The G7 meeting last month showed how much work is needed to help underdeveloped countries cope with increasingly severe climate disasters. The rich countries have only reiterated their outdated commitments for more than a decade, namely to provide 100 billion U.S. dollars a year in aid to the poorest countries most affected by climate disasters—a goal they have never achieved—the G7 is issuing such a Information, that they are unwilling to do what is necessary to save lives, protect infrastructure, and improve resilience around the world. 100 billion dollars will not cut it, as the former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon And others noticed recently.
The old goals are not only inadequate in terms of the resources needed to support fragile regions around the world, but they have never been achieved in the past decade of international climate negotiations, goal setting, and road shocks. This is not because of lack of resources. In order to put this money in perspective, the United States spent an average of 10 billion U.S. dollars a month at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wealthy countries have money, we just choose not to spend money.
Faced with rising sea levels, worsening storms and floods, worsening heat waves and droughts, and increasing food and water insecurity, we have chosen not to strengthen the resilience of underdeveloped countries. This is not only a departure from important work climate compensation, but we also let Millions of people are directly harmed, making them more vulnerable to death and hunger, as well as extremism and violence. In any case, we will eventually provide assistance to disadvantaged communities, so we should make these investments wisely immediately.
If we don’t protect them from the front-end, these turbulent situations can easily evolve into instability and conflict, leading to increased spending by the Department of Defense. These are what happened in Syria and Yemen. These are just two examples of our failure to prevent the worsening of the climate-induced crisis. This is our opportunity to prevent such climate dynamics from further destabilizing.
In fact, climate compensation and climate security should not only become the primary concern of US foreign policy, but also the primary concern of foreign policy of all G7 and G20 countries.
Take climate compensation. Wealthy countries are developing their economies at the expense of poor countries around the world, and these countries are now disproportionately facing the climate impact of industrialized emissions decisions. Most of the emissions in the atmosphere come from rich countries, such as the G7 and G20 countries that have achieved industrialization. These emissions are rapidly warming the earth and causing climate disasters around the world. However, low-wealth countries bear the brunt of the effects of rising sea levels and more extreme weather.
Compensation is to make up and repair past mistakes. If developed countries care about climate justice and fairness, they can easily use part of the budget wealth brought by industrialization to clean up the pollution and chaos they have caused.
This is the correct approach.
In addition to climate compensation, from the perspective of climate security, it is also essential to support vulnerable countries. The Department of Defense has long recognized that climate change is a threat multiplier, and impoverished communities that are further threatened by climate disasters may witness instability and potential conflict and violence. This has been recognized by the public, but unfortunately, it does not seem to affect or affect our spending focus.
The G7’s decision to maintain spending at the current level 10 years ago illustrates this point. Given the growing trend of climate migration, the displacement of millions of people and the rapid creation of more climate refugees, we must devote the necessary resources to prevention (i.e. international climate assistance) before we are required to use it for response (i.e. Department of Defense spending).
Given that the G7 has missed the opportunity to take necessary measures in terms of climate compensation and climate security expenditures, the next opportunity to raise the flag is the international climate negotiations to be held in Glasgow later this year.
It might be wise to extend these talks to include humanitarian and refugee aid organizations, as well as the Ministry of Defense and agencies, because this is the extent of the crisis we are currently facing. With tens of millions of climate refugees fleeing food and water insecure environments, looking for safe shelters and safe food and water, their stories should be the front and center of any future climate negotiations. Because this is the most important thing. They are more worthy of being on stage than any suitable influencer. The world needs to hear their stories loudly and clearly.
The rich world has money to help countries and people on the front lines of the climate crisis. Now is the time to do the right thing before the dynamic develops further.
New York State Representative Yvette Clarke (Yvette Clarke) is the Vice Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the co-chair of the Smart City Core Group and a leader in the field of technology policy. Dr. Michael Shank is the Director of Communications for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and a part-time faculty member of the New York University Center for Global Affairs.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author.