The belief that developing countries are forced to choose between socio-economic development and decarbonization has, finally, been proved a false dichotomy. The long-held idea that climate goals and economic self-interest are incompatible is an anachronism -- as much an artifact of the past as costly solar panels.
For over five decades, international environmental meetings have been animated by a north-south divide -- rich nations of the global north spearheaded pledges to rein in global emissions, while less affluent counterparts felt marginalized. Such sentiments stemmed from the idea that adherence to climate goals suppresses economic development. From the perspective of developing nations, sloganeering championed by richer countries is tainted by untenable hypocrisy.
The dilemma is encompassed in a statement by Indira Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister in 1972, “Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?” This point of contention is as alive today as it was back then -- but the difference is, when Gandhi spoke, fossil fuels represented the most cost-effective path to economic development. Today, that logic no longer holds.
Why?
Two simultaneous trends are at play: The decreasing price of cleaner, alternative technologies, and the swiftly rising costs associated with emissions-intensive development. Data paints a clearer picture -- the price of solar modules is now less than 0.2% of what they cost in the 1970s.
Back then, solar modules cost over $100 per watt. Today, the same amount of power is purchased for a mere 20 cents. At the same time, affluent regional blocs, like the European Union, are rolling out plans to levy a price on the carbon content of imports -- a move deemed “discriminatory” by various emerging economies.
This paradigm-shift means that the success of the United Nations’ COP26 climate summit in Glasgow is judged by drastically different metrics than those used to assess the 2015 Paris Agreement. In Paris, success was measured in abstract “pledges” and “accords,” but now, pragmatic execution takes precedence.
While Gandhi’s world was one where developing nations risked being polluted by their poverty, the one we live in today is one in which nations face the greater risk of being impoverished by their pollution. This tectonic shift means that an emissions-intensive path isn’t the most optimal route to economic prosperity -- it stymies development by burdening emerging economies with higher-cost power when cheaper alternatives are accessible.
Funding has long been a big sticking point in the global fight against climate change, and almost all of the expense for wind or solar comes at the construction stage. The onus is on rich countries to extend the crucial up-front, long-term lending to emerging markets that renewable projects demand. And although both respective parties may differ on the road to a zero-carbon future, they share an overriding interest in tackling climate change.
The truth is, emerging economies such as India are willing to take a green path to development, but can’t do it alone. Cash is needed to invest in renewable-friendly power grids and phase-out coal capacity.
Robust means to fuel these strategic ends are imperative. The magnitude of climate action by both rich and developing nations today should not be saddled by historic limitations, while fully embracing the scale of opportunity today – one in which climate goals and economic development are closely entwined.
Sultan Althari is an advisor, author, and alumnus of Harvard University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS). A version of this article first appeared in Al Arabiya News and has been reprinted under special arrangement.