion developed countries and 56 per cent to the remaining six billion people in underdeveloped countries? Therefore, we should adhere to common but differentiated responsibilities in environmental governance, so as to better protect the ecological environment and ensure fairness and efficiency.

[priyanshubandhe]

The reporter has entertained a lot through his rice activities.😂

[hemant]

Is there any one benefit of being poor?

[Carl-hsa]

I'm but a humble battery hucker throwing my eleccy stores into the sea. Why do they persecute me so?

[transcrobesproject]

The problem about talking about justice and fairness is that there is an assumption that those who are benefiting/committing the injustices care. They don't. So the people that watch videos like this get indignant and annoyed at the injustice of it all... But because we aren't annoyed enough to actually do anything about it, we just go with the flow, and nothing really changes. People say technology is a big part of the problem but it is also the only possible solution. The other (logical) possibility is that people starting caring enough about something apart from themselves. And that is pure fantasy.

[jennifersmith]

I still don't know what "climate justice" is.

[stunfire]

Tagging anything onto the word "justice" immediately distorts it, corrupting it. If there is justice to be had, it would just be justice.

[Earth]

Excellent video!! I'm glad DW created a separate channel dedicated to Sustainability. It's the biggest issue our world faces today and tomorrow.

[maisun-fnow]

The change of climate environment is a long historical accumulation process, in which it is undeniable that developed countries and developing countries play different roles, because the developed countries have indeed emitted far more carbon than the developing countries in history, and also have relatively stronger capital and technology investment capacity. Therefore, although the current consensus of the international community is to "reduce carbon emissions and protect the ecological environment", the debate on the distribution of carbon emissions has never stopped, because it means that a country can be accepted by the international community of development rights.