North-South Divide And The Mirage Of Universal Climate Solutions

-OpEd-

The warning signs of impending ecological catastrophe are multiplying at a frightening rate. Devastating storms, uncontrollable fires, prolonged droughts, melting ice caps, rising temperatures and rising sea levels are just the beginnings of an era of climatic chaos that could render certain regions of the planet uninhabitable. Saving the planet is not just a question of justice and responsibility toward future generations, but a question of survival.

Since their independence, the countries of the South have been bogged down in a relentless struggle against underdevelopment, facing the daily challenges of survival, poverty, education and health. These battles, which have never fully been won, constitute a perpetual burden on their path toward a decent life for their populations.

Today, these already vulnerable nations find themselves burdened by a new threat: the environmental constraints imposed by the irresponsibility of the planet’s major polluters. The colossal costs of the ecological transition, combined with inevitable inflation in the short and medium term as a result of the gradual abandonment of cheaper fossil fuels, add up to a situation of widespread indebtedness. This will undoubtedly widen the development gap with the North.

Numerous studies demonstrate the negative impacts of the ecological transition on employment, competitiveness and the environment. It would be more honest to speak of “constrained growth,” a term that reflects the reality of lower growth than in an unconstrained world.

The legitimate ambitions of the countries of the South for economic development are being sacrificed, suffocated under the weight of ecological demands with their environmental standards, further deepening global inequalities and compromising their fundamental right to a better future.

The roots of injustice

Historically, industrialized nations have built their wealth on the unbridled and reckless exploitation of natural resources. For centuries, the United States, Europe, Japan and other developed powers have polluted the air, land and water without ever being held accountable.

Today, having reached an advanced stage of development, these nations are seeking to impose strict and restrictive environmental policies and standards on the countries of the South, which are still suffering the consequences of this destructive industrialization, thus putting the brakes on any prospect of economic growth.

This historical asymmetry has created a glaring injustice. The countries of the Global North, having built their economies on ecologically destructive practices, now impose stringent environmental standards on developing countries without providing them with the financial and technological means to meet them.

In so doing, they deprive these nations of the right to follow a similar path of growth and force them into economic stagnation, making it almost impossible to reduce the gap separating them from the rich countries.

​Stifled development​​​

For the countries of the South, economic growth is not simply a political objective, as it is in the North, but a matter of survival. It is essential for eradicating poverty, improving infrastructure, providing quality education and accessible health services. Environmental standards, however noble, are insurmountable obstacles for these nations in their quest for progress.

For the countries of the South, economic growth is not simply a political objective but a matter of survival.

Take sub-Saharan Africa, for example. This region has immense reserves of coal, oil and natural gas, which could be exploited to stimulate economic growth and finance development projects. Yet international pressure to limit carbon emissions and promote renewable energies is holding back this exploitation.

Local populations, living in poverty and lacking access to electricity, see their hopes for development hampered by environmental standards dictated by developed countries, the sole decision-makers on global agendas. The inevitable tightening of these standards would constitute the future cursor of desolation and chaos in the countries of the South.

A delicate balance

A close look at the economic and social realities of the countries of the South reveals that the blind pursuit of green growth could be a significant brake on their economic development.

Green industries have specific characteristics that often make them less labor-intensive, requiring highly specialized technical skills, due to their massive use of automation and advanced technologies, which can be a brake on employment, a critical impact in countries with galloping demographics.

For example, solar farms and wind farms require significant initial investment in sophisticated, automated equipment. Once installed, these systems operate with minimal human intervention. Maintenance and monitoring can often be carried out remotely, using advanced sensors and software.

As a result, the manpower requirement for the day-to-day management of these facilities is relatively low compared with that of traditional power plants, which require substantial staff for operations management, maintenance and safety. The same applies to biofuel production.

The uniform application of green policies risks perpetuating global inequalities.

Specific case studies illustrate this reality. In Germany, the energy transition known as the Energiewende has led to a significant increase in renewable energies. However, it has also been accompanied by a decline in jobs in the fossil fuel sectors without a commensurate increase in jobs in renewable energies. An analysis of the labor market shows that the jobs created in the renewables sector were more specialized and fewer in number than those lost in the fossil fuel sector.

The transition to a green economy means the decline of traditional, labor-intensive industrial sectors.

True economic intelligence lies in the ability to balance ecological requirements with growth imperatives, taking into account the particularities and priorities of each country. Imposing green guidelines in every growth plan, without taking into account local contexts, is tantamount to imposing a dogmatic straitjacket that excludes any optimal and necessarily flexible solution to meet the urgent needs of populations in the South.

It’s time to recognize that the uniform application of green policies, without contextual adaptation and pragmatic flexibility, risks perpetuating global inequalities and hampering the progress of the most vulnerable nations.

The clean energy burden

The transition to renewable energies represents a particularly complex challenge for developing countries. The energy infrastructures of these nations are often rudimentary and largely dependent on fossil fuels. Switching to cleaner energy sources requires massive investment, advanced technologies and technical expertise, all of which are sorely lacking.

Take the case of India, a country facing exponential energy demand due to its demographic and industrial growth. International pressure to reduce carbon emissions is driving the government to invest in solar and wind power. While encouraging, these initiatives are not enough to meet the immediate needs of the population and industry. Coal, a cheap and abundant source of energy, remains an economic necessity despite its devastating environmental impact.

In Southeast Asia, industrial and agricultural expansion is often synonymous with massive deforestation, as in Indonesia, where palm oil cultivation is destroying entire ecosystems.

In Africa, mining, an essential source of foreign currency, leads to severe environmental degradation. These activities, vital to the local economy, are often incompatible with sustainability objectives.

The example of Brazil is revealing. Global pressure to protect the Amazon is in direct conflict with the economic needs of the population and the agricultural and mining industries. Without viable economic alternatives and substantial international support, the country finds itself in an impasse where environmental protection directly threatens economic growth.

Social and economic consequences

The imposition of strict environmental standards has devastating social and economic consequences. By hampering industrial development, these standards reduce employment opportunities and impede wealth creation. Governments, unable to generate sufficient revenues, struggle to finance essential public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure.

In India, for example, pressure to reduce dependence on coal and switch to renewable energies is threatening millions of jobs in mining regions. Local communities, which depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods, find themselves without a viable alternative. The transition to a green economy, without adequate support and careful planning, risks exacerbating inequalities and deepening poverty.

The balance between growth and sustainability seems to be a pipe dream for many developing nations.

The balance between growth and sustainability therefore seems to be a pipe dream for many developing nations. The demands of ecological transition risk condemning them to economic stagnation or even backsliding, amplifying global inequalities. International commitments such as the Paris Agreement, while essential, do not always take account of local realities and the sacrifices they impose on the most vulnerable.

One of the great errors of contemporary economic thinking lies in the idea that green solutions, applied uniformly, are beneficial for all contexts.

Developing economies, for the most part characterized by inadequate infrastructure, fragile institutions and dependence on natural resources, are faced with a cruel dilemma: How can they aspire to rapid growth to meet the immediate needs of their populations, without compromising the environmental sustainability vital to the planet’s survival, and knowing that curbing growth in the name of sustainability risks plunging millions of people into precariousness?

This question, which must haunt all responsible decision-makers, often finds a desperately pessimistic answer: The balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability seems unattainable for many countries in the South.

A new ethical approach is possible

To overcome these injustices, a new ethical and pragmatic approach is essential. Climate change knows no borders. It doesn’t stop at customs, and it doesn’t require a visa. The cost of inaction is too high. It cannot be measured in dollars, but in human lives, species lost and ecosystems destroyed.

Developed countries must acknowledge their historical and current responsibility for global environmental degradation by forgiving the debt of low-impact countries in the South, and assume a fairer share of the burden of ecological transition.

First, it is imperative to increase funding for sustainable development. Promises must be turned into concrete action, with accessible and transparent financing mechanisms. Green technologies must be shared freely, without the intellectual property barriers that limit access.

The universality of green solutions is a utopia.

Second, environmental standards need to be adapted to local realities. A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is necessary to develop flexible standards that take into account the specific economic, social and environmental contexts of each country. This implies close cooperation between nations, international organizations and local stakeholders to define realistic and achievable targets.

Third, developed countries must stop dictating rules without offering the means to respect them. Instead, they must become partners in an open and constructive dialogue, aiming to build a future where development and sustainability are no longer in opposition, but progressively in harmony over time.

Ultimately, the ecological imperative, imposed indiscriminately on the countries of the South by the North, risks condemning many developing nations to unsustainable economic stagnation. The transition to a green economy, while vital for the planet’s survival, cannot be achieved at the expense of the legitimate aspirations of the countries of the South.

These countries, still bogged down in the fight against poverty and inequality, are held back by rigid environmental standards that threaten to perpetuate their dependence and precariousness. It is essential to recognize that the universality of green solutions is a utopia; only policies adapted to local realities and supported by fair and equitable international cooperation will enable us to reconcile growth and sustainability in the long term.