With just six weeks to go for the UN’s climate summit in Copenhagen, there have been a number of accusations by environmentalists that Saudi Arabia is “anti-green”. The latest comes in a report published this month by Lebanese environmentalists claiming that the Kingdom (along with countries such as Kuwait, Algeria and Sudan) is far more concerned about protecting its oil industry than the planet. It stands accused of obstructing negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen, of not taking climate change seriously, and of only joining in the negotiations to protect its economic interests.
The idea that no one else involved in the talks is looking after their economic interests is, of course, absurd. The whole point of the talks is to balance economic needs with environmental ones and come up with a deal that permits sustainable growth while ensuring greenhouse gas cuts. Every country attending Copenhagen, not just Saudi Arabia is looking at how cuts will affect it economically.
Nor is it is true that Saudi Arabia is anti-green. The accusation that it and other Arab countries do not have a defined policy on climate change is spurious because while technically correct, the Kingdom is not a disbeliever in global warming or opposed to cutting carbon emissions. Indeed, there is something distinctly threatening in the accusation, the underlying insinuation being akin to George W. Bush’s now infamous statement after 9/11: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Saudi Arabia is condemned because it does not so far have an environmental policy carved in stone.
The Kingdom may not yet possess a plethora of committed environmental activists who can campaign on the issues. It does not have battalions of scientists who can produce detailed analyses of local environmental problems — and there are certainly issues in the Kingdom that need to be addressed, notably pollution, particularly of water resources. But it is a gross distortion of the truth to claim that it is not interested in the environment or is out to block success at Copenhagen. Quite the opposite. Increasing numbers of projects in the Kingdom are eco-friendly, for example the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. Moreover, the Kingdom has taken an active role in the discussions in the run-up to Copenhagen.
Its commitment to a successor to the Kyoto agreement should not be doubted and is seen in the contributions from its lead negotiator on the issue Mohammad Al Sabban. As to the view that it should be compensated if a climate deal substantially reduces global use of fossil fuels, there is no fundamental difference between that and the demands by developing economies for compensation if they are expected to reduce their growth plans. There is an established principle in law in most countries that if someone takes a course of an action that results in someone else suffering a financial loss, there has to be compensation.
Naturally Saudi Arabia looks to its interests in these talks — but not to the exclusion of concern for the planet. What point is there being rich in a dying world? Saudi Arabia is no less green than anyone else, but it is in the process of working out its ideas — just as most other countries are.
