By Nageshwar Patnaik in Bhubaneswar, July 17, 2024: Should protecting the environment be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs or economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. Which of them to choose is a vexatious issue?

The earth’s average temperature is repeatedly breaking old records and setting new records relating to temperature rise. Last year was the warmest year and the 10 warmest years in the 174-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2014–2023). To limit the earth’s average temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2050, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2030 after they peak in 2025. Achieving this goal seems unlikely with an agreement to continue producing energy from fossil fuels. So far, the average temperature of the earth has increased by 1.1°C compared to the pre-industrial era.

According to a report by the World Economic Forum, GHG emissions are continuously increasing by 1.5 per cent per year, while according to the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015; they should be reduced by 7 per cent every year from 2019 to 2030. According to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if all countries in the world cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Nationally Determined Contributions as promised, there would be only a 2 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2019.

In the Paris Agreement, countries had agreed that by 2050, the increase in the average temperature of the earth should be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. According to the latest estimates, all countries in the world are falling far short of their pledges made under the agreement. The year 2023 had been the hottest year on record so far, according to temperature records. This year was no exception.

The 28th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP28) held at Dubai last year resulted in an agreement to implement a Loss and Damage Fund, which will direct funding toward countries most vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events, including droughts, flooding, and rising seas. Eighteen countries have now committed to the fund, with $792 million pledged. Though it is a laudable initiative, but the amount collected is too little to compensate for the losses caused by natural disasters in developing countries.

According to United Nations estimates, developing countries will need $300 billion every year by 2030 to cope with natural disasters caused by climate change. The US, the largest emitter of GHG in history, contributed only $17.5 million to the Loss and Damage Fund. In 2009, developed countries pledged $100 billion annually to the Climate Fund to help developing countries, but this amount has never been fully collected and distributed to developing countries.

Meanwhile, the natural disasters caused by environmental degradation are on the rise. Millions of people lose their land and property due to devastating floods, landslides, and cyclones. Thousand die in these disasters. The faceoff between economic development and environmental protection has come to the fore with nations leaving no stone unturned to become industrialised. It is needless to say that development and environmental protection are entwined. But one is the natural polar opposite of the other because a country’s development is dependent on utilising its environment and resources, but environmental protection certainly slows down the rate of development.

India is a classic example of this conundrum. No one will dispute the fact that there is a need for economic growth to promote social progress and improve human living conditions. At the same time, few will disagree that massive environmental harms such as resource scarcity, species extinction, air pollution, soil pollution, and water pollution caused by industrial production directly threaten people’s survival and long-term development.

In developing countries like India, the strain between the right to growth and the right to the environment is particularly visible and conspicuous. Both the right to development and the right to the environment are third-generation rights that are intimately linked to human progress and international peace. There is a de facto clash between the right to development and the right to the environment in developing countries, which has major consequences.

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in our country in the creation and evolution of both the right to development and the right to the environment as both a human and a basic right, in addition to other legislations. The Apex Court has demonstrated judicial inventiveness by establishing a new set of rights into the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights that can be enforced in a court of law. The Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment is one of several rights that have been elevated to the rank of fundamental rights as a result of judicial innovation.

At the same time, the judiciary has also constructed Right to Development as a basic right in its creative role. The right to development places human beings at the centre of development, with the state obligated to ensure that persons benefit from development. Such assertion of rights inevitably raises the issue of governmental compliance.

The old saying that development and environment are mutually exclusive is no longer valid. Sustainable development is the only feasible strategy for eradicating poverty and improving human well-being while remaining within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. Apart from the low per capita income, developing countries have limited access to cutting-edge technology, low human capital, and green investments. Therefore, it is time developed countries work with other developing countries and collaborate to curb climate change by transferring technology, helping the developing nations with green investments and initiatives and supporting R&D and financial aid.