Photo by Quartz
“God is dead.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Gandhi, in his discourse on alienation, (5:00-25:00) questioned, “When did we shift from the idea of ‘Nature’ to ‘Natural resources’?” Previously, nature was a part of religion and thus, sacrosanct. But, with the Enlightenment and the birth of the Westphalian state, religion as a justification for rule eroded to cure such anomalies. Free Humans became a nation’s citizens. The common good was replaced by (selfish) nationhood. God was exiled from nature, and protecting nature became superstitious. Nature was alienated from humans and exploited as natural resource. Gandhi’s critical position has manifested in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, which was one of the most ‘efficient’ catalysts in Earth’s rising annual temperature rates. This was the beginning of the “murder of nature”.
Climatic Conflicts and the Human Body
Human society can be understood across time and space in two terms: material conditions (Marxist thought) and ideological thinking and perspectives (Hegelian thought). When understanding conflicts in societies, ideology-related discourses have been in vogue, whereas the material conditions, especially the environmental and climatic impact have remained relatively taciturn. However, the ‘political’ which is derived from the ‘ideological’ is a way of arranging the ‘material’. When the ‘political’ disturbs the ‘material’, rather than arranging it, conflicts arise. However, the material can be disturbed by multiple factors, and one such is Climate Change.
Deprivation and dissatisfaction are the major reasons for skirmishes between any species. When a living body is not well fed, mentally and physically, its instincts force it to resort to violent ways to fulfil its means. In Freudian terms, the id takes over the ego and the superego. The material conditions around a human are the major determinant of whether the basic human necessities are fulfilled. Climate Change can fundamentally destroy human habitats and food sources, forcing them to resort to violent means. Due to this, conflict over resources arises, and epidemical dissatisfaction infests the population. Thus, Climate Change wreaks an economic havoc by destroying the fundamental resources on which humans rely for sustenance which not only exacerbate but also cause conflicts.
There were mass uprisings in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, and many other neighbouring regions during the Arab Spring. This movement is generally attributed as a response to oppressive governments and a collective social dissatisfaction. But when does a government start to feel oppressive to people and why are people socially dissatisfied? When bellies get empty and people’s means of sustenance and earning are disturbed, they attempt to find alternatives and if they find nothing, they seek answers from the government. But, when the government offers deterrence rather than solutions, it enrages the deprived citizens. Moreover, factors like corruption and inequality further aggravate the situation. This is when political issues are exploited as justifications to fulfil economic needs that have been troubled by Climate Change.
In the Arab Spring, Climate Change disturbed the supply of staple crops. Egyptians depend on bread for 1/3rd of their caloric intake and spend almost 2/5th of their income on food. Thus, Egypt was one of the largest importers of wheat in 2010. Due to unfavourable climatic conditions, it was incapable of producing wheat and relied on imports. However, in 2010-11, due to Climate Change, there were extreme droughts in China (the largest producer of wheat) and also hostile climatic conditions in other wheat-producing countries, and wheat prices soared. This starved a huge population in Egypt, and many had to rely on rations. Coincidentally, massive protests started in 7 more countries in the Middle East during the same crisis (which are among the top 10 wheat-importing countries in the middle east).
Climate Change acts as a catalyst to humanitarian crises by multiplying the harms. For instance, in a situation like civil protests, when transportation systems are already halted due to which supplies stop, it strips off humans from access to necessities like water and clean air. Further, it raises the living costs of the poor, as more money is invested in avoiding climate-induced hazards, like the extreme rise in temperatures, toxic air quality, etc.
Climate Change can produce devastating effects on huge human settlements. Such devastations generally force people to migrate, which are majorly intra-country. However, migration happens to regions that are generally the few locations in countries that have comparatively higher resources in relation to the ones affected by Climate Change. This generally leads to hostilities between the host-location population and the migrants, as the competition over scarce resources begins. Such hostility that originates from economic deprivations, are coloured with political, racial, ethnic colours and takes the form of an armed conflict.
From 2006 to 2011, Syria faced a “once-in-a-century” drought, rendering rural areas uninhabitable and led to a mass exodus to urban areas. This strained the resources of Urban Syria which caused massive unrest. The oppressive Assad regime was also at fault for the mismanagement of resources which turned the fertile lands of rural Syria into dust. Ultimately, migrants were mobilized for opposing the Assad regime, which gradually acquired an extremist religious colour and thus created ISIS.
Reconciling ‘Environmental Sovereignty’ and ‘Environmental Refugees’
The line drawn by the Brandt Commission to divide the rich North and the deprived South is still relevant in contemporary times. The beneficiary countries of the Global North are the biggest contributors to global emissions, earlier directly (Workshop of the World) but now through neo-colonial methods of production. However, the effects of these emissions are not local as these emissions spill over and amplify the vulnerabilities of the Global South.
This points out a fundamental ideological issue in international relations— the idea of sovereignty, which is a State’s right of full control over its territory (to protect itself and its citizens against foreign elements) is recognized in a political/national security context; however, environmental sovereignty, i.e. the right of a State over its environment is not universally accepted (because of the very boundlessness of the environment). As a result, there is no binding legal foundation of compensation for emissions. Moreover, national sovereignty erects barriers between people. The same doctrine, as Gandhi claims, has transformed ‘humans’ to ‘citizens’, alienating humans from themselves. Thus, national sovereignty is exploited by the State under the garb of “property rights” to turn (environmental) refugees away and disables people in escaping the effects of emissions.
The United Nations recognizes only political refugees. According to the UN “A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. The Kampala Convention, in article IV discusses ‘forced evacuations in cases of natural or human made disasters’. Further, the “can’t return home” test has been used in nations across the world to determine whether a person is a refugee, however a landmark ruling by UNHRC has recently held that Climate Change victims too can’t return home, opening the doors to recognition of environmental refugees.
It has been argued that recognizing environmental sovereignty as territorial sovereignty will lead to issues with implementation since States will resort to dispute resolution similar to that of territorial sovereignty violations. An alternative solution is to identify environmental sovereignty as a subset of economic sovereignty, in terms of harm caused to production capabilities and other damages, and follow a compensation-centric approach (especially towards the environmental refugees). Under principles of equity, emission-producing States and non-State actors (such as MNCs) alike need to make reparations.
But how can compensation be implemented?
It is extremely arduous to define the property rights of the environment since Climate Change does not respect human-made boundaries. Hence, when we cannot define property rights, entitlements need to be protected by Posner’s liability rules. Everybody is entitled to a clean environment, but it is complex and cumbersome to determine ownership over the environment. Even if ownership was somehow determined it is impossible to evaluate, as it might lead to holdout or free-rider problems (for example, if an accident occurs, and the injured is allowed to set the price for losing a limb, the injured might charge exorbitantly high rates, contrary to court-determined damages. This would deter driving altogether). Thus, liability rules allow the destruction of the initial entitlement and payment of a fixed compensation post-destruction. The ‘Carbon tax’ originates from Posner’s liability rule, whereby polluters are entitled to destroy the initial property rights (environment), which allows the continuation of indispensable activities (like electricity generation which may generate some pollution, directly or indirectly). This makes the polluters cautious about emissions, and the generated money can also be utilized for Climate Change Victims.
However, these solutions are inadequate. Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics establish wealth as just a means to an end. But, when the very end (resources and habitable climate) is destroyed by Climate Change; wealth is useless. This means that countries also need to provide refuge to victims as reparations. We have a tomorrow, only if we act today.
This article has been authored by Bishesh Joshi and Pranjal Gautam, 2nd year students of NALSAR University of Law.
Comments