By Robin Aarts.
Climate change and poverty are recognized as two of the most pressing problems facing the international community and individual countries. However, if development is seen as the solution for poverty and climate change is seen as a symptom of development, how can we address both?
Poverty and climate change can be addressed as two main problems that play a role in the developing world and have become more pressing with time. Many scholars have discussed the fairness of distribution of actions among different countries regarding climate change. Does the West need to be more active in fighting climate change than the Global South, since they have been the ones that have caused most of the environmental problems and they possess the best means to fight climate change? Moreover, is it fair to argue that we should limit the development of the Global South to battle climate change? In this blog post, the case study of desertification in Kenya and the case study of greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa will be compared. This post explores the possibility of inherent conflicts between policies designed to fight climate change and poverty.
Desertification in Kenya
Kenya’s desertification has a negative effect on both the environment and on levels of poverty. It is mainly caused by the overuse of land, as well as by the effects of climate change. Desertification leads to the damaging of ecosystems, as well as of the land and soil that are used for agriculture. Regarding poverty, desertification leads to problems in food security and a negative trend in the economy of the country. Both the environment and the economic growth of Kenya are thus negatively affected by desertification. In the case of Kenya, the fight against poverty and the fight against climate change are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Maybe they work together and to fight against one would mean that there can also be a fight against the other. The problem of desertification needs to be tackled so that levels of poverty can be reduced. It also needs to be tackled so that the environmental conditions of Kenya can be improved. It can therefore be argued that in the case of desertification, there does not necessarily need to be a choice between fighting poverty or fighting climate change. When Kenya tries to combat desertification, it could incorporate both the problem of poverty and the problem of climate change. There does not need to be a priority of the one above the other.
In the case of Kenya, the fight against poverty and the fight against climate change are not necessarily in conflict with each other. Maybe they work together and to fight against one would mean that there can also be a fight against the other.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South Africa
In South Africa greenhouse gas emissions have a negative effect on the environment, while having a positive effect on reducing levels of poverty in the country. Greenhouse gas emissions influence the environment negatively, because they contribute to the process of global warming. Global warming then has a negative impact on several other environmental factors worldwide and these emissions thus affect the environment in a detrimental manner. However, these emissions have a positive effect on eradicating poverty, for there exists a positive correlation between levels of emissions and levels of economic growth in South Africa. Of course, it should be noted that poverty reduction can also take place without rapid economic growth, or not much poverty reduction can occur with strong economic growth. It is argued that if South Africa wants to reduce its level of emissions, it should also reduce its level of economic growth. This makes it a different case than Kenya, in which a process related to climate change had both a negative effect on the environment, as well as on levels of poverty. This does not hold for South Africa and therefore, it can be stated that this country does need to make a decision in where to put its priority: on fighting climate change or on fighting poverty. If it chooses to fight climate change, it decides to reduce its level of economic growth and in that sense, the chance that poverty will increase is very likely. However, if it chooses to fight poverty, it decides to continue or even increase its level of economic growth and in that sense, the chance that climate change will increase is very likely. It is thus a choice between two problems that are highly important in a developing country such as South Africa.
Final Thoughts
However, it is important to note that one can put big question marks on the relationship between economic growth and poverty reduction. Maybe there does not need to be a choice between poverty reduction and climate change and high levels of economic growth can be achieved without harming the environment. There are even scholars that argue that we should strive for degrowth, which is an economic strategy that takes into account the limits-to-growth, one of which being that of environmental issues.
By Robin Aarts
Robin is from the Netherlands. Before starting at IDS she did a Bachelors in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a major in Social Sciences and also completed a Masters in International Relations. She is mostly interested in how to tackle poverty and inequality, while also considering the environmental and sustainable aspects of development.
Comments