Rich countries spend less on climate aid than on border security

Image for an article titled Rich Countries spend more on border security than on climate assistance

Photography: Christian Chavez (AP)

Richer countries will be several years late in fulfilling their promises to give money to poorer countries to adapt to the effects of climate change, the United Nations he said Monday. A a new report shows where richer countries could start finding extra money: their increasingly powerful military budgets.

The conversation about what is known as the Green Climate Fund has been going on for years. Rich countries he made his promise for the first time in 2009 start providing $ 100 billion in aid each year to developing countries to help them adapt to and prepare for climate change; these countries have said they will reach the full amount they promised by 2020. Presidency for The upcoming UN meeting on climate change in Glasgow at Monday put forward a plan it will, as has been said, bring the world to that full promised amount — albeit by 2023, three years after the initial goal.

From the beginning, the Green Climate Fund has been tormented by problems: TThe fund has come under fire for its mismanagement, while the stands constantly mention what the fund can actually be used for. The most problematic, richer countries (especially the USA) they failed to achieve GCF at a level commensurate with the climate damage they caused. In September, President Joe Biden said the United States would allocate $ 5.7 billion—A big step in relation to the state contributed under former President Donald Trump, when gave less than France, Germany, Japan or the United Kingdom, although they are the biggest historical polluter. But Trump cannot be entirely to blame for the US standing behind; before leaving office, former President Barack Obama managed to deliver only $ 1 billion of the $ 3 billion he promised. Total fair share US only ought pay on the basis of GDP, cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and population, analyzes show, stands somewhere between $ 43 billion and $ 50 billion a year.

This may seem like a lot of money for the U.S. to cough up every year; to be sure, $ 100 billion is not a small number. But for a little context about how much richer countries are dialing to spend their money, we can look at a new report published on Monday which reveals that the world’s largest economies spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year arming their borders. The world’s seven largest historical broadcasters, according to a report by the international nonprofit organization Transnational Institute, spend an average of 2.3 times more on strongly militarizing the security of their borders than on helping other countries overcome the consequences of climate change. Instead of helping people, the authors say these investments will only increase mortality and violence and do nothing to stop climate migration as extreme weather conditions drive more and more people out of their homes.

“These countries have built a ‘climate wall’ to prevent the effects of climate change“, The report says, continuing this tactic.”provides great profits for the border security industry, but immense suffering for refugees and migrants who travel increasingly dangerous – and often deadly – in search of security in a world-changing climate. ”

Although the U.S. is not the worst offender on the list of reports, it still spends 11 times more on border security. Earth plunk drop an average of $ 19.6 billion each year for things like drones, face recognition technology, and border wall. (The latter is very prone to climate change.) Total includes and maintenance and surveillance, and armed border agents. Canada and Australia are at the top of the list in terms of unfair spending. Those countries have spent 15 times and 13 times more about the militarization of borders than climate financing, respectively.

According to the report, security companies and industries that benefit from border security measures (and lobby for increased militarization) also contract their services. provide security for some of the world’s most powerful oil and gas companies: Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giant that won billions of dollars in federal contracts has also provided security services for Exxon over the past decade,, Shell and BP. It’s part of the private the $ 68 billion security contractor industry.

These numbers illustrate one of the key paradoxes climate policy. Tbillions of dollars spent on border security would not be needed for richer countries to address the climate a crisis that is increasingly forcing people to leave their own homes in the first place. Some of the countries with the lowest historical emissions in the world are also the ones hardest hit: Somalia, the report says, displaced 6% of its total population last year due to a climate catastrophe, although it is responsible for only 0.00027% of total global emissions from 1850.

dark, climate change is getting more and more used to it intensify militarization, instead of providing an opportunity to step back and assess the holistic reasons why people are displaced and how to help them. It is a bleak vision of the future in which money to be given to poorer countries to mitigate climate catastrophes is instead given to companies contracting defense so that rich countries can strengthen their borders.

“If there is one conclusion from this shocking report that those at COP26 should draw, it is this: if the biggest historical polluters have freed themselves – at least a little – from the militarization of borders and by investing that money in financing climate change for the global south, we could prevent the catastrophic human suffering associated with large-scale displacement, ”Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based Power Shift Africa Research Center, said in a press release.

Source link

Naveen Kumar

Friendly communicator. Music maven. Explorer. Pop culture trailblazer. Social media practitioner.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button