Global climate policy affects the world unevenly, hitting poorer nations hardest - Ammar Ansari 1/6

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: But the reality is, is that the impacts of the climate crisis, and international climate policy, affects us unevenly. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, as we all know, international climate policy affects all of us. But the reality is, is that the impacts of the climate crisis, and international climate policy, affects us unevenly, based on who we are, where we live, and even which passports we're entitled to. But international climate policy today is failing the planet. And there's only one solution that I see to the climate crisis, and that is climate justice. I want to open the case by setting the stakes of this motion. We first need to reckon with an uncomfortable reality, that international climate policy today is inherently neo-imperialist. Imperialism relies on the way that we occupy and consume our natural world, and this is not a new phenomenon. Neo-imperialism, I'd argue, is the continuation and transformation of past imperialistic methods into the present, reliant on extraction, control, and destruction of the natural world. Reimagining a new vision for international climate policy that is no longer neo-imperialist means that we need to consider questions, reparations, and responsibility. We must. Now, we have fantastic speakers with us here today, who I'm sure have some things to say about climate policy, some more interesting than others. Before that, it is my honor to fulfill my duties to introduce the speakers of the opposition. Opening the case is Musa Haraj, a fellow graduate student studying a master's in economics in Balliol. I have to say, I really admire that Musa has been working hard over the back to bring you an amazing term card. However, I too have heard he's hardly working at the same time when it comes to his actual economics coursework. So much so that I've heard that he's constantly asking about his economics course group chat to what to even do for the upcoming exam. Perhaps, too, I have the receipts. Message one, March 29th. Guys, please, if anyone has revision tips, send them. Desperately need all the help I can get. There's so much effing content. Message two, April 16th. Guys, how's everyone prepping for micro? Message three, April 17th. Guys, does anyone have notes to micro per hand emojis times four? Musa, I have to ask you, which one of your classmates prepared your notes for your speech? Sitting next to Musa is Prajwal Pandey, a fellow member of Secretary's Committee and a PPE student at New College. When I saw his LinkedIn profile, I was surprised that he sat at that side of the chamber, given that four years ago, he was co-chair of Essex Climate Action Commission. However, I also saw on LinkedIn that Prajwal just recently published a very positive article about a $60 billion acquisition of an oil and gas company by Exxon Mobil. The only thing I could find in that article regarding Exxon's role in the climate crisis is his short mention of reporting methane emissions as a minor environment-related concern. But then I remembered that Prajwal was also youth campaigner for Prime Minister Sunak, so I'm sure he's gotten quite accustomed to defending U-turns. Finally, we have Makunda Sharma, an operation officer at the union, who's also studying for a DFL in computer science. Now, despite Makunda speaking on that side of the house, I have faith that he will actually vote for the proposition. I say that because Makunda has become quite notorious for flipping sides in union elections. And I sincerely hope that he takes a habit to vote tonight. Makunda heads up, the eyes are on the right side of that door. Mr. President, these are your speakers, and they're most welcome. Now, international climate policy goes beyond COP mandates and development aid packages aimed at reducing carbon emissions and ecological damages. Climate policy affects the way we farm, the way we move, how we consume, and even how we conduct war. Truly, international climate policy is what the UN calls the policy of everything, everywhere, all at once. Yet, environmental pollution and degradation are strongly concentrated in the so-called global south, where the vast majority of the world's population lives. The other side will say that most of the carbon emissions happening now collectively come from these developing regions, mainly because they've been rapidly growing economically. Indeed, China and India, along with the U.S., do stand out as the largest emitters today. But they are missing the complete picture. International discussions on climate policy refuse to acknowledge historical realities, especially in a world in which we inherit it today that is built on the history of colonialism, exploitation, and violence. When you flip the data to look at historical carbon emissions, the overwhelming number of what we call the Global North, the U.S., the United Kingdom, nations of the EU, Japan, and Russia. These countries have benefited from the long exploitation of wealth and resources since the Industrial Revolution, and now make up 92% of historic carbon emissions totaled. Yet, regions that are the most vulnerable to the impact of the climate crisis because of the history of subjugation and violence, find themselves today at the receiving end of unequal international climate policy and man-made environmental vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities in Bangladesh, a River Delta nation, is facing different things to what Haiti, an Ireland country, is facing, to what Sudan, a resource-rich country, is currently facing. Historic responsibilities of the climate crisis are constantly neglected, and wealthy nations like the U.S. and the U.K. claim to support sustainable green policies, but too are the same nations that continue to benefit from over-exploitation. The climate crisis didn't begin a few decades ago. The history of colonialism, slavery, and economic extraction, long before the Industrial Revolution, built the unequal world that we live in today, with a vast number of resources and wealth stolen, all concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations. This is not to neglect the current leading emitters of the climate crisis, China, India, and Saudi Arabia. They, too, need to accept responsibility for deepening this crisis. International climate policy today is predicated on interest by superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and Japan through their influence in bureaucratic international bodies, and they fixate on ideas of growth, development, and climate resilience. Yet, how are other nations meant to develop themselves and mitigate climate change to unequal vulnerabilities when the resources they acquire to allow for such growth are concentrated elsewhere? These truths are uncomfortable, but they're necessary. Nine years ago, Shashi Taroor, in this very chamber, addressed reparations to confront the legacies of British colonialism in India, emphasizing the power of acknowledging historical wrongs to heal present-day issues. I invite us to think about Professor Alumi Femi Taroor's call that reparations needs climate justice. Financial reparations are powerful, but reparations must go further to address unequal vulnerabilities. Reparations for the climate crisis must acknowledge other countries' fair share of responsibilities, both historic and contemporary, and empowered capabilities for underserved countries' reparations make sense. Shouldn't those in climate-impacted communities, many of them on the receiving end of institutional discrimination, guide us as architects for a more conscientious future? I will not be accepting any important information. So now, the question becomes, what do we do today to realize the work of climate justice, and see the end of climate policy that is no longer neo-imperialist? The truth is, we need to talk about what's happening in Gaza, in Palestine. Justice is not something that is achieved in a vacuum, and we cannot reimagine international climate policy while first recognizing its wider connection to occupation, land displacement, ecocide, and genocide. And the truth of the matter is, along with the human genocide that we are seeing, the Israeli military is employing environmental warfare to destroy the living conditions and ecosystem of Palestinians. For 17 years, Israel has blocked the entry of fuel and equipment required for sustainable energy sector that powers Gaza's hospitals, schools, and living spaces. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recently reported that nearly all food-related sectors have collapsed from this war. white phosphorus bomb attacks, chemicals illegal under international law, have killed innocent Palestinian civilians and contaminated the agricultural soil for decades to come. Nearly two million people are facing famine, the majority of whom are children. I cannot stress this enough. This famine, this genocide, is not a result of natural disasters or humanitarian crisis. This is the result of a long and violent destruction of the environment by the Israeli government, and funded by a government that I am required to pay taxes to. As I speak here today, almost 35,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed in Gaza, 15,000 of whom are children. When I go to sleep later tonight, after giving the speech, more than 100 children will be killed. I cannot imagine what the children who survive are going through. Especially the maimed children, terrified not knowing if they will live to see another day. So if we want to realize climate justice and a future where international climate policy is no longer neo-imperialist, then an immediate and permanent cease-fire is the first step that we need right now. Yet I don't think that is enough. The Guardian recently reported that 37 million tons of debris from Israel's bombing of Gaza will take decades to remove, causing long-lasting damage to Palestine's ecosystem. So even if a cease-fire is achieved, more civilian deaths and the destruction of the environment will continue until the necessary decade-long regenerative work of transformational justice is implemented for the Palestinian people. Just as we need to do to heal our planet. So if this House votes in opposition to the motion tonight, this House will maintain the status quo of climate policy as it is. The House will be maintaining a system failing to live up to its positional responsibility to our agreed global promise to limit temperature warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This House will be refusing to acknowledge the uncomfortable truths of the unequal impact of the climate crisis and how international climate policy is implicated in reinforcing that inequality. This House will be maintaining a system that is failing and destroying the only home that we've ever had. This House will be failing the innocent civilians, nearly half of whom are children, in Palestine. I trust that this chamber will vote in proposition. Thank you. And cease-fire now.