Climate change poses complex coordination challenges. Actions by countries and companies alone are harmless, even if they are costly. If I sacrifice myself and my neighbor does nothing, I have paid a high price, but in the end we will share the same outcome. Even if everyone does their part to curb global warming, there will be no visible effect.
Life will continue as normal and hypothetical disasters that never actually happened will be avoided. It is impossible to pick any one climate disaster and say with certainty that it is a direct result of climate change. But if no one does anything, their frequency will increase, Earth’s climate will become even more inhospitable, and the consequences will be catastrophic.
The goal of reducing emissions so that global temperatures do not rise by more than 1.5 °C will no longer be met. Generally, such situations require the power to impose limits on everyone and punish those who think only of their own short-term interests and do not abide by the limits.
In the absence of a global authority that can punish disobedience, it is up to each country to freely choose whether to comply with NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions). It would be great if I could reach my goal. If it doesn’t hit, nothing will happen. It’s natural to feel dissatisfied with your membership.
And given the hypocrisy surrounding major climate change and the celebrities who participate in it, it would be very tempting for any government to do the same as President Trump. In other words, deny the problem even exists, turn it into a partisan polarizing point, abolish environmental regulations, and achieve short-term population growth.
The presence of California Governor Gavin Newsom has helped to alleviate some of the US government’s absence. But this bad example and this pressure holds back many other stakeholders. Bill Gates’ changing rhetoric on climate issues is part of this process. The presence of international companies in the COP is low. As well as low compliance with sustainability goals by companies.
At a time when nationalism is on the rise, it is not an easy political choice to allocate a portion of the budget to investments that do not bring directly tangible benefits to citizens, but which reduce some of the global effort to spread the benefits. This is different from, for example, the decision to increase investment in military armaments when an aggressive power threatens our borders.
At the very time when Brazil is proposing more ambitious compliance with environmental issues, we are experiencing a general setback. Lula’s speech, which puts Brazil at the forefront of countries that adhere to scientific evidence and do not want to back down in the fight against global warming, could be a way to mobilize leaders who still have this priority.
But to make efforts in Belém sustainable, we need to work with public opinion. Show that environmental issues are of everyone’s interest, that they are not the exclusive preserve of either side of a political conflict, and that everyone can benefit from investing in environmental considerations. If sustainability becomes a topic that captivates the left, it will become an even more distant goal than it has been in the past.
Link exists: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access it for free up to 7 times a day from any link. Click on the blue F below.
About The Author
