EARLIER this year, the United Nations Development Program published the world’s largest public opinion survey on climate change. According to the findings, a belief in the climate emergency is strongest among the population of high-income countries in Western Europe and North America. Most of the population in these regions also call for immediate climate action. However, support for environmental policies is below average in middle-income and least developed countries.
So, why is climate change palpable for the wealthy but not so much for the developing?
Researchers have long pointed out that people worry far less about climate change when they do not have more immediate needs satisfied, such as healthcare, jobs, or even sustenance. Another UN survey shows that when people are asked to prioritize their quotidian needs (e.g., good education, affordable nutrition, protection against crime and violence), climate change ranks absolute last for low-income societies. Middle-income countries assign relatively more importance to the issue. However, unlike developing societies, about half of respondents in wealthy states think that climate action is more pressing than gender equality, job opportunities, internet, and better transportation.
Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs can help us make sense of this trend.
According to Maslow’s conception, we first need to satisfy our physical needs, like hunger and thirst. Once those are satisfied, we move up to safety, economic and physical security. And we gradually reach the pinnacle, which is self-actualization - living in a way that expresses our authentic selves.
Just like individuals, societies also have their collective hierarchy of needs.
For example, in Mozambique and Niger, more than half of the population, do not have clean water. Dirty water also makes them prone to diseases such as diarrhea and cholera, placing healthcare and water supply high on the agenda.
These two also do not have reliable energy at home, like many other African countries. According to USAID, only 29% of people in Mozambique have access to electricity because of limited distribution networks and unfavorable market conditions. This number is as low as 11.2% in Niger. This limited energy supply that Africa has, comes almost entirely from fossil fuels, which are the main contributors to global warming and climate change. Those African countries which consume less than 15% of nonrenewable energy, simply do not have electricity.
Middle-income countries which are a step higher on Maslow’s pyramid, also prioritize affordable goods and physical safety over green energy. Georgia, for instance, has long enjoyed round-the-clock electricity and access to clean water, but it cannot afford to invest billions in wind turbines and solar panels. Thus, Georgians prefer fossil energy because of its low price and already existing infrastructure, which does not require exorbitant investments.
Developing countries can only implement green alternatives to fossil with generous financial support from developed ones. And many wealthy states already provide such assistance.
In 2013, USAID launched the Power Africa program, which committed more than $1 billion to supply the continent with cleaner and more reliable electricity. The UN’s Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN) supports Asian governments and other organizations by sharing best practices on climate change adaptation. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 by 196 countries, acknowledged that developed states need to finance developing ones to use more renewable energy and keep global warming below 2°C.
But these efforts are not enough. Wealthy polluters, which export or consume most fossil fuels, first need to abandon environmentally harmful practices at home.
Norway, for instance, one of the first nations to ratify the Paris Agreement, is also the world’s third largest gas exporter after Russia and Qatar. The country significantly benefits from exporting oil and gas, and never declared the intention to stop doing so despite their grave impact on climate change. In fact, in 2019 Norway opened its third-largest oil field in the North Sea, which critics perceived as a quintessence of climate hypocrisy.
In the United States, one of the largest polluter countries, big businesses hinder the nation from meeting its 2025 climate goal to reduce emissions by 26-28%. Companies like Apple, Amazon, Walmart, and dozens of others, invest in lobbying to kill the bill that aims to eliminate nearly 1 billion tons of carbon in the next decade. The reason is simple – new environmental regulations place significant financial interests at stake, and wealthy companies are not willing to lose their profits.
Cash plays a central role in climate action. While developing economies cannot afford to combat climate change, developed ones are not ready to risk their earnings and take bold steps to reduce pollution.
Still, responsibility mostly falls on wealthy countries to fight global warming domestically and internationally. It is not only because they have financial resources to do so, but also because they are the largest polluters who benefit the most from nonrenewable energy.