BaCCC/Module 4/Lesson 2/Part 3
Mitigation strategies that support vulnerable people
A discussion of vulnerable people begins with a look at vulnerable countries and regions.
You can adjust the playback speed and/or turn on subtitles/captions.)
If you have trouble accessing the video, a summary is available below.
H5P Object Parameters
The H5P parameters below will be replaced by the actual H5P object when it's rendered on the WordPress site to which it's been snapshotted.
While generally overlooked in our pursuit of technological solutions to climate change, failing to shift the lifestyles of nearly eight billion human beings means we can never effectively reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions or successfully address our global climate crisis.
| “ | This becomes especially complex, considering that the most impoverished populations will need to consume more, in order to achieve basic levels of wellbeing. Oxfam estimates that to reach the global average per capita emissions level by 2030 consistent with limiting global heating to 1.5°C, the per capita consumption emissions of the richest 10% of the global population should be reduced to about a tenth of their current level, while those of the poorest 50% could still increase by two to three times their current level. Humanity will need to converge into “a fair consumption space.” | ” |
| —Akenji et al. (2021), Hot or Cool Institute, 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Towards A Fair Consumption Space for All: Summary for Policy Makers | ||
The UN Development Programme says that amidst a slow response from some of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, the world’s most vulnerable countries are stepping up to address the climate crisis. At the same time, however, because these countries are being hit the hardest by climate change impacts, they are least able to finance their own mitigation strategies and transitions to zero carbon. Financial support must come from the international community.
In excerpts from Climate Action Isn’t Reaching the Most Vulnerable – But It Could from the World Resources Institute, the following is said:
- Low-income and otherwise disadvantaged people could benefit enormously from climate action – enjoying everything from cheaper clean energy to healthier lives. Yet these groups face the greatest barriers to access these benefits.
- If designed with equity concerns in mind, major investments and innovative solutions to help mitigate and build resilience to climate change could bring the greatest gains to communities that are most impacted by disasters and pollution.
- Such gains include access to better health, energy, water, transport, and decent jobs, as well as affordable cost of living and political, social and cultural participation – all major factors for human development. Bringing equity to the forefront of climate action could therefore help reduce social inequality.
- But a lot of the time, this is not what happens. Low-income and disadvantaged communities often face a “triple injustice.” Though they contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions and are most vulnerable to climate change impacts, they also often benefit least from climate actions and bear the brunt of social costs. (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021)
Below are five ways they mention in their article that governments can ensure that their climate mitigation strategies do not worsen inequalities – while making a zero-carbon world a fairer one.
1. Admit that the costs and benefits of climate action are distributed unequally across society
Experience shows that in the absence of an explicit goal for social equity, gains are often out of reach for the least well-off. Like any other type of policy, climate actions are designed in the context of existing socioeconomic and power structures that currently maintain inequality.
For example, unequal representation in decision-making, along with biased enforcement of land-use regulations, explains why sustainable infrastructure projects often underserve deprived areas and disproportionately relocate poor residents to areas where quality of life may worsen.
Ensuring a just transition that will leave no one behind requires planners of climate measures to stop viewing social equity as simply a potential “co-benefit.” Social equity cannot be a secondary goal; proactively prioritizing underserved groups must be a central element in the design of climate initiatives. (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021) in Climate Action Isn’t Reaching the Most Vulnerable — But It Could:
Climate Action Isn’t Reaching the Most Vulnerable — But It Could[1]
2. Stop making climate change policies that ignore the most vulnerable
In the urgency to scale climate measures as quickly as possible, national and local governments pursue priorities that can leave the least well-off behind. Incentives promoting the uptake of low-carbon technologies, for example, often target the biggest emitters, deepening unequal access to the newest, most effective and cleanest goods and technologies. Investments in climate-resilient and low-carbon infrastructure are also usually cheaper and more efficient in the most populated and economically valuable regions, rather than in remote and sparsely populated rural areas. (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021)
3. Include marginalised groups in discussions and decision-making
Fair climate actions largely rest on including the voices of disadvantaged groups in decision-making and, whenever possible, letting them make choices on measures that affect their lives.
All around the world, low-carbon and resilient solutions that shift power back to local people – including distributed renewable energy, shorter supply chains, and local circular economies – can also enable more decentralized, community-led decision-making while enhancing social ties.
Three main obstacles are reported across sectors: 1. A top-down approach that favors “expert” opinion and disregards local knowledge 2. A power-blind approach using business-as-usual consultations ignoring power asymmetries 3. A one-size-fits-all approach that fails to consider the specific constraints and needs of disadvantaged groups to access decision-making (including digital poverty). (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021)
4. Find out how climate projects can affect vulnerable communities by conducting impact assessments
There are several common flaws in impact assessments performed for climate projects. These include:
1. An assumption that co-benefits commonly associated with climate measures are present 2. A failure to analyze how benefits are distributed 3. A focus on a select few economic variables that overlook a wide range of other social and cultural impacts (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021)
5. Focus funding on the underserved communities that need it most
Climate action in underserved neighborhoods and remote rural areas can entail higher upfront costs for local authorities and communities. The mobilization of adequate funds can be challenging due to scarce public finance and a reliance on private actors who prefer short-term return on investments.
Conscious planning to allocate resources to disadvantaged populations can also be better mainstreamed and climate finance instruments can be adjusted to ensure social equity. (Bouyé & Waskow, 2021)
References
- ↑ Bouyé & Waskow, 2021. Climate Action Isn’t Reaching the Most Vulnerable — But It Could
