The big idea: Climate change hits development hard — and unfairly. The clash of development and the environment is one of the defining issues of global politics.
Why it is unfair and hard
- The countries that did least to cause it are often hit hardest
- Cutting emissions can clash with a poor country's need to grow
- Disasters — floods, droughts, storms and heatwaves destroy crops, homes and infrastructure.
- Food & water — shifting rains and rising heat cut harvests and dry up water supplies.
- Health & displacement — disease spreads and people are forced to move as land becomes unliveable.
- Climate justice — the poorest, who emitted least, suffer most.
The development–environment clash: Poor countries face a hard bind between growth and emissions, while rich countries ask them to go green.
Poor countries
- Need to grow — often using cheap fossil fuels — to lift people out of poverty
- Yet growth adds to the emissions that drive climate change
Rich countries
- Built their wealth on fossil fuels
- Now ask poorer ones to go green
The key question: This raises the question at the heart of climate politics: who should pay, and who should cut?
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Climate change is not just an environmental problem — it is a development problem. It can wipe out hard-won gains, and it lands most heavily on the poorest who did least to cause it.
Why climate change is a development crisis
Floods, droughts and storms destroy crops, homes, roads and clinics, pushing people back into poverty; falling harvests and water shortages worsen hunger; and disasters force families to migrate — undoing years of development progress, especially in poorer, more exposed countries.
The fairness problem
The countries hit hardest — small islands, dry regions, poor farming nations — did the least to cause climate change, while the richest, highest-emitting countries are the most protected; this is why 'climate justice' and demands for rich countries to pay for loss and damage are central to the debate.
Case study — the countries who did least, hit hardest: Low-lying island nations and poor farming countries illustrate the injustice starkly.
Poorer, low-emitting countries
- Produce a tiny share of global emissions
- Face rising seas, fiercer storms and failing harvests that threaten their very survival
- Lack the money to protect themselves
Wealthy, high-emitting countries
- Drove climate change
- Can better afford defences
The climate-justice claim: This gap is why poorer countries argue the rich should fund adaptation and pay for loss and damage — the core of the climate-justice claim.
The key point: Climate change is a development crisis that can undo years of progress and hits the poorest hardest — even though they did least to cause it. This makes who should pay and who should cut — the question of climate justice — central to development politics.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
Should poor countries cut emissions or grow first? And who should pay to tackle climate change? Recurring debates that pit development against the environment. Weigh them.
Who should pay? — the climate-justice case
Those who caused most of the emissions and gained most wealth from them — the rich, high-emitting countries — should cut most and help fund poorer countries' clean development, adaptation and loss-and-damage, since the poorest emitted least yet suffer most.
The counter-view
Rich countries argue that future emissions increasingly come from large developing economies, that all must cut to solve a shared problem, and that funding must be affordable — so responsibility, they say, cannot rest on the past alone.
One view: grow first
- Poorer countries should be free to grow first
- The rich should pay and cut, on grounds of climate justice
Another view: everyone must go green now
- Climate change hits development hardest
- Delay is worse
Two perspectives — weigh them: Strong essays judge that fairness points to the rich paying and cutting most while helping poorer countries develop cleanly. So it is not 'grow OR green' but shared, just, green development.
How climate change comes up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether climate change is the greatest barrier to development, or who should bear the cost of tackling it. Weigh the development–environment clash and climate justice, then judge.
The 15-mark markband (what moves you up)
Bands 1–6
Mostly descriptive; perspectives not identified.
avoid
Bands 7–9
Clear knowledge, but perspectives identified, not explored.
7–9
Bands 10–12
Well-supported argument; perspectives explored.
10–12
Bands 13–15
Balanced, compelling; perspectives explored AND evaluated.
13–15
Discuss the view that tackling climate change should take priority over economic growth in developing countries.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Treating it as 'grow OR green'. Reframe as shared, just green development.
2. Ignoring climate justice. Who caused it and who suffers matters.
3. No real case. Use island nations / poor farming countries.
4. Listing climate impacts. Argue who should pay, and why that is contested.
5. No judgement. Conclude on priority and who should pay.