Hello.

My name's Miss Ikomi.

I'm a teacher from London, and I'm going to be taking you through today's lesson.

Let's get started.

Today's lesson is called How does climate action affect low income and newly emerging countries? It's part of the wider unit: How effective are the UN and sustainable development goals on promoting sustainability? By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain how climate action impacts low income and newly emerging countries, both positively and negatively.

The keywords we're going to hear in today's lesson include: policy: these are courses of action or goals that people plan to carry out or are in the process of carrying out.

Climate action: these are the efforts taken to combat climate change and its impacts.

And industrialization: this is the process of developing and expanding industries in a particular country or region.

We're going to start by thinking about are the sustainable development goals having an impact? We're going to start by thinking about what the sustainable development goals are.

These development goals were designed to reduce the development gap between high income and low income countries by 2030.

They were created by the United Nations, the UN.

The goals are aimed at bringing peace and prosperity for all people and the planet.

All nations that are in the UN adopted the 17 goals and agreed to contribute by completing them by 2030.

Because we know that most of the countries in the world are members of the UN, this is really important because it shows that this is a collective action on tackling some of these challenges that impact countries all over the world.

The sustainable development goals cover a broad range of policy areas.

For example, we have the idea of no poverty or zero hunger.

These are related to humans and their human rights, but we also have other goals like Climate Action or Life Below Water.

These are linked specifically to the environment, but all of these things ultimately work together.

Let's do a check.

What are the sustainable development goals? Can you give two examples of these? Pause your video and have a go at this now.

Let's check our answers.

The sustainable development goals are designed to reduce the development gap between high income and low income countries in the world.

Examples of the sustainable development goals include goal number 13 on climate action or goal number one, which is no poverty.

Goal number 13 on climate action exists to take urgent action to combat climate change and the ongoing impacts of climate change.

This goal is really important because the Earth is projected to warm by 1.

5 degrees Celsius between 2030 and 2052 and 2.

5 degrees Celsius by 2100.

This is going to affect habitats and ecosystems and will continue to rise sea levels.

These impacts will also have an effect on humans around the world.

The UN has set ambitious policies to meet this climate goal, for example: By enhancing the connection between climate action and other sustainable development goals.

For example, reducing emissions and improving air quality can also lead to better health outcomes as fewer people will develop respiratory issues like asthma.

To strengthen government policies, to monitor things like climate action and what countries are doing to support the sustainable development goals; to expand knowledge and resources to better tackle climate change.

Thinking about what we know and how we can use that to help us in the future.

There have been some positive steps towards meeting the sustainable development goals.

We have more awareness.

The UN's 2023 progress report highlights that global awareness and growing commitments of countries and businesses is happening, particularly when it comes to climate action.

There is more renewable energy.

An International Renewable Energy Agency 2023 report says that renewable energy capacity has been rapidly expanding.

Solar and wind are the fastest growing areas.

We have more international cooperation.

The Paris Agreement, which was signed in 2015, shows that there is international collaboration and commitment.

Lots of countries are getting together to work out climate action policies and committing to taking these on board.

We have innovative solutions.

Advances in technology such as more sustainable agriculture practises and green technologies have impacted to reaching these goals.

Despite these positives, progress towards the sustainable development goals have been slow.

The 2024 progress report indicates that the world is not on track to achieve the sustainable development goals within the time period set.

Izzy's asking, "Why has progress towards these been slow, despite the fact that we've had financial and political support through the UN and the fact that they were agreed upon in 2015?" The reason for this incorporates lots of different factors.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an impact.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also the reversal of policies from some countries.

There are other reasons too, but we are going to focus on these ones.

The height of the COVID-19 pandemic caused lots of economic disruptions to countries around the world.

That meant that lots of countries had to scale back policies that were related to poverty relief and social support.

A UN report found that COVID-19 had a massive impact.

Global poverty increased for the first time since 1998 with nearly 71 million people being pushed into extreme poverty.

Lots of countries reported a rise in domestic violence against women and children.

School closures meant that 90% of students worldwide, that's 1.

57 billion people, were out of school for a prolonged period of time.

All of these had an impact on some of those sustainable development goals.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted in lots of countries increasing investments in oil production.

This slowed efforts to address climate change.

This is because Russia produced approximately 10.

32 million barrels of oil per day in 2024.

That oil would be sold to other countries for use in cars and power plants.

The mining and production of that oil is very bad for the environment.

More countries are looking to exploit their oil reserves, so therefore the industry is having a bigger impact on the environment.

Some countries are looking to import more oil from other countries such as Saudi Arabia.

That means that it has to travel further, so that means we're going to see even more emissions.

The last thing is the fact that some countries have argued that climate action policies disproportionately affect their economies.

That means that they have actually reversed certain policies in favour of cheaper alternatives.

So we've seen a bit of a backward step.

Changes in government leadership since 2015 have influenced the progress of the sustainable development goals.

Some leaders are more sceptical about climate change's impact.

Since January, 2025, Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, began reversing climate change policies, including limiting state-level climate action, and rolling back the net zero emissions target.

Let's do a check.

Which of the following is not a reason why progress towards the sustainable development goals has been slow? Is it A: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, B: the COVID-19 pandemic, or C: the rising level of seas in the last decade? Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is C.

Let's put what we've done so far into practise.

In the box, you can see one of the key factors that explains the slower progress towards the sustainable development goals.

Here we have COVID-19.

I've said the height of the pandemic caused setbacks in economic recovery.

This made it harder for countries to focus on long-term goals like poverty reduction and climate action.

This led to some countries scaling back policies in these areas and therefore slowed progress towards these goals.

I'd like you to add two more factors to the box explaining how it impacted the progress towards these goals.

Pause the video and have a go at this now.

Let's check our answers.

Your completed table of factors might look like this.

You might have identified the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

You might have said: By increasing investments in oil production, countries have moved away from cleaner energy options, slowing down global efforts to tackle climate change.

For your next factor, you might have spoken about government leadership changes.

You might have said that some political leaders, like Donald Trump in the US, have reversed climate policies that were previously aimed at reducing emissions and reaching net zero goals.

This reduces the effectiveness of climate action.

Let's do another check.

Lucas has said, "The sustainable development goals have had some positive impacts, but not enough." I'd like you to evaluate how far you agree with this statement.

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

I asked you to evaluate Lucas's statement.

You might have said: While there have been some positive steps, such as increased global awareness, renewable energy growth, and international cooperation through the Paris Agreement, the sustainable development goals are facing significant challenges and are not currently having the desired impact.

Economic disruptions, political changes and global conflicts have slowed progress and even reversed some key achievements, particularly in the areas of climate action policies and poverty relief.

While there are still efforts being made in some areas, the overall momentum towards achieving the sustainable development goals has been weakened by these setbacks.

Next we're going to think about Is climate action affecting low income countries? Gross national income measures a country's economy based on income earned by citizens and businesses, and the value of goods and services that are produced within those countries.

Low income countries are generally classified as having a gross national income per capita of under $1,145.

A newly emerging country is improving its economy and living standards with growing incomes and expanding industries, but still faces challenges like poverty and limited infrastructure.

Many low income and newly emerging countries are negatively impacted by both climate change and global climate action.

Climate action can be challenging because industries like mining face restrictions due to their environmental impact.

That means that a country that might rely on that could face limited economic growth as that's one of their key industries.

Public spending on climate action might divert resources away from other essential services.

Things like healthcare and education that may not be so established.

Lots of high income countries were able to grow in a period of time where there weren't very many restrictions on fossil fuels.

That means that there's an uneven playing field for lower income and emerging countries who wouldn't necessarily have a developed infrastructure yet.

Mining is a key industry in lots of low income and newly emerging countries.

It plays a crucial role in industrialization and economic development.

For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, cobalt is one of the minerals being mined for, and it's particularly used in high income countries.

Cobalt is a metal that's used in the manufacture of smartphone batteries.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is the world's largest producer of cobalt.

Most of the country's mineral resources are untapped, and they're estimated to be worth $24 trillion.

Countries like the Democratic Republic of of Congo depend on those industries, but those industries have an environmental impact.

This is because there's a lack of resources and infrastructure to power the economy in countries in different ways.

By limiting mining activities in these countries, this is slowing down and hindering industrialization, and that affects the economic growth of these countries that haven't already established those changes.

Some countries, like Ghana, have adopted more sustainable mining practises.

For example, Gold Fields Ghana has implemented water recycling systems to reduce water waste, ensuring that water can be reused by local communities and other industries, such as the agriculture industry.

Additionally, once mining activity is completed, the land is forested to restore natural habitats, so it is possible to have these infrastructure in these ways of doing business that don't always have the most negative impact on the country.

Let's do a check.

Which of the following is an example of a sustainable mining practise? Is it A: the use of waggons which release CO2 into the atmosphere? B: flooding mines with water that is then pumped back into rivers leading to illness, or C: reforestation of land once the mine is depleted? Pause your video and choose your answer.

The correct answer is C.

Climate action is very expensive for governments.

In the UK, research has showed that to reach net zero by 2050, the UK is going to have to spend approximately 50 billion pounds a year.

That's around 2% of the country's GDP.

For lower income countries, that cost can be a much higher percentage of their GDP.

For example, the cost of transitioning to a low carbon economy in these countries could represent a significantly larger share.

That means that it's gonna be an even bigger financial challenge to come up with that money in order to make things more sustainable in the long run.

Aisha's saying, "It would be impossible for a country to spend so much of its economy on climate action." Alex is agreeing.

"If Ghana spent 50 billion pounds on climate action each year, that would leave very little money for running the country.

Things like providing education and health services to their citizens." So we see how both climate change, but also climate action become problematic.

The European Union acknowledges that low-income countries face significant challenges in funding projects to address the impacts of climate change.

In Laos, for example, frequent flooding has caused widespread damage to road and footpaths.

To support the recovery, the European Investment Bank provided 100 million euros to upgrade 1,400 kilometres of roads and paths in rural areas that were most severely affected by the flooding.

So we see collaboration across different countries and organisations to try and support this.

High income countries like the UK and the USA underwent rapid industrialization.

In the late 18th century, the UK transitioned from an agrarian, which was an agriculture-based economy, to an industrialised economy.

This shift led to people moving from rural areas to new towns and cities such as Manchester.

People moved with their families to where the work was, and because of industrialization, this work looked different.

It was in cities.

Cities like Manchester grew rapidly as factories expanded.

Factories were reliant on coal to power the machines and coal-powered steam trains were used to transport goods across the country.

While this generated lots of pollution, it also helped the UK become a global superpower by boosting the wealth and industrial output.

Some low income countries rely on fossil fuels because they're already set up to use them.

Switching takes money and resources.

Climate action encourages countries to cut their carbon emissions by using less fossil fuel and switching to these different, cleaner forms of energy, such as solar or wind.

Although this sounds like a great idea off the bat, it is often very expensive to build those new systems, even if they're cost competitive once they have actually been built.

So actually setting them up can be a big challenge.

Not every country has the same access to renewable options.

For example, landlocked countries might not be able to use offshore wind energy like a coastal country can.

So there are geographic limitations to these things.

Despite climate action promises, the five countries with the highest CO2 emissions in 2025 are still high income nations.

For example, China emits 12,667 million tonnes of CO2.

That's around 32.

8% of the world's emissions.

Japan's at the bottom of the list, but is still taking up 2.

81% of the world emissions.

So we can see a mismatch between countries that are emitting CO2 and contributing to the issue and countries that are impacted by these issues.

Let's do a check.

I'd like you to fill in the blanks in the sentences below.

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

Let's check our answers.

While fossil fuels were traditionally cheaper for countries to industrialise, renewable energy is now becoming less expensive in many places.

The challenge is the high upfront cost of building renewable infrastructure.

Low income countries face a difficult choice; they need energy to industrialise and reduce poverty, but fossil fuel emissions worsen climate change.

Well done if you got those right.

Let's put this into practise.

I'd like you to weigh up the statement that I'm going to read to you.

Consider both the positive and negative impacts of climate action on countries.

"Expecting significant climate action in line with high income countries is unfair to low income and newly emerging countries." I'd like you to provide arguments for and against the statement and use examples we've thought about in today's lesson.

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

I asked you to weigh up arguments for and against the statement: "Expecting significant climate action in line with high income countries is unfair to low income and newly emerging countries." Arguments in support of the statement might have said: Economic strain.

Lots of low income countries rely on fossil fuels due to existing systems. Whilst renewables are now more cost effective, the upfront costs make switching difficult without support.

Geography also plays a role.

Landlocked countries may have fewer renewable options like offshore winds.

There's also the issue of slower industrialization.

Climate action may slow down the industrialization of emerging economies.

Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo rely on industries such as mining, which can be limited due to environmental regulations.

If mining industries are restricted, countries may face economic setbacks slowing their development compared to high income nations industrialised without such restrictions.

Arguments against might include: Long-term benefits: While the cost of climate action are high, the long-term benefits can outweigh the initial investment.

By investing in sustainable infrastructure, countries can reduce future costs from climate disasters, and they therefore have increased resilience.

For example, some countries like Ghana are adopting more sustainable mining techniques to reduce environmental impact while sustaining economic growth.

Also, we have global support.

International organisations like the European Union recognise the challenges faced by low-income nations and offer financial aid and support.

For instance, the European Investment Bank's funding to improve infrastructure in Laos after their frequent flooding.

This showed international efforts to assist vulnerable countries in managing the impacts of climate change.

Today, we have been learning How does climate action affect low income and newly emerging countries? We've learned that the sustainable development goals aim to tackle global challenges like poverty, inequality, and climate change, and reduce the development gap between high and low income countries.

Although there have been positive steps, progress has been slower than expected due to setbacks like the COVID-19 pandemic, political changes and global conflicts.

Low income and newly emerging countries face greater challenges in responding to climate action.

The cost of transitioning to renewable energy and sustainable practises takes up a much larger share of their GDP, slowing industrialization and development.

These countries may be unfairly impacted compared to wealthier nations that industrialised without having to face the same environmental restrictions.

That's the end of today's lesson.

Thank you for joining me.