The Developing Countries Dilemma

About half of total carbon emission come from poor and middle-income countries; however, such countries are suffering more of the impact with respect to such increase in emissions. 1% of the world GDP will be lost due to a 2 degrees Celsius in global temperature. This increase will cost Africa 4% of its GDP and India 5% of its GDP.



So how do we really determine this cost? These are all estimates. However, some tangible data to rely on is the increase in natural disasters, which can be quantified in costs suffered. Between 1981 and 1985 fewer than 500 million people required international disaster assistance. That has reached 1.5 billion between 2001 and 2005. This include 4% of the poor nations and 7% of the lower middle-income countries.



The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change caused a loss of 5.5 million disability-adjusted life years in 2000, which most of it was in Africa and Asia. In fact, the Global Humanitarian Forum, a Swiss Think Tank, stated in a study that climate change is attributable to 150,000 deaths a year.



In addition, poorer countries do not have the infrastructure to withstand these natural disasters, such as hurricanes blowing down flimsy houses or flooding the cities near the coastline (10 of the world's 15 largest cities are in low lying coastal areas). Furthermore, they also lack the appropriate health care to prevent spread of disease arising from natural disasters, such as malaria. In fact, it is predicted that by 2030, more than 90 million people more will be exposed to malaria.



The result of this wacky weather will make it more difficult for farmers in developing countries to cultivate food because it will become unpredictable where it is a drought some years and flooding in others.



So how do we combat this? To keep global warming down to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius , the World Bank calculates that it would cost $140 billion to $675 billion a year in developing countries. This dwarfs the current amount allocated of $8 billion. Alternatively, we could spend $75 billion to adapt to global warming, which is 75 times greater than the current amount allocated. Unfortunately, the developing/poor countries view climate change the result of the actions of the rich developed countries and, as a result, they are entitled to compensation from the rich countries to assist them to fight and prevent such changes. The rich countries see this an egalitarian effort where everyone has to share the pain. Copenhagen will be the place where these two interests will meet loggerheads in December. We can only hope that the joy of Christmas will be carried into that Summit in Denmark.