How prepared is the international community for the climate crisis?
Climate change is arguably the largest challenge we, as mankind, must address and solve; a global threat and therefore requires unification of all global forces to be vindicated. People from all walks of life and organisations of every type will need to concentrate their energies into partaking in initiatives such as decreasing fossil fuel consumption and conserving biodiversity. However, in such a diverse global landscape there lie varying degrees of urgencies and a broad range of priorities. Which raises the question; is the international community prepared enough to tackle climate change?
Some outlooks may conclude that we indeed are prepared for a climate crisis with the growth of anti-fossil fuel norms. Since the turn of the millennium, the threats that climate change pose have become increasingly apparent so consumer, business and government behaviours have responded in various ways; creating global norms that discourage unsustainable consumption. China has the largest population in the world along with the largest carbon footprint by a considerable margin because of their dependence on coal; but to look more legitimate on a global stage they have made efforts in recent decades to diversify their energy mix in huge projects like the Three Gorges Dam, solar panels in the Gobi Desert and in becoming the world’s largest investor in renewable energy. Political incentives to combat the problem are also seen in how more and more of the world’s population are beginning to reside in densely populated cities where less and less jobs depend on non-renewable energy sources like coal mines; and the way election maps are drawn, it is more beneficial for an electoral candidate to suggest policies that don’t align with the growth of fossil fuels. The 2021 WHO Health and Climate Change report states about 77% of 95 countries surveyed have developed or are developing national climate change strategies. Governments are more concerned about creating a sustainable environment than ever before because of growing social pressures — and investment is following suit. More and more money is being pumped into sustainable schemes like Oersted’s wind farm investment on the Cumbrian coast and the proposed no carbon emission HS2 from London to Manchester. Policies are changing and investment and consumption is too, suggesting that perhaps the international community is completely prepared to address climate change and has been for a long time — and that it could be soon that the problem seems a distant memory.
However, as more ambitious investors move toward sustainable projects there is cause for concern in the activity of larger, more dominant corporations. Oil corporation, BP, has pledged to cut emissions from their operations to net zero by 2050 but have faced controversy in accusations that claim the oil giant uses its stake in Russian oil company, Rosneft, and has not called an end to any exploration projects. It is joined by every other major oil company, including Chevron, Exxonmobil and Shell. Anti-fossil fuel groups cannot match these corporations in funding but social pressure can sap legitimacy from these corporations which theoretically should push them toward renewable initiatives but a report by the National Whistleblower Centre claims it really pushes companies to lie to shareholders and resort to illegitimacy and exploiting corruption in government to keep their image and profits simultaneously. An example suggested is former President Trump’s inflamed support for the Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines playing a part in its court success against the Standing Rioux tribe claiming it could contaminate water supplies in Lake Oahe. The private sector is, fittingly, private; so we can never truly know if efforts to address the climate crisis are truly legitimate and if reports of deception ring true. But unification is vital in order for initiatives to be effective in all their power; and if reports are true, can we truly call ourselves prepared if we cannot trust the intentions of the ones with the most power?
Furthermore, the global pandemic has created democratic backsliding across most of the world as authoritarian policies have been put in place to control the pandemic, according to leading pro-democracy groups like IDEA and V-Dem. There is more derogation from non-derogable rights, less legislative oversight and more disinformation campaigns. President Bukele of El Salvador has survived three different rulings against him and ended up purging the judges installing unfavourable rulings. Things like this have been happening across less economically developed countries — allowing less and less legislative scrutiny to be active. This gives governments passes to worry about what they want to worry about; usually about mitigating non-compliance and amping up defence spending like in Myanmar; and not about what they should be worrying about to be prepared to address climate change like phasing out non-renewable energy and making its counterpart more accessible for the masses.
Another, more complex reason why the world is not prepared to address the climate crisis is that it could pose a threat to a traditional way of thought. Mark Fisher’s ‘Capitalist Realism’ theorises that capitalism is the only economic system that we, as a society, are able to conceptualise. Any anti-capitalist ideologies are given to the masses safely through media corporations and the ideologies in question could even be manipulated into nonsensical trend with the purpose that it would diminish its advantages and solid criticisms of capitalism in the public eye. It gives an illusion that the public has influence and can sway large-scale economic decisions when in reality they cannot. Now, although this is a rather extreme way of looking at the current status of the world, it fits with how the public may be beginning to view the climate crisis. It is becoming increasingly evident that the profits and sheer influence of big oil corporations are in trouble; and that the most effective way to launch green initiatives has been through state-led investment. So naturally the question has been raised; is it possible to call ourselves prepared for climate change in a global capitalist economy? Outsourcing of TNCs, global transport links, fossil-fuelled industrialisation of developing countries etc. These processes have all been fuelled by capitalist initiatives and are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. One could say that climate change is reported in the media with a lack of urgency evident in the contrast between the BBC’s frantic coverage of the global pandemic and their nonchalant reporting of climate change. One could also say the protestors like Greta Thunberg who treat the crisis with as much urgency as we should are met with a cartoonish portrayal in the media of a young person too excitable for their own good. It could be argued that we are seeing Mark Fisher’s theory playing out in real time and the climate crisis is yet another thing that will not be appropriately addressed because of the way the world is built.
However, I believe this way of thinking is too radical and that a system change is not entirely necessary to prepare the international community for the climate crisis. If non-renewable forms of energy can be blamed on the capitalist-fuelled industrial revolution; why can a second, green industrial revolution not be started the same way. State-created incentives can guide private companies into sustainable development with the same ideas of rapid production and huge profits. Outsourcing companies into less developed countries who build factories and create jobs for locals with every incentive to join would see it as much more profitable to build a sustainable factory rather than a fossil fuelled one because of global taxations on non-renewable energy — the aforementioned growing global norms have already laid the groundwork for this and seeing as the private sector is responsible for the most greenhouse emissions across the world, logically this could make a huge impact. This just demonstrates there are so many things governments and companies can do to fight climate change and make huge differences, and their motivations definitely have an upward trajectory in general.
Overall, the world currently is not in the best position to successfully combat climate change with minimal side effects. However, the problem is not out of its depth and we certainly possess the tools and innovation to address the climate crisis — but serious steps in unification need to be taken. The average consumer cannot make a huge difference on their own as constant campaigning may suggest if the private sector and accompanying governments cannot make the crisis a top priority. The average consumer may be better off campaigning and making sure their local government and their employers have the environment in mind rather than half hearted attempts to recycle. It is all in their hands.
