Decarbonisation and World Poverty: A Just Transition for Fossil Fuel Exporting Countries?

Abstract

If dangerous climate change is to be avoided, the majority of the world’s fossil fuel supplies cannot be burned. Exporting countries will, therefore, lose out on a significant source of revenue – among them some of the world’s poorest countries. Might they have a claim to assistance from the international community if these losses come to pass? If so, on what basis? I examine two distinct arguments for assistance. The first is based on the claim that when our expectations are thwarted by public policy, compensation for those affected may be morally required. The second is premised upon the right to development – a right which is potentially jeopardised when some fossil fuel assets must go unexploited. I argue that the second argument enjoys better prospects. I also discuss several mechanisms which would allow the international community to assist countries incurring losses arising from the need to stabilise our global climate.

Approaches to energy transitions: Carbon pricing, managed decline, and/or green new deal?

“…This piece departs from other reviews of energy transitions which have primarily focused on the concepts of energy and climate justice (especially analyzing how the burdens associated with transition should be shared between the global north and the global south (see, for example, Armstrong, 2020; Muttitt & Kartha, 2020; Newell & Mulvaney, 2013) and energy democracy (especially the potentials for distributed and community or publicly‐owned energy systems and increased participation in decision‐making (see, for example, Becker & Naumann, 2017; Szulecki, 2018). Instead, this article is primarily concerned with categorizing and comparing different paths toward wholescale transition that are or could be immediately pursued by jurisdictions with the power to enact climate legislation and implement climate policy.…”

“…A robust literature exists that contemplates how global energy transition and global GHG targets can be made in ways that redress the inequalities that exist between countries in the Global South and Global North. This literature suggests that efforts to reduce GHG emissions should take into account the theft of resources, labor, and life which were central to the industrialization of empires, now the Global North, and how limiting fossil fuel consumption and production (stranding assets in the ground) might infringe on the Global South's rights to development (Armstrong, 2020; Caney, 2016). Le Billon and Kristoffersen (2019) and Muttitt and Kartha (2020) suggest that climate justice principles that account for the legacies of uneven global development be used to decide the scale and pace of decarbonization.…”

The geopolitics of energy system transformation: A review

“…Taking into consideration equity and justice criteria would allow developing countries to extract more for a longer period of time than advanced economy producers (Caney, 2016;Kartha et al, 2016Kartha et al, , 2018Le Billon & Kristoffersen, 2020). Otherwise, some of the greatest losses are likely to occur in the poorest and least prepared fossil fuel exporting countries, while OECD producers such as the United States, Canada and Norway have the financial means to absorb the consequences (Armstrong, 2020;Healy & Barry, 2017;Muttitt & Kartha, 2020;World Bank, 2020). Developing countries have therefore (unsuccessfully) called on transnational justice and solidarity when it comes to leaving fossil fuels in the ground.…”

Trends in fossil fuel extraction

“…Furthermore, a number of scholars have begun exploring approaches and principles for sharing a limited budget of fossil fuel extraction, many of whom have emphasised the importance of considering equity principles (Armstrong, 2020;Caney, 2016;Kartha et al, 2016;Le Billon & Kristoffersen, 2019;Lenferna, 2017;Muttitt & Kartha, 2020;Pye et al, 2020). For example, Caney (2016) proposed three criteria for defining an equitable allocation: a country's level of development, its historical responsibility in terms of past extraction and benefits accrued, and the availability of other resources for development.…”

“…We are motivated both by the importance of managing fossil fuel supply in effective global climate policy (Piggot et al, 2020), and also by the equity implications of a rapid transition away from the commodities -coal, oil, and gas -that some communities (and some countries) depend on for their livelihoods. Indeed, in considering fossil fuel supply as an equity issue, we are building on a rapidly growing literature on equity considerations in the transition away from fossil fuel extraction (Armstrong, 2020;Caney, 2016;Kartha et al, 2016;Le Billon & Kristoffersen, 2019;Lenferna, 2017;Muttitt & Kartha, 2020;Pye et al, 2020;SEI et al, 2020) Accordingly, we present a simple analysis on where fossil fuel extraction has happened historically, and where it will continue to occur and expand if current economic trends continue without new policy interventions. By employing some simple scenario analysis, we also demonstrate how the phase-out of fossil fuel production is likely to be inequitable among countries, if not actively and internationally managed.…”