The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston,
has warned
of a “climate apartheid” if more is not done to mitigate the potentially
disastrous effects of climate change. Following the
recent IPCC report that stressed the immediacy with which we must act in
order to prevent an irreversible global temperature rise, giving just 12 years
to avert a global crisis, Alston’s warnings assert that current actions taken
by the UN are “patently inadequate” and will lead to a scenario where the rich
pay to escape the worst consequences of a changing climate, "while the
rest of the world is left to suffer".
The poorest are undoubtedly already suffering the worst consequences
of climate change. Small island developing states (SIDS) are facing existential
threats from rising sea levels. More than 1.3
billion people globally live in deteriorating agricultural land, leading to
year-on-year poverty increases in areas set to suffer the most in the coming
decades. In many cases, natural events are even used
as a catalyst to further marginalise the poorest in society, as in the government-led
enforced exile of families living in informal settlements in the
Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan.
Perhaps the best example of this gulf of consequence between
the rich and poor was seen in the Caribbean following Hurricanes Irma and Maria
of late 2017. In Puerto Rico, devastated by Maria and “forgotten”
by US and international aid agencies, the poverty-stricken population
continues its limp towards recovery. Meanwhile, as early as April 2018, just 7
months after the two 1-in-100-year hurricanes, 5-star resorts across the Caribbean
were
boasting of their newly renovated and upgraded hotels, largely paid for by insurance
money following the damage of the hurricane season and attracting more tourist
money to line the pockets of their owners.
It may seem obvious that those with the resources to prepare
for the worst will weather the storm better than those without. But it would
appear that if you collect enough resources and garner enough power, you do not
even have to pay to mitigate your own risks. Following Hurricane Harvey, which
caused almost unprecedented damage to the state of Texas, big
oil firms successfully lobbied for a $3.9 billion grant from the US
government’s public funds for three storm barrier projects that would
specifically protect oil facilities. The total cost of Harvey was
estimated at $125 billion, with 13 million people affected and a dramatic
rise in Texans claiming unemployment benefit due to job loss following the
disaster, as well as the closure of several dozen schools for over a month
while they waited for repairs. That same year, Exxon
Mobil alone reported profits of $6.2 billion, and Chevron of $4 billion,
which begs the question of why public funding was needed to cover the cost of a
storm barrier that would not actually protect those living in the Harvey-affected
area.
The potential cascade effects of not tackling the climate
emergency are equally chilling. Worsening
violence between farmer and herder groups in rural Nigeria as a result of
land degradation is already sending
shockwaves through the country and the wider world, and increasing evidence
suggests that worsening climate conditions will increase
the likelihood of outbreaks of identity-based violence (IBV) and conflict. Alongside
climate vulnerability, those in poverty are also often
the most likely to suffer the consequences of IBV. A less predictable
climate also has detrimental health effects, leading to increasing
droughts (which also disproportionately
affect the poor), and greater chance of disease outbreak
(which, you’ve guessed it, has
a greater impact on poor people).
Income inequality has risen dramatically between 1980 and
today, with the top 1% richest individuals in the world capturing twice as much
growth as the bottom 50% since 1980. Those top 1% include the board members
of Big Oil companies and the owners of luxury hotel chains like those in the
Caribbean, who have their disaster risk reduction costs paid for by insurance companies,
tourists, and taxpayers. The bottom 50%, numbering nearly 4 billion people, includes
the one-third
of the global population who live in what the UN terms “slum conditions” and
are not only the most likely to face total destruction of their property in the
event of an extreme natural event, but are also least-likely to own the land on
which their house was built and therefore to be forcibly relocated after the
dust settles. Forced migration in the context of economic instability is likely
to result in rising identity-based tension that often spills over into
violence.
So Big Oil keeps pumping unimpeded, directly contributing to
the climate crisis which we all face, and the poor die.
Philip Alston’s report reinforces the growing “No Natural Disasters” movement,
which aims to raise awareness of the human-made root causes of disasters.
According to their website, “a hazard will only become a disaster should it
impact the workings of a society or community”, and thus it is the decisions and make-up of
the society that turn a natural hazard event into a disaster. Christian Aid
explained the reality of “natural” disasters succinctly in a 2005 report:
“In San Francisco, where tall buildings stand on rollers that move with the
tremors, the last major earthquake caused the deaths of 62 people. In Turkey,
an earthquake of similar magnitude killed 17,000”. Both are tragedies, but
which would we qualify as a disaster?
How we plan our communities, how we build our structures,
how we educate people on risks and vulnerabilities, how quickly and effectively
we respond when a hazard occurs, and how we channel funding for disaster
mitigation and response, drastically influences the outcome of any singular event.
With the growing threat of climate change making life far more unpredictable
and dangerous for every single one of us, we need to examine the role that we
play in our own insecurity.
People are increasingly aware of the threat that climate
change poses. The global School Strike for
Climate movement, the Extinction
Rebellion protests, and movements such as #NoNaturalDisasters, all serve to
educate and empower ordinary people to make a change.
It was the power of
ordinary people that ended apartheid in South Africa after decades of
destructive and inhumane leadership that served only the interests of the
powerful.
The power of ordinary people can do the same for the climate
apartheid.
No comments:
Post a Comment