Deadly Bickering
With the rise of technology that ever increases the connectivity of the world, each of our own limited spheres of culture and experiences have become interconnected. We are creatures of inseparable biases, limited worldviews, and many nationalities, all caught in an inescapable web of shared customs, creations, and conflicts. But while many may argue between the economic and social benefits of national and global identities, these debates are merely futile jabbers of a long-lost illusion. If at any point in recent history we possessed the privilege of prioritizing national employment levels or pushing for acceptance of global cultures, those days are no more. Our decades of running coal factories, tearing down forests, driving gas cars, and harmful farming habits, has done irreversible damage to our planet. Now, we have left ourselves with one last choice — change or die. Some may argue that it should be left to each nation individually to solve issues of their own excessive emissions, but the Earth’s climate is not a national issue. The effort to halt our carbon emissions will require that nations forfeit competition with one another and instead work together in a joint effort to save our planet, and thus, to succeed in fighting climate change requires a global mindset.
The competition that necessarily arises from a nationalistic mindset only pushes our planet further in the direction of destruction. For example, let us look at the United States and China, two countries who are both massive economic competitors but also the two leading countries in carbon emissions. The use of coal in Chinese factories, is one of the single greatest sources of harmful emissions. However, these coal factories are also a crucial piece of China’s economy, specifically China’s massive manufacturing industry. Because of the importance of coal factories in China’s economy, any movement away from coal and toward a more eco-friendly production system would not only be incredibly costly, both in the direct financial cost of purchasing and installing new clean energy sources but also through the, at the very least temporary, decrease in the production of goods. However, with China and the United States competing economically, China, if it were to move towards green energy, would essentially forfeit this competition, which any country with a nationalistic mindset like those of China and the United States would never do. Thus, by pushing nations to put their own agenda first, a nationalistic mindset becomes a direct opposition to the fight against climate change.
Furthermore, even if a nation were to break away from a nationalistic mindset and instead focus itself on the global issue of climate change, nationalistic competition would still prove to be a preventative force. For example, if one country were to pass laws regulating the production of beef or raising the standard for waste produced by factories, such efforts would often be for naught. This is because other competing countries will take advantage of the aforementioned countries good deeds, welcoming businesses to partake in their harmful practices in their country. As a result of this, the main benefactor of the first countries actions is not the environment but rather competing nations. Yet again, a globalist approach seems to be the only effective option. For regulations on carbon emissions and sustainability to be truly effective, such regulations need to be universal.
But this global mindset that must be adopted to fight climate change is not a responsibility we can simply expect of our countries or vote for in our elections. No, climate change is as much our own responsibility, because climate change is as much our own fault as it is any government’s. When a company sells oil and gasoline at the expense of our planet or moves a clothing factory overseas to avoid environmental regulations, it is our own actions that drive these decisions. Because when we fill the gas tanks of our cars, or buy clothes built in carbon-heavy, overseas factories, we are demonstrating a demand for environmentally harmful goods. And if we are the ones creating a demand for the destruction of our environment, how can we place the blame upon the companies that merely fulfill our demands? There will always be an excuse, a reason not to do our part, a bigger bad guy to blame, but in the end, it comes down to us.
And yet again, succeeding as individuals fighting climate change requires, we take on a global mindset rather than a nationalistic one. That is because the well-being of our planet must take priority over the well-being of our nation. We have all gone to the store and seen, written proudly on a package the words “made in America” standing proudly next to the red, white, and blue stars and stripes. A strong, trustworthy product made with the hard work of American citizens, eagles crying as we feel a strong sense of patriotism in aisle 12 of Walmart. Such thoughts are at the core of a nationalistic mindset. But when we evaluate the same product with a global mindset, maybe we will instead notice the product next to it that is made with 100% recycled materials or manufactured via renewable energy sources. Nationalism and its economic competition would tell us to spend our money within our country’s economy, but to fight climate change, we must instead focus on spending our money in ways that help the planet, even if that does mean buying products from competing economies. We must change our focus from prioritizing the success of our individual nations to the success of the globe.
The harmful competition of a nationalistic mindset means that to effectively fight climate change, we must adopt a global mindset. The world’s carbon emissions remain at a frighteningly high rate. The International Panel on Climate Change has stated that even limiting climate change to a massive 1.5°C would require a forty-five percent falls in carbon emissions by 2030, and to reach a state of being carbon-emission free by 2050. In a world dominated by energy inequality and still experiencing great demand for new energy growth, such a massive reduction in CO2 is already a formidable challenge. We can no longer allow bickering between countries or our overly patriotic ideals to hinder us. Our planet is dying and our last chance to save it is now.
