World Wildlife Heritage is miraculous. However, human caused Climate Change is a brutal attack on the biodiverse wildlife on Earth. In a recent analysis ‘Published in the journal Science‘ data were gathered on geographic ranges and current climate conditions of 31,000 insect species, 8,000 birds, 1,700 mammals, 1,800 reptiles, 1,000 amphibians and 71,000 plants. Then, it was calculated how the ranges change when global warming means some regions can no longer support particular species. The analysis only took global warming as such into consideration, not the impact of lost interactions between species or the impacts of more extreme weather events; nor the interaction with wildlife degradation for other reasons.
The moral bottom line of the ‘Copenhagen Accord‘ promise is this: Rich countries must increase Climate Change Finance with new and additional money to developing countries from zero in 2009 to $100 billion by 2020. If this had happened gradually, then about $73 billion would have been delivered in 2017.
‘Oxfam‘ claims that the taxpayer-funded finance from rich countries to developing countries in 2015-16 was about $48 billion, or nearly half the amount promised for 2020. However, according to ‘Brookings‘ an earlier OECD-CPI report claims that as much as $62 billion was delivered back in 2014 – while India on the other hand claims that “only $2.2 billion could rigorously be defended as meeting the promise in Copenhagen” (COP15, 2009). Apparently, many flows counted by the OECD-CPI should not have been counted, flows such as “market-based loans counted at the full amounts, and export credits.” In other words, the confusion and dishonesty seem to be considerable.
The website ‘climatecasechart.com‘ by ‘Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School‘ provides databases of climate change caselaw worldwide. The None-U.S. Cases in the database are organized by country (Jurisdiction or Principal Law) and type of climate change claim. The United States has a separate database providing around three quarters of all 1,113 cases in the databases (which makes sense since the United States is responsible for 33.1% of the ‘Global Climate Debt‘, while populated only by 4.4%). Read the article ‘Venue of last resort: the climate lawsuits threatening the future of big oil‘ (The Guardian, 2017).
The website ‘https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/countries/’ let you visualize and compare the environmental and social performance of 151 countries. A total of 18 indicators – 7 environmental and 11 social – are included in the comparison. However, 81 of the included countries are missing data of between 1 and 9 indicators. The methods and results underpinning the data used on the website is the peer-reviewed article ‘A good life for all within planetary boundaries’ (abstract). It says that: “Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries. However, the universal achievement of more qualitative goals (for example, high life satisfaction) would require a level of resource use that is 2–6 times the sustainable level, based on current relationships.”
Among 164 countries with full data in ClimatePositions 91 have Climate Debts. Note that Saint Lucia is new on the full data country-list with an accumulated per capita Climate Debt of $287. India, Lithuania and Latvia are likely to have small Climate Debts soon … by 2018 or 2019.
In addition to the full data country-list, 16 countries with lack of indicator data would have Climate Debts with roughly estimated data¹. The estimated per capita Climate Debts of these countries are:
The Environmental Performance Index 2018 ranks 180 countries on 24 performance indicators across 10 issue categories¹ covering A) Environmental Health (40%), which measures threats to human health, and B) Ecosystem Vitality (60%), which measures natural resources and ecosystem services. Over the years the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) has also identified a number of severe data gaps² that hamper sustainability goals.
The four global Indicators: Land-Ocean Temperature, Sea Level, CO2 in the Atmosphere and Population have been updated in ‘ClimatePositions (Excel)‘. Combined, the updates resulted in significant increases in national Climate Debts. Land-Ocean Temperature and Sea level due to adjusting the national GDP-Factor, while CO2 in the Atmosphere and Population due to adjusting the global Fossil CO2 Emission Target.
Diagrams with the four global Indicators are shown below [diagram were replaced 15-02-2018].
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Papua New Guinea, Guatemala and Tonga (ranked 88th, 89th and 90th). All three countries had zero Climate Debt in 2010, Tonga even in 2015.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Honduras, Guyana and Bolivia (ranked 85th, 86th, and 87th). The share of Honduras decreased significantly during the period. The global Climate Debt accumulated since 2000 is $7.2 Trillion.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Jamaica, Suriname and Barbados (ranked 82nd, 83rd, and 84st). The accumulated global Climate Debt is $7.2 Trillion.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Macedonia, Botswana and Mauritius (ranked 79th, 80th, and 81st). The global Climate Debt, accumulated since 2000, is $7.2 Trillion.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Tunisia, Bahamas and Jordan (ranked 76th, 77th and 78th). The share of Tunisia is continuously declining, whereas the shares of Bahamas and Jordan are uneven.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Vietnam, Mongolia and Gabon (ranked 73rd, 74th and 75th). The shares of Vietnam and Mongolia are both growing continuously. Vietnam and Gabon had zero Climate Debt in 2010.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Equatorial Guinea, Panama and Dominican Republic (ranked 70th, 71st and 72nd). The share of Panama is continuously growing, whereas the shares of Equatorial Guinea and Dominican Republic are uneven.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Ecuador, Uzbekistan and Cyprus (ranked 67th, 68th and 69th). The share of Cyprus is continuously decreasing.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania and Lebanon (ranked 64th, 65th and 66th). The shares of Romania and Lebanon are ups and downs, while the share of Bosnia and Herzegovina is steadier.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Estonia, Croatia and Ukraine (ranked 61st, 62nd and 63rd). The shares of Estonia and Ukraine are increasing, whereas the share of Croatia is decreasing.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Slovenia, Belarus and Bulgaria (ranked 58th, 59th and 60th). The share of Slovenia is decreasing, whereas the shares of Belarus and Bulgaria are increasing rather fast (Belarus had no Climate Debt in 2010).
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia (ranked 55th, 56th and 57th). The share of Serbia is decreasing, while the shares of Hungary and Slovakia are up and down.
The diagram below shows ‘Share of global Climate Debt‘ in 2010, 2015 and 2017 of Denmark, Bahrain and Iraq (ranked 52nd, 53rd and 54th). The shares of Bahrain and Iraq have increased significantly (Iraq had no Climate Debt in 2010), whereas Denmark’s share is relatively stable.