Are climate negotiations... colonial?
Colonialism.
It's not a word that fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. I suspect for most of you, it doesn't either.
Particularly for those of us in Europe or of European descent, colonialism sounds like something that happened in the past, even if we acknowledge that its impacts are still far-reaching. But surely colonialism isn't something part of international policy and decision-making today? It's not something we would associate with policy on the acceptable levels of warming the planet will experience by 2100 - currently set to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperature... is it?
Well, Juan Auz and Phillip Paiement from the Tilburg Law School argue that "global climate negotiations embody neocolonialism because the Global North introduced insidious temperature targets, enabling silent yet significant devastation in the Global South at and below the 1.5°C threshold."
Ouch.
To be clear, the authors aren't suggesting that the 1.5°C threshold is too high. Quite the opposite. "1.5°C ... represents a feeble commitment to limit the warming," they write.
They point to the impacts of climate change that are already being felt, largely by the Global South, even though we haven't hit that 1.5°C threshold yet (though we aren't far off).
They highlight that the 2015 Paris Agreement, which established the 1.5°C threshold, is somewhat vague, with statements such as keeping global warming to "well below" 2°C by 2100 and instructions to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C.
They suggest that we ditch the 1.5°C threshold in favour of "alternative science-based benchmarks that focus on stabilizing the climate system."
"Only with adequate mitigation of emissions will the struggles for just adaptation, historical reparations, fair compensation for losses and damages, and a just energy transition be possible."
Curious to know more?
Read their argument at Open Global Rights: