Climate Change Karma: Who is to be blamed?

BY Amarasiri de Silva
(Emeritus Professor,
University of Peradeniya)

We Sri Lankans are facing a spate of karma in climate change, and its consequences are not due to our faults but because of those committed by developed countries. Those developed countries exploit natural resources such as fossil fuels, gases, oil, and coal, in excess. Burning fossil fuels for energy production releases carbon dioxide, methane, fluorinated gases, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. These major greenhouse gases (GHG) contribute to trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere. GHG allows sunlight but traps heat radiating from the Earth’s surface. This process, though natural and necessary as it makes the climate of Earth habitable, has been exaggerated through excessive greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. The heightened concentration of greenhouse gases, especially the much-emitted ones from burning fossil, relates directly to the rise in global average temperatures that result in changes in climate through increased heat waves, melting of glaciers, rising sea levels leading to flooding, and strong storms.

Approximately 15 billion tons of fossil fuels are extracted annually worldwide; this includes coal, oil, and natural gas by the developed world in general. This comes to an average of about 41 million tons per day. Oil alone accounts for around 93 million barrels per day, and there are large additional volumes of natural gas and coal. The United States is among the largest extractors of fossil fuels worldwide. It is responsible for approximately 16% of total world production from fossil fuels and is the second largest producer, next to China. Fossil fuel extraction, refining, and combustion account for approximately 73% of all GHG emissions. For 2023, US energy use from fossil fuels was estimated at 79 quadrillion BTUs. These increased use of fossil fuels led to global warming. It has been recorded that global average surface temperatures have risen by about 1.1°C (2°F) since the late 19th century, while most of this warming occurred during the past 50 years.

China and Russia are major contributors to the global production of fossil fuels. China is the largest global producer and consumer of coal, accounting for about 47% of global coal production. Another major contributor is Russia, accounting for about 17% of global natural gas and 12% of global oil production. These two countries are the major contributors in the global energy landscape, and their production level contributes much to worldwide carbon emissions.

The most recent climate summit was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, which became a rich country due to fossil fuel extraction. Comparatively speaking, Azerbaijan accounts for around six or five percent of the global generation vis-à-vis key and major producers like the US, China, and Russia. But Azerbaijan is set to expand its production of natural gas massively. Currently, Azerbaijan produces about 37 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas a year; this is scheduled to rise to 49 bcm by 2033, which means a more than 32-percent increase. During the next ten years, the total gas extraction in Azerbaijan will reach 411 bcm and significantly contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to about 781 million metric tons of CO₂. While these facts are actual and megalithic, the contribution of South Asian countries towards the extraction of fossil fuel is nil or not at all.

The sub-region of South Asia that contributes a small percentage to the total amount of global fuel extraction includes countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. India is the central extractor in this region, followed by coal, which is considered a way to prevent energy shortages in the economic hubs of this country. The other countries of this sub-region extract a negligible share, and these countries are highly dependent on heavy imports to meet their ever-increasing energy needs. While exact percentages for the whole region’s contribution to the global extraction of fossil fuels are not available, the overall extraction of the area is minor compared to major producers like the USA, China, and Russia.

The region’s energy mix is dominated by fossil fuels and coal being an integral part of electricity generation. Moving away from fossil fuels is problematic for these economies, which face high energy demands, economic constraints, and limited funding for renewable energy development. These dynamics illustrate the global disparities in responsibility and action on climate change, as South Asia contributes very little to global fossil fuel extraction but bears enormous consequences of climate change.

Historically, developed nations, acting in concert with large extractors like China, Russia, and the United States, have been the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions through industrialisation, excessive fossil fuel consumption, and large-scale resource extraction. These activities have given rise to the current global warming crisis, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events, all impacting the Global South far more disproportionately than the developed world. The concept of karma in this context raises moral questions about whether this suffering is a consequence of past actions of individual countries in South Asia or a reflection of ongoing global inequalities in wealth and power.

Countries with geographical vulnerabilities, limited resources to adapt, and a minimal historical contribution to global emissions, such as Sri Lanka in South Asia, bear the brunt of these consequences. As the cases, there could be coastal flooding, stronger-than-normal monsoons, or cyclones that engender the consequences of economic losses, dislocations, or a risk to food security. While emitting negligible quantities, such countries have to bear all these financial and sociocultural costs of climatic alteration created by the carbon-based course of growth of more industrialized economies.

This inequality creates a climate justice concern. Treaties such as the Paris Accord use words like “common but differentiated responsibilities,” insinuating that countries that are more to blame for historical emissions [should] bear the brunt of mitigation and adaptation burdens. In practice, developing nations still consider many of these responsibilities to be short of satisfactory. The calls keep on coming for reparations, more financial aid, and technology transfers. And that, still, needs to go a whole lot faster”.

The “sins” of developed nations in driving climate change have made things particularly difficult for countries like Sri Lanka, calling for urgent international collaboration and accountability to address these inequities. As Naomi Klein, a prominent Canadian political and climate activist and writer says, “All of this is why any attempt to rise to the climate challenge will be fruitless unless it is understood as part of a much broader battle of worldviews, a process of rebuilding and reinventing the very idea of the collective, the communal, the commons, and the civil after so many decades of attack and neglect.” Klein’s overarching argument is that climate change isn’t purely an environmental crisis but more of a crisis in how society is organised. This calls for climate justice. As Klein puts it, the problems we solely have with our environment cannot and will not be fixed until we view them as justice issues and accept that it is time for us to rebuild. “Global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient, and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response.” According to Klein, real progress on such matters in developing countries like Sri Lanka, which faces disproportionate effects of climate change, can only be achieved by examining the underlying mindset of resource exploitation in developed countries.

Ingrained economic systems that prize profit over sustainability need reimagining in value to protect the environment and equity in resource use. For a country like Sri Lanka, issues related to climate change are multidimensional, from increased sea levels to frequent natural disasters, which would call for an integrated but transformational response. This movement needs to reposition the outlook worldwide, mainly for developed countries, de-link resources from profit-making motives like fracking, and focus on resilience, sustainability, and justice for vulnerable communities.

I found most pivotal to Klein’s argument to be, “So climate change does not need some shiny new movement that will magically succeed where others failed. Rather, as the farthest-reaching crisis created by the extractivist worldview and one that puts humanity on a firm deadline, climate change can be the grand push that will bring together all of these still-living movements. A river running from innumerable streams, collecting from their combination at last to the sea.” The passage includes a central argumentative idea- joining all the social justice movements under the key broadened factor of the struggle with climate change. She believes that the only way to address climate change and enact real difference effectively is not by having a multitude of isolated single-issue activist groups but rather by a broad yet unified association capable of fighting all the interconnected issues brought forth by climate change, such as environmental health, social and socioeconomic inequality, and systemic oppression. Klein argues that since climate change is the product of an extractive mentality, real progress can only occur through profound changes in our values and economic systems. Since all the issues concerning climate change are linked, this movement is the only practical way of fighting back, which shall change how the world looks at the world, separating resources from profit. We have to act fast as Southern countries to get the developed nations to adopt a more responsible mindset towards climate change.

We must unite together in some coalition and demand accountability and just compensation for the damages that we go through, such as the floods and cyclones, among other disasters caused mainly by irresponsible fracking, coal mining, and fossil fuel dependence on the developed nations. The United Nations should unite the Southern nations and form a strong international organisation to advocate for climate justice and just reparations. Together, we can ask for systemic changes that will benefit the well-being of our populations and ensure equitable global progress. In this respect, what is achieved by the Sri Lankan representatives attended the Baku conference is unknown.

A key passage from Patel and Moore’s -A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things- reveals that “World ecology has emerged in the past several years as a framework to think through human history within the web of life. Rather than start with a notion of human separation from the web of life, we ask: How do humans have power and violence and the work and inequality in which they are organised? Capitalism is not just part of ecology but is an ecology-a set of relationships integrating power, capital, and nature.” This quote shows the gravity of Patel and Moore’s argument because it frames capitalism as a complex and integrated system exploiting people and the environment. A “world-ecology” framing of capitalism places capitalism within the social and ecological. It illustrates that environmental and social injustices are intertwined. Such an understanding of capitalism would, therefore, mean that global environmental justice will be realised only when consideration is taken of the role of capitalism in forming these exploitative structures of power that take advantage of people and the Earth. By placing capitalism in the “web of life,” Patel and Moore argue for a unified response targeting the roots of ecological and social inequality- a more holistic approach than traditional environmentalism in and of itself, which only attacks one aspect of capitalism. This form of activism, they say, is called for in the quest for justice in times of global crisis.

Patel and Moore do not see the current system as broken but rather fundamentally flawed to the point where its removal, rather than traditional activism, is needed. They refer to the current period as the “Capitalocene” to emphasise capitalism’s leading role in driving environmental destruction, which suggests that simple reforms are insufficient to stop climate injustice. The idea of world-ecology allows us to see how the modern world’s violent and exploitative relationships are rooted in five centuries of capitalism.” To Naomi Klein, dystopia is a catastrophic state of the world created by unregulated climate change, abetted by an economic system that values profit and growth more than ecological and social well-being. Underpinning this is the global reliance on fossil fuels and extractive industries impelled by a neoliberal economic framework resistant to systemic change. She believes this accelerates environmental collapse and entrenches inequality in nations whose corporations continue their exploitation while less developed countries like Sri Lanka bear dire outcomes such as heavy floods, and extended droughts. There is nothing inevitable about Klein’s dystopia; it’s a call to action. Suppose humanity were to address the root causes of climate change and begin making systemic changes, such as transitioning to renewable energy, adopting sustainable practices, and engaging in collective action. In that case, she thinks it will be able to avoid further decline and build a just and sustainable future. (To be continued)