Brager 1

Carolyn Brager

Bob Pavia

Arctic 391 A

12 March 2017

Climate Change in the Developing World

When Christopher Shainin came to speak for our class, he asked us what issues in the

world mattered to us, what challenges our communities were facing today that we cared about.

Then he asked us what all these problems had in common. He said, “They all ask the question:

Who’s let in and who’s left out?”.

What does climate change mean for the world’s poor? How does climate change interact

with the developing world? These relationships epitomize the need for that essential question.

These challenges fundamentally demand to be asked, “When climate change contacts poverty

versus wealth, who’s let in to the ease of adaptation, and who’s left out to suffer the

consequences because of unfair vulnerability?”

This paper will begin by exploring the core of the problem itself. In other words, not

whether or not climate change is affecting developing countries, but understanding how the

effects of climate change differ between the developing world and the developed world. This

includes how the same impact might affect separate regions in distinct ways because of inequity

in resources or social stability. Additionally, this reality involves how, because of different

geographies, some regions will face drastically different effects all together. A comprehensive

understanding of these discrepancies will form the foundation for how policy makers approach
 Brager 2

strategies and how solutions need to be tailored differently due to the distinct conditions of

diverse environments. Furthermore, the scope of this overview will primarily focus on global

trends and overarching challenges, as opposed to a specific impoverished region’s relationship

with climate change. The second part of this paper will briefly explore a possible solution to the

problem.

Climate change inequality is both extreme and ubiquitous. In other words, the

consequences of greenhouse gas emissions do not always fall on the region that emitted them. In

a recent ​Nature Scientific Report​ quantifying the global mismatch between greenhouse gas

emissions and the burden of climate change, researchers found an enormous inequality, due to

the way the “earth’s atmosphere can intermix globally”. Their study found that “20 of the 36

highest emitting countries are among the least vulnerable to negative impacts of future climate

change”. Conversely, 11 of the 17 countries with low greenhouse gas emissions are severely

vulnerable to negative impacts of climate change (1). Furthermore, Germanwatch’s Global

Climate Risk Index ranks countries according to their extreme weather risks. Their analysis

shows that all of the top ten countries-- the ones most susceptible to severe weather events-- are

developing countries (2). Ultimately, climate change inequity is globally pervasive, with a

disproportionate and unfair burden on the developing world.

Some countries, like China and the US are effectively the “beneficiaries” of climate

change in that they can optimize economic growth through the opportunity provided by high

fossil fuel use, and suffer few consequences for it. Meanwhile, poor countries often emerge as

climate “forced-riders” in that they contribute little to the problem but suffer the most acutely. As

the ​Nature​ report discusses in its conclusion for looking ahead, “To ensure equitable outcomes
 Brager 3

from climate negotiations, there needs to be a meaningful mobilization of policies, such as the

Paris Agreement, that achieve national level emissions reductions, and to ensure the vulnerable

forced-rider countries are able to adapt rapidly to climate change” (1). These possible strategies

will be explored further toward the end of this paper.

Climate change also holds the capacity to be a “threat multiplier” within unstable

economies, tense political systems, and fragile social structures—all qualities often associated

with developing countries. In the World Bank’s 2010 ​World Development Report,​ it was

calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature would cost about 1% of world GDP. In Africa,

however, the cost would be close to 4% of their GDP, and in India, 5% (3). So why are the poor

so much more vulnerable than the rich? Why does climate change aggravate impoverished

regions so much more than developed? Stress on economic product and pressure on critical

industries like agriculture catalyze higher levels of poverty and hunger. In turn, these can

magnify already tense political instability. For example, countries like India and Pakistan both

have nuclear weapons. If the droughts already inflicting them continue to expand and burden

their economies that are heavily dependent on agriculture, there might be greater susceptibility

for nuclear violence or public unrest.

One of the biggest dangers of climate change for the developing world involves the

significant effect that a warming climate can have on agriculture. This is especially important

because farming tends to be one of the largest and most valuable economic sectors in these

regions. Not only is crop production acutely responsive to direct temperature increases, but it is

also severely affected by the increasing unpredictability associated with global warming. Take

for example India and its monsoon cycle. This typically predictable weather pattern is crucial for
 Brager 4

the country to maintain its “​nearly $370 billion​ agricultural sector and hundreds of millions of

jobs” (4). Because of climate change, the Indian Ocean is warming and disrupting the monsoon

cycle. The resulting droughts are killing precious crops. A study from MIT’s Department of

Economics predicts that India’s main crops’ yields will decrease by 4.5-9% over the next 30

years because of climate change (5).

In relation to unpredictability, climate change is causing more intense yet shorter periods

of rain, with longer gaps between. This increases droughts that dry out farmland, and floods that

wash it away. To make the problem worse, the higher-yielding modern seeds that poor regions

started using in the 1960’s are specifically designed for stable climates-- dangerously

unconducive to inconsistencies that will be brought on by climate change (6). On top of that,

climate change also disrupts indirect pressures that affect agriculture like pests and disease. All

of this stress on agriculture will lead to less food, and ultimately higher food prices; higher food

prices are incredibly disproportionately devastating for those in poverty. Regardless of the level

of development of a region, it’s a general trend that the poorest citizens sometimes spend over

half their income on food, whereas the wealthiest often spend less than a tenth (7). Higher food

prices will put a heavy strain on impoverished people’s budgets, exacerbating the poverty cycle.

On top of agriculture, unstable living conditions, weaker health, and a lack of access to

health care means that any extreme weather events, any natural disasters, are going to hurt the

poor more than the wealthy. According to a Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change from Cambridge, “95% of fatalities from natural disasters in the last 25 years

occurred in developing countries” (8). Here we see the poor versus rich gap emerge again. A

perfect example is that of Hurricane Mitch in Honduras twenty years ago. From this event, poor
 Brager 5

households lost 15-20% of their assets but the rich lost only 3% (6). If trends continue and future

predictions become a reality, climate change is going to result in less frequent but more intense

extreme weather events like hurricanes. If this is the case, what’s going to prevent a

socioeconomically disproportionate effect like this happening every time?

In regards to disease, malaria-bearing mosquitoes, the most common cause of death in

Africa, depend on warm weather. Many densely populated African cities such as Nairobi, Kenya,

for example are intentionally located just above a “malaria-line”, in that they’re high enough and

just cold enough that malaria-carrying mosquitoes can’t survive. With rising temperatures

associated with climate change, these mosquitoes can migrate to higher-elevation regions that

have previously been imperatively protected, spreading their disease before cities can relocate or

adapt (6). The World Bank report says a small rise in temperatures “could increase the number of

people at risk for malaria by up to 5 percent. By 2030 climate change may expose 90 million

more people to malaria in Africa alone”. Similar effects stretch to other diseases as well.

According to this same report, meningitis outbreaks will increase with more drought, and

diarrhea will reflect changes in water availability and quality; it is forecast to rise 5% by 2020 in

poor countries because of climate change (3).

The last part of the problem also happens to be arguably the most unfair. While there

might not be causation, there is a strong correlation between the poverty rates and carbon

emission rates of third world countries. In other words, often times, developing countries that

decrease their poverty rates also have drastically increased rates of carbon emissions. For

instance, between 1981 and 2011, East Asia saw an 85% in extreme poverty, dropping from 1.1

billion to 161 million people. In these same thirty years, the region’s carbon dioxide per capita
 Brager 6

rate saw a 185% increase-- from 2.1 to 5.9 tons per capita (9). Similarly in South Asia, according

to research done by Emory University, the number of people living in extreme poverty decreased

by 30%, while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 204%. Conversely, in the same thirty

year period in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region had an increase in number of people in extreme

poverty of 98%, while their carbon dioxide per capita decreased by 17% (9). If the global

community wants to encourage progress, prosperity, and reducing extreme poverty in the

developing world, we need to find a way to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions.

The final part of this paper will briefly touch on one broad reaching and effective

solution: disaster-risk insurance to help developing countries respond to the threat of climate

change. This covers mitigative and adaptive approaches while it also works on a preventative

and reactive scale.

This response involves implementing insurance systems to help developing countries

manage and prevent the risks from climate extremes, and absorb the losses from weather

disasters. Insurance can be directed at a wide variety of different angles. First, insurance can

encourage preventative behavior to reduce exposure to risks in the first place. For example,

education and management to help farmers plan how they use their land better, or changing seed

types, planting material, and fertilizers to be more drought resistant. By making agriculture more

sustainable, this method targets disaster risk reduction and reduces vulnerability. This same

method can be applied to livelihoods as well, such as rehabilitating farmland, improving flimsy

housing, or retrofitting high-risk buildings. Investments in infrastructure should place a priority

on improving people’s livelihoods and welfare even if possible destruction from climate change
 Brager 7

doesn’t occur. All infrastructure being built now, however, should be sustainable in the sense

that it takes into account potential risks and damage that climate change could inflict.

Another approach of insurance includes institutions and organizations that improve

disaster response and help developing countries absorb the losses after extreme weather events

like droughts, floods, and hurricanes. By providing financial security, insurance programs can

absorb income shocks to the most impoverished. Foreign aid systems and international funding

mechanisms should be created with appealing incentives for developed nations to engage with

them. As the IPCC suggest, “International funding mechanisms such as the Least Developed

Countries (LDC) Fund and the Multi-donor Trust Fund on Climate Change are making funding

and resources available to developing countries to pilot and mainstream changing climate risks

and resilience into core development and as an incentive for scaled-up action and

transformational change” (8). In summary, adaptation-insurance approaches can take many

forms: first, improving physical structures and systems like flood defense walls and early risk

warning systems. Second, improving and shifting social systems like relocating or changing

livelihoods and providing educational training for the new warning programs. And third,

preventing vulnerability from the beginning by targeting poverty and boosting economic

productivity to build up funds as a cushion for future events.

However, in addition to the benefits for governments in developing countries that receive

the payoffs of insurance, there must also be incentives and rewards for governments that provide

the insurance. First, if insurance reduces the problems associated with a post-disaster financial

gap, insurers can better make sure public infrastructure is restored in an efficient manner while

also maintaining a supply of relief expenditures for the future. As ​The Geneva Papers on Risk
 Brager 8

explains, “Just like investments in prevention, timely relief and reconstruction can save lives and

livelihoods and prevent disaster-induced poverty traps” (10). With internationally backed

insurance programs, the governments of developing countries can wean off of dependency on

donations and debt financing from philanthropic organizations. If they can utilize already

established insurance programs to obtain assured funds, and use this money to repair critical

infrastructure, they will attract foreign investment in the long run.

Ultimately, at a global scale, developing countries are disproportionately affected by

climate change. They will be hit first, and they will be hit the worst. Their vulnerable geography

and inadequate means to adapt are amplifying the effects of climate change. They are and will

continue to suffer consequences from food insecurity, to increasing poverty, to unstable living

conditions, to higher threats of disease. Whether it’s changing seed types or setting up irrigation

systems, increasing public research to find innovative ways to mitigate the effects of climate

change, or setting up robust insurance partnerships to ensure post-disaster funds, now is the time

to devote our efforts toward solutions. We need to create systems that empower the people in

poverty through support and education, while also create developing economies that have the

capacity to thrive.
 Brager 9

References

1. Althor, Glenn, James E. M. Watson, and Richard A. Fuller. "Global Mismatch between
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Burden of Climate Change." ​Scientific Reports​ 6
(2016): 20281. ​Nature.​ Web. 6 Mar. 2017. <​[Link]

2. Kreft, Sönke, et al. "Global climate risk index 2017." ​Who suffers most from extreme
weather events​ (2013): 1-31. ​Germanwatch.​ Web. 10 Mar. 2017.
<​[Link]

3. Bierbaum, Rosina M.; Fay, Marianne; Ross-Larson, Bruce [editor]. 2009. ​World
development report 2010 : development and climate change​. World development report.
Washington, DC : World Bank Group.
[Link]
port-2010-development-and-climate-change

4. Gallucci, Maria. "India Drought 2015: Climate Change Is Biggest Threat To India's
Economy, Modi Finance Aide Says." ​International Business Times.​ N.p., 05 Dec. 2015.
Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
<[Link]
omy-modi-finance-aide-2165051>.

5. Guiteras, Raymond. "The impact of climate change on Indian agriculture." ​Manuscript,

6. "A Bad Climate for Development." ​The Economist​. The Economist Newspaper, 19 Sept.
2009. Web. 11 Mar. 2017. <[Link]

7. Bullard, Gabe. "See What Climate Change Means for the World's Poor." ​National
Geographic.​ National Geographic Society, 07 Mar. 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.
<[Link]
-agriculture/>.

8. Field, Christopher B., ed. ​Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance
climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change​. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
 Brager 10

9. Goldstein, Adam. "What Is the Link between Carbon Emissions and Poverty?" ​World
Economic Forum.​ World Economic Forum, 15 Dec. 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.
<​[Link]
and-poverty/​>.

10. Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne, et al. "Insurance, developing countries and climate change."
The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice​ 34.3 (2009): 381-400.
<[Link]