Is it hypocritical of the developed world to impose climate goals on the developing one?

The complexity of the developed world imposing climate goals on developing countries was brought to light in the recent interview between President Ali and journalist Stephen Sackur.

The interview sparked discussions about justice, accountability, and the real roles that all parties have in accomplishing global climate goals.

The facts

The growing offshore oil and gas sector in Guyana was the main topic of conversation.

President Ali criticised what he saw as the developed world’s deception on climate change in a viral video on BBC’s HardTALK. In spite of Guyana’s intentions to extract $150 billion worth of oil and gas, Ali contested Sackur’s right to lecture him about environmental matters.

During the conversation, Sackur’s worried about how Guyana’s oil and gas development will affect the environment ended in a heated discussion.

According to the United Nations, “To limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels, emissions must already be decreasing and need to be cut by almost half by 2030.”

The arguments

Richer and poorer countries differ greatly in terms of energy consumption and CO2 emissions, according to the Centre for Global Development (CDG). People in many low-income nations emit more emissions in a year than they do in just a few days of living in the US.

Reports suggest that the average US resident emits more than 100 times as much CO2 as the average Ugandan.

President Ali’s argument centred on the difficulty in balancing the act between environmental preservation and economic advancement, particularly in developing nations with an abundance of natural resources.

Dr Irfaan Ali’s defence of the so-called “double standards” in the global climate discourse struck a chord with many people, igniting discussions about accountability and fairness in dealing with environmental challenges.

Ali re-echoed the importance of Guyana’s substantial forest cover, which is larger than the combined areas of England and Scotland and is essential for storing carbon.This shows how developing countries help the environment. It also raises worries about how much respect and money these countries get from the world.

Another side of the argument is that some countries, including some developing nations, as well as financial organisations have committed to removing public funding for global fossil fuel initiatives.

The ability to develop fossil fuels domestically will remain available to the same nations. While the UK is granting licences for new oil and gas developments in the North Sea, the US has at least 24 ongoing fossil fuel projects that might result in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 1.6 gigatons.

Experts contend that outright prohibitions on fossil fuel projects in developing nations are “colonial” and will only serve to further impoverish these nations while doing little to curb global carbon emissions.

“It’s very easy for rich countries to impose fossil fuel financing bans on poor countries, while at the same time increasing their own consumption of fossil fuels. It’s rank hypocrisy and it’s devastating for poor countries as they need a wide range of energy to fuel development,” Vijaya Ramachandran, the director for energy and development at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, California was quoted by The Guardian.

She added that, “It’s well known renewable energy is intermittent and needs to be backed up by other sources. Telling African countries they just need solar is completely hypocritical and colonial.”

Meanwhile, African leaders have voiced their opinions about the necessity for their nations to switch to natural gas in order to achieve net zero, notably Lazarus Chakwera, the president of Malawi, and President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, who has pledged to achieving net zero by 2060.