By Kevyn Orr
Due to climate change, the disparities between developed and developing nations present
a stark contrast between the haves and the have-nots. This contrast, explained by Dr. Robert
Mendelsohn, an environmental economist at Yale University, in a study titled “The Distributional Impact of Climate Change on Rich and Poor Countries” revolves around the current climates of the countries in question and their economic ability to adapt to environmental changes. Developed nations stand in an ideal position due to abundant capital and the keen ability to innovate. In contrast, the developing are in a position in which they could face economic ruin or national destruction due to a lack of the proper resources. These disparities pose a significant threat to mitigating climate change worldwide.
When considering the impacts on nations, Mendelsohn divided the world into four quarters based on per capita gross domestic product (GDP), a measure used to quantify a country’s gross value in dollars. Within the wealthiest quarter, Mendelsohn concluded that climate change surprisingly could have a positive effect, “The range of impacts for the richest quartile is between a damage of 0.1 [percent] to a benefit of .09 [percent].” (Mendelsohn 2022) This startling possibility comes from the chance that climate change and specifically global warming could create a more lucrative climate for agriculture. “The former Soviet Union [nations] and northern Europe have cool temperatures that make warming good for their economy,” the student continued. However, it is also important to note the threats of rising sea levels on coastlines in the same countries, something that was not factored into the final assessment. Financial gain and the ability to utilize an ideal climate rely on innovation, something developed nations regularly practice. To mitigate or cope with climate change, innovation will be crucial. However, less-developed nations fall vastly behind their developed counterparts.
Under-developed nations have been disenfranchised from the start in their fight against climate change: “most poor countries happen to be in low latitudes, they begin with temperatures that are already too warm,” Mendelsohn said. Less-developed nations face hostile environments, making their economies less stable and prone to climate effects. They rely heavily on industries such as agriculture and other sectors that are connected to the native climates of their regions. If these climates were to deform, so would the nation’s respective economy. The link between underdeveloped nations and the climate is much stronger than between developed nations: “The developing countries have lower crop net revenues per hectare and they are more temperature-sensitive.” An example proposed to illustrate this relationship by Mendelsohn is as follows: “if that farmer were in a region that was warmer than the optimum temperature, warming would cause his profits to fall.” Less developed nations are similarly plagued by the problem of a lack of capital, making it difficult for innovations and plans to adapt or convert industries futile as they cannot be funded.
For climate change to be mitigated effectively, individual nations must adapt their economies towards a greener and more sustainable model. Placing regional differentiation aside, less-developed nations stand drastically off-par to stand a chance in the mutual fight against climate destruction. Mendelsohn says, “poor countries consequently bear a large burden as a fraction of their GDP than rich countries because of how many reasons raised in the literature including lower capital, technology, and adaptation options.” To help close this gap, Mendelsohn offers possible solutions to the issue. The first policy he suggests is “cross-national compensation,” in which nations from lower latitudes would be compensated for climate change innovation and the toll it takes on their country, The second policy proposed is to “provide poor countries with financial and technical support for joint-public adaptations such as water projects, coastal protection, or endangered species protection.” This policy idea would further help bridge the gap between developing and developed nations on climate change mitigation. Although developing nations don’t have a profound effect on climate change, they do bear the brunt of its responsibility. This is where Mendelsohn’s third proposition comes in. He suggests that an insurance plan is formed to assist developing countries in cleaning up after a disaster, something they cannot do for themselves. His final initiative would be to invest in the economic development of these nations. This would move them away from sensitive sectors such as agriculture and others that are directly tied to the environment. Mendelsohn states: “A well-designed economic development program would bring large benefits directly to the people of poor countries.” This plan will invest in the long term and would likely be the most substantial choice of action to incorporate developing nations into the fight against climate change. Not only would they be able to fend against the effects of climate change self-sufficiently. They also would see their economies modernized and even possibly turn green.
When comparing the effects of climate change on developing and developed nations, an apparent inequality emerges. Not only do developed nations hold a better position to strike against climate change they also would not see an economic loss from its effects. The opposite can be said for developing countries that cannot mitigate climate change and who stand to become significantly less wealthy due to its effects. This inequality could easily be solved by way of a green economic revolution in developing countries. Modernizing their economies while ensuring that their infrastructure and economic sectors are sustainable, making way for climate security worldwide. Mendelsohn effectively discusses and proposes these solutions in his study, and a lesson can be learned from his findings.
About Author
