COP29: Should rich countries pay for sinners in the Global South?

When it comes to development aid, Germany is: billions flow from the Federal Republic every year to support social projects worldwide. The federal government is also making large sums available for climate measures. But now it’s apparently enough. Weeks before the climate summit in Azerbaijan, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock made it clear that other “large emitters” would also have to participate in climate financing.

“It cannot be the case that we base everything solely on historical responsibility,” said Baerbock in relation to China and Saudi Arabia. Both nations have transformed from developing countries to climate sinners. Nevertheless, they continue to benefit from aid that is actually intended for particularly poor and affected countries. Of course, they don’t want to pay for climate damage.

But the issue cannot be brushed aside simply by simply refusing to do so. Because in Baku the international community will argue about exactly this.

“The fact that many former developing countries are shirking their responsibility is no longer appropriate,” says Christian Baatz. The philosophy professor from the University of Kiel is researching the topic of climate justice and is currently initiating. “The level of prosperity and the contribution to climate change have changed in the Global South,” says Baatz, summarizing the dilemma. This makes it clear that the trillions that will be necessary cannot only flow from north to south, as is currently the case.

An example of this is Kuwait: Climate change is having a major impact there; in the summer of 2021, nowhere in the world was it hotter than in the emirate on the Persian Gulf. That’s why the United Nations lists Kuwait: This list includes developing countries that need support in the fight against climate change. Thanks to oil and gas, Kuwait has long since become one of the richest countries in the world. The principality has more than tripled its emissions since the 1990s. It covers less than one percent of its energy needs from renewable sources – oil and gas remain its main business.

Kuwait is not an isolated case: Saudi Arabia, China, India, Brazil, Peru and parts of Africa have all not only emerged from developing country status but also become leading emitters.

This crumbles the reason why Germany and other countries in the Global North should pay for climate damage.

But the system can’t be turned inside out that easily. During climate negotiations, states always refer to past decisions. “The Saudi delegates are particularly adept at blocking decisions by referring to previous texts,” explains Carola Klöck, a political scientist at the Science Po research institute in Paris.

This year the Kyoto decisions are likely to be highlighted. At that time, it was almost arbitrarily determined who were the recipient and donor countries. “There were no criteria, but a static list was agreed upon. That was a mistake,” says the political scientist. That’s why, to this day, only the EU is paying the price for climate change.

The Federal Republic is one of the most generous climate financiers, although the country is no longer even among the top 10 largest emitters. Only the World Bank and Japan spend more on climate projects in the Global South. More than supported – and over five billion euros were put down for it. However, it is not the island states that are particularly affected by climate change that benefit, but rather “large and rapidly growing middle-income countries,” as Klöck found in an analysis of OECD data.

It is unclear whether the federal government will invest as much or more money in climate projects in the future. Due to gaps in the federal budget, the traffic light had already announced cuts to the Foreign Office and the Development Ministry. Many German citizens welcome this, while developing countries are frightened by such news.

There are difficult negotiations ahead in Baku – perhaps even the most difficult since the Paris climate agreement. A permanent solution cannot be expected. But if criteria for donor or recipient countries are discussed, this should be a step in the right direction. National greenhouse gas emissions and per capita income could be decisive for this. Scientists speak of the responsibility to pay and the ability to pay. Per capita emissions could also play a role.

Such criteria would not necessarily simplify the situation, but would at least make it clearer. Kuwait’s per capita emissions, for example, are four times higher than in Germany. However, total German emissions significantly exceed those in Kuwait. And the per capita income is also higher in the Federal Republic. This would require complicated calculations in order to even be able to account for the climate debt of the respective states.

There is also a lot of hope in the private sector. Before the negotiations, several states had signaled that they wanted to involve them more closely. Climate ethicist Baatz advocates transferring national responsibility entirely to individuals and companies. Depending on their emissions load, they could make different contributions to an international climate fund. “Theoretically, this can be regulated through a CO2 tax, but this idea cannot be implemented in political terms,” he admits. Emissions taxes would increase prices and thus also affect people with low incomes who contribute little to climate change. “Relieving the burden on low-income earners or paying out climate money to all citizens is difficult to implement nationally and is completely utopian globally.”

The meeting in Baku will not finally resolve the financing issue, which will become a long-running issue at upcoming COPs. Depending on how emissions and prosperity of nation states develop, guilt and responsibility also shift.

“But as long as we continue to emit CO2 and participate too little in climate financing, our historical debt will increase,” says Baatz. If Europe achieves its climate goals, the question may arise as to how much the states will then have to pay into the international climate fund. But Baatz is certain that the historical responsibility remains, regardless of whether Germany and Europe have reached the net zero target or need the money to pay for their own climate damage. Future generations will also have to deal with historical responsibility in the second half of the 21st century and beyond. It is unlikely that the Global North will be able to avoid responsibility. What is fairly certain, however, is that the Federal Republic – no matter how badly it is hit by climate change – will not benefit from climate money in the foreseeable future. Because our country is simply too rich for that.