Environmental change can’t be forced on poor

Lady Bird Johnson once said, “the environment is where we all meet, where we all have a mutual interest; it is the one thing all of us share”.

At a UNESCO conference in October 1969, peace activist John Mcconnell called for a day to honour the Earth and the concept of peace. A month later, former US senator Gaylord Nelson proposed the idea of a nationwide environmental teach-in, coined Earth Day, to be held on April 22 1970. This day is rooted in the aim of educating individuals about environmental issues that plague our planet and ‘“shaking the political establishment out of its lethargy”. It proved to be a success as more than 20 million people flocked to the streets. It remains the largest single-day protest in history.

Friday, April 22, marked the 51st anniversary of Earth Day’s establishment. The original wave of demonstrations helped shape the modern global environmental movement. On this day, billions of people across the globe celebrate in a variety of ways – from planting a tree to donating to organisations that protect the planet.

The movement has yielded numerous victories. Richer countries have seen a decrease in pollution; the health of species and ecosystems has improved; and 195 countries have gone on to sign the Paris Agreement, an international treaty focused on mitigating climate change. However, despite these successes, there is a paradox around modern-day environmentalism.

“Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?” Indira Gandhi asked in 1972. “The environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty.”

Fifty years later, the question still dominates the debate on climate change mitigation, with a global northsouth divide in strategies to advance the environmental movement.

Industrialised and post-industrialised countries account for 12% of the global population but are responsible for more than half of greenhouse gases emitted in the past 170 years. In an attempt to remedy decades of environmental destruction, many of these countries have invested in technologies and strategies to limit any possible risks. As such, efforts to de-carbonise the global economy have dominated international relationships, policies and trade agreements.

Marginalised or lower-income countries and communities shoulder the bulk of the consequences. As sea levels and temperatures rise and precipitation patterns are rearranged, climate change affects everything from access to health to access to food, employment and higher living standards.

However, attempts to pressure poorer countries to adopt similar climate change strategies as richer countries fail to account for the socio-economic context in which these countries exist.

•