Western monopoly of climate science is creating an eco-deficit culture

In 2020, the world buckled underneath the COVID-19 pandemic. But in Vietnam, as in many of the countries worst affected by climate change, COVID was not the only difficulty they saw that year. The country suffered from catastrophic floods in its central region provinces. At least 243 people were reported dead, and the damage was estimated at around US$1.5 billion. While climate scientists were able to predict the typhoon and set mitigatory measures in motion, the storms and landslides destroyed a hydropower plant’s construction site and buried thirteen rescue volunteers. The desolation was a blow to the nation. Vietnam’s long coastline has long left us exposed to such storms. We understand the potential for destruction, so every year, we prepare for typhoon season. However, the warming ocean water has fuelled the typhoons, allowing the intensification rate to increase by around 12 to 15%. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s technologies struggle to mitigate against their worst effects.

Too often during international climate negotiations such as COP26, the effects of climate change are framed by richer countries in the Global North as something that will happen; they are imagined in the future tense. Meanwhile, countries such as Vietnam are facing stronger typhoons happening now and throughout each year. No matter how proactive we are in preparation, typhoons are still devastating, destroying homes and destroying lives. Meanwhile, with enormous resources, Western countries predict how climate change will affect The West, and prepare for mitigating these outcomes in The West. Countries such as the USA and UK have long held a leading global position, from which, when it is perceived as affordable, they assist lesser developed nations. The monopoly of Western climate science does not allow for adequate research into practical measures to help developing countries fight against the present realities of climate change.

In a recent Carbon Brief article, Ayesha Tandon found that only 7.3% of more than 1300 authors from the top 100 most-cited climate papers are from Asia. None of those authors were Vietnamese. When Ayesha showed me her findings and asked for my opinions, I was indifferent. The number was not surprising. Whether we want to admit it or not, the representatives of climate science expertise are mostly from more developed countries. Advanced infrastructure and abundant resources have helped the West to establish its authority over climate issues. Developing countries will often send their best and brightest to receive education from more developed countries, as top experts need both training and global recognition to gather resources to deal with climate change. While training gaps can be addressed by academic migration, scientists from lesser developed countries rarely receive global recognition.

A new article in Climate and Development showed that 78% of the global climate science funding in the 1990-2020 period flowed to European and North American institutions. However, only 3.8% of the funding was spent on Africa-related topics. This is despite the fact that Africa is the continent most vulnerable to climate change, and the continent that has contributed the lowest proportion of historic greenhouse gas emissions: only 3%. Globally, the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021 reported a concentration of climate finance in Europe, North America, and East Asia and Pacific regions. However, the report showed that   around 73% of the global climate finance (roughly US$479 billion) was funded domestically, which indicated that most countries still rely on themselves to fight climate change. Meanwhile, international climate finance increased from US$13 billion in the 2017-2018 period to US$153 billion. However, as the money was spread between many countries, the eventual resources were not significant enough.

In late 2019, my colleagues and I encountered the ‘trilemma of sustainable industrial growth’ in Kitakyushu, Japan – one of the leading green-growth-oriented cities worldwide. Kitakyushu’s response to environmental issues is similar to those seen in Western Europe: advanced technological infrastructure, political interventions, and the employ of top experts. Despite the stringent green growth regulation context and extensive advanced technology    use, many air pollution problems could not be solved due to socio-cultural factors: urban sprawl, rising travel demand, large firms outsourcing production to smaller firms without rigorous inspection and enforcement of emissions criteria. The example of Kitakyushu raises the importance of understanding private sectors’ and residents’ cultures in promoting green development. It indicates that the replication of the Western model might still not be effective in Eastern locales.