Global Justice
Our fellow human beings in the Global South already bear the consequences of an ecological catastrophe to which historically they contributed little. In the near and distant future loom unprecedented environmental impacts on communities and their living basis putting people at risk of forced displacement. We want international cooperation and solidarity, fair and environmentally sustainable trade deals, debt cancellations and reparations, as well as transfers of essential technological knowledge.
In debates around global justice, the terms "the Global North" and "the Global South" are often used. Whether countries belong to one category or the other has less to do with geographical location than with a country's place within the global economic system. The rich Global North includes the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The poorer Global South, in turn, consists of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and (parts of) Asia. Some thinkers prefer the terms ‘majority world’ and ‘minority world’, because in fact, the majority of the world's population lives in the Global South.
Relations of political, economic and environmental inequality exist between the two zones, which are often rooted in colonial histories. These inequalities explain how it is possible that the Global South consumes relatively few resources and energy compared to the Global North, even though it possesses gigantic amounts of natural resources. The renewable energy transition threatens to perpetuate those unequal relations, as rich countries now seek lithium, cobalt and other l earth metals essential to their transition towards electrification and renewable energy sources. While resources travel from South to North, waste flows in the opposite direction: plastics, discarded electronics and other types of waste end up in large quantities in the majority world. Inequality exists also in terms of CO2 emissions. The United States historically accounts for 40% of global excess emissions, the European Union for 29%. In contrast, emissions from most countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia remain within sustainable proportions to this day.
It is therefore particularly unfair that the consequences of climate and environmental breakdowns are felt much more strongly in those countries that have historically been the least responsible for them. They bear as much as 90% of the financial costs caused by environmental disasters, and 98% of climate deaths occur in the Global South. Extreme weather, rising sea levels and degrading ecosystems force the most affected populations to seek other, more livable places. Recent research indicates that two billion people could be pushed out of a safe ‘climate niche’ by 2030, obviously triggering unprecedented forms of relocation, environmental migration and disaster refugees within and between countries.
To absorb or prevent the worst of these shocks, drastic reductions in resource use in the Global North are necessary. In addition, ambitious international policies are needed at both the Belgian federal and European levels in order to move beyond the misleading opposition between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ economies. To enable more sustainable relations, the countries of the South must be given more voice and decision-making power in organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Fair trade agreements must end the over-subsidization of agricultural exports from the North. They must take into account humane and environmentally responsible working conditions, as well as fair pricing of raw materials and labor. Transfers of crucial technological know-how (now often patented by companies from the minority world) can enable Southern countries to better cope with economic, ecological and medical consequences of environmental breakdowns.
The Global North has - socially and environmentally - a large outstanding debt to the South. Current attempts at ‘climate financing’ are insufficient and very often counter-effective. Instead of providing more loans, a first and more effective step would be to cancel financial debts of poor countries. There are historical precedents for this, including the debt cancellation of post-war Germany. It will allow poor countries to reduce mining of scarce mineral and fossil resources, and other harmful economic practices, on which they now depend to pay off their debts (and interest on those debts!). Additionally, international funds should provide financial compensation for losses already suffered (from mining, climate change or land grabbing for example) or for the protection of rainforests and other natural areas, given their global importance for carbon storage and biodiversity.
This explainer is not necessarily endorsed by all coalition partners
Further reading
The Red Nation, 2020. The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save our Earth. Common Notions.
Ferdinand, Malcolm. 2021. Decolonial Ecology: Thinking from the Carribean World. Polity.
Hickel, Jason. 2018. The Divide. A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Penguin.