OPINION
8 Obiter Dicta
Enforcing International Climate Debt
Feasible or Impossible?
oyeyinka oyelowo › staff writer
D
uring the past decade there have been
significant developments in the field of
international environmental law due to
the factual understanding that environmental issues transcend national borders and legal
systems. However, the scientific uncertainty about
the long‐term effects of international environmental
risks often allows nations to justify postponing compliance with international environmental law.
Nonetheless, examples of environmental damage
are inarguably real; they include acid rain, biological diversity loss, endangered habitats and species
protection, environmental disasters, global climate
cha nge, globa l
env i ron ment a l
markets, hazardous waste management, ozone
deplet ion, a nd
unsustainable
development.
Is it increasingly feasible that states could be regulated by other
states for causing climate change overseas? Should
lawsuits based on constitutional rights to a healthy
environment, strict liability for environmental harm,
or any number of other legal principles exist?
Richer and industrialized nations have contributed largely to environmental damage, which poorer,
smaller, and underdeveloped countries will have to
cope with, despite having fewer resources to do so.
Environmental Disasters Professor Harris Ali at York
University calls this the “free-rider” problem. The
free-rider dilemma hinges upon the collective nature
of environmental problems, “free-riders” refer to
states that will not implement environmental protective measures and continue to pollute—causing harm
to the common and shared space of our Earth. “The
person producing the pollution is not responsible
for paying the environmental costs associated with
the pollution; so they are getting a free ride,” says
Professor Ali.
This has been the driving force for the creation of
regulations and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol
and the Montreal Protocol. Countries such as India,
China, and the United States have been hesitant to
sign the Kyoto
Protocol, a treaty
which seeks to
regulate worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.
This is the ultimate t ragedy
of commons in
environmental law—where there is no authoritative
body that has the jurisdiction to regulate, monitor,
and enforce environmental policy in different sovereign nations. Furthermore, Professor Ali argues that
there are conflicting interests between politics and
economics. Countries may be hesitant to implement
environmental policies that would affect their industries and costs of production. “The state is always
caught in a catch-22 situation, because they need
“Climate debt refers to a
state’sexcessive use of a shared
atmosphere and climate
system . . .”
ê Australia has become a climage change “free-rider”,
according to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Photo credit: Robin Westenra
industry to get the money to do what they want to do
and votes from the people,” he says; “they are always
walking a delicate balance and in the end the environment is sacrificed.”
In recent history there have been some success in
at least one area of international law governing the
regulation of environmental pollution. The Montreal
Protocol, which called upon sovereign states to end
the production and utilization of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) is an example that international law can sustain environmental protection.
Recently, Canada’s Environment Minister Leona
Aglukkaq announced that Canada plans to reduce its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005
levels by 2030 through regulatory actions.
Canada’s ambitious target is much like those of
other major industrialized countries and this target
was submitted to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change this summer.
But this raises questions about how much of an
impact such regulations will make on Canada’s “climate debt.” Climate debt refers to a state’s excessive use of a shared atmosphere and climate system,
requiring poorer states to pay to mitigate a crisis they
did little to cause (an emissions debt), and the damages and costs caused by climate change, requiring
poorer states to adapt to the negative effects (an adaptation debt).
This is precisely why there should be a policy
of monitoring and publicizing violations of international environmental law. Disclosure of
informational policy focused on elucidating environmental violations would be more cost effective
» see CLIMATE DEBT, page 16
ê Leona Aglukkaq prods provinces for better greenhouse gas numbers. Photo credit: Huffington Post.ca