A few weeks ago, I was having a class discussion regarding climate change with my peers. My classmates gazed at the whiteboard with a vague sense of disinterest and apathy— scrawled in black marker upon the board’s expanse was written the conversation prompter, ‘Discuss progress in terms of seeking solutions to climate change.’ The conversation was slow and halting: one girl gazed upon the board and said hesitantly, “Well, I guess we’ve made progress in the sense that more people are informed about climate change and governments are beginning to implement new policies.” More faint nodding.
Another classmate's hand skyrocketed up, slicing through the twittering in the classroom. The teacher nodded, indicating for him to speak. “Yeah, but government policies don’t really do anything, do they? I mean, it's just politicians dithering,” he said confidently. “I mean, let’s face it, we’re all kind of screwed at the end of the day.”
The class roared with agreement and laughter—not only reacting to his brash use of language in front of the teacher, but also because the sentiment resonated on some deeper level.
That is, the sentiment that nothing we do in the climate crisis fight has any true and lasting effect.
The Data
The conversation around climate change and its solutions is not an easy one: it is often imbued with a sense of dread, gloom, and vertiginous anxiety. This has the potential to leave us feeling increasingly helpless with each new climate event that populates the news. This presents a psychological dilemma with existential consequences—at its very worst, resulting in a complete sense of denial or even apathy towards the climate crisis. This is further complicated by the fact that there has been no shortage of climate activism over the last few decades. However, when it comes down to ticking off and disregarding the ill-intentioned, ineffective, and empty promises of a climate policy, progress in terms of addressing the climate crisis starts to take on a muddled appearance.
To figure out the question of so-called ‘progress’, scientists at Climate Action Tracker, a research group, regularly evaluate and scrutinise all the climate and energy policies enacted worldwide. They then estimate the effect of these policies on future greenhouse gas emissions and then calculate how much of a temperature increase the world can expect.
Figure 2 from (https://climateactiontracker.org)
The data presents an answer of mixed results, offering reason “for both hope and alarm.”
Niklas Hohne, a German researcher in the field of climate policy and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, affirms “There has been a genuine shift over the past decades.” Hohne references several reasons for this change, namely the Paris Climate Agreement where 195 countries were required to submit plans—though voluntary—for curbing emissions. And while the plans were imperfect, they helped spur new and essential actions: The European Union sought to significantly reduce industrial emissions, China and India started to increase their reliance on renewable energies, Egypt has scaled back its subsidies for fossil fuels, and Indonesia has begun cracking down on illegal deforestation.
“You can say that the progress has been slow, that it’s not enough, and I agree with all of that,” Hohne says. “But we do see real movement.”
This sentiment is reflected in the picture painted by the Climate Action Tracker data: last year, in 2021, newly implemented climate policies put the world on track for approximately 2.9ºC of temperature increase by 2100 compared to pre-industrial ages. This is by no means a sign to throw up our hands and rejoice; a warming of nearly 3 degrees will likely entail nightmarish consequences, with climate scientists suggesting it may trigger a tipping point in the climate system spelling out unrelenting sea-level rise. However, when the figure of 2.9 degrees is placed in context next to the previous estimate of 4 degrees the Climate Action Tracker plotted as recently as 2014, it shows us that our collective actions do hold real gravity, which gives us hope.
The path towards climate policy has not been a linear one, but on the whole, countries and governments are being forced to arrive at an awakening. But whether these new pledges and promises will fully materialise or if they solely exist on paper remains the essential question. To arrive at some semblance of an answer we look to examine the pledged climate policy of today, as of 2022.
Climate Policy Around the World Today
Figure 3 from (https://www.ecomatcher.com/the-cop26-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-conference-of-the-parties/)
Glasgow—The international climate summit occurring late last year with 197 countries convenning to finalise ambitious agreements to tackle global warming. For its part, the US attempted to proclaim its re-entrance to the climate discussion table, bringing optimistic promises of slashing pollution in half by 2030, quadrupling international aid, and helping less economically stable countries adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. However, just days following the pledge, the Biden administration attempted to hold the biggest oil and gas lease sale in existing American history. Fortunately, environmental groups sued, dubbing the controversial sale a “huge climate bomb.” With the growing political pressure, the Biden administration has promised to re-examine and introduce new policy addressing the country’s oil and gas leasing program to better account for its contribution to climate change.
As Brettney Hardy, the senior attorney of Earthjustice (a leading environmental group) reiterates, “We are pleased that the court invalidated the lease sale. We simply cannot continue to make investments in the fossil fuel industry to the peril of our communities and increasingly warming planet.”
New promises have also been made elsewhere on the globe—notably amidst the rich and colourful ecology of the Great Barrier Reef, home to more than 1,500 fish species, over 400 kinds of hard corals, and dozens of other aquatic species.
In a letter published last July, 13 public figures—scientists, journalists, and former politicians—wrote about the dire state of the coral reef, claiming “The climate emergency is already evident in the Great Barrier Reef.” These environmentalists cite global warming as the catalyst for “three severe coral bleaching events” leading to mass coral mortality. The bottom line? The Reef is in danger and it is time to act.
In response to the growing political pressure, the Australian government pledged 1 billion Australian dollars ($700 million) to protect the Great Barrier Reef. This happened days before the February 1st deadline to deliver a comprehensive report to the World Heritage Centre in Paris, outlining the health of the reef and what was done to build its resistance in a time of rapid deterioration. Some $579.9m of the $1bn pledge would go to water quality projects, with the next largest slice—$252.9m—for reef management and conservation. Another $92.7m is for research and adaptation and $74.4m would go to community and traditional owner-led projects, such as habitat restoration and species protection.
However, a number of academic experts have criticised the plan, claiming that it is nonsensical as it fails on multiple fronts to address carbon emissions—the direct cause of many of the reef’s ecological problems.
Elsewhere in the world, the new year tracks the redoubling of efforts on faster and bigger emission cuts. Governments will be expected to push ahead on phasing out their monetary backing for fossil fuels at home and in developing nations after agreeing at COP26 to end—though without a deadline—"inefficient" subsidies for oil, gas and coal. Key countries (including China, Japan and South Korea) that have financed fossil fuel and non-renewable activities beyond their borders pledged in 2021 to end new overseas coal funding, while a group of donor states made a similar commitment for all fossil fuels.
As Inger Anderson, executive director of the U.N. environmental program puts it, "2022 is all about shifting into what the (U.N.) Secretary General has called 'emergency mode.’"
Emergency Mode
With the growing severity of climate change we are supposed to exist in a sort of “emergency mode,” fully conscious of the imminent threat of the climate crisis, and government policy is supposed to reflect this. And it's true that policy is shifting—however, the awakening is not nearly enough. Out of the Glasgow summit countries have made bold pledges—many of which are not yet backed by concrete policy. There can also be some backsliding on these pledges.
However, if there is one thing that examining climate policy around the world has proven, it is that political pressure and collective action from the people is crucial in generating sustainable change and holding governments accountable for their promises.
There is a very narrow path forward for our planet and it is one we must all take part in.
Works Cited:
Comentarios