There is a widespread view that climate change is solely an “environmental issue” – the latter often used as a blanket phrase to cover a multitude of supposedly fringe issues of no consequence to more mainstream concerns.
This leads to an increasing number of wrongly held perceptions. The most dangerous of such misconceptions is that environmental issues have no direct bearing on daily bread-and-butter matters. Attitudes on the environment are slowly beginning to change, yet in terms of policy, such concerns still have to be better integrated into all areas of policy. This need can be acutely felt in the domestic context.
Present policies seem to attempt to create a compromise between economic growth and environmental protection. Such environmental policies are implemented on the proviso that competitiveness is not diminished and that employment levels are sustained.
This compromise is a rather unhappy one. Environmental degradation is on the rise while the models adopted for trade and economic growth are intrinsically unsustainable. The two sides remain at loggerheads. These factors will necessitate some radical changes in the not-so-distant future.
The livelihood of communities is being threatened by extremes in weather
The UN Climate Summit held last month touched upon a number of issues. Held at the insistence of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the summit brought together political leaders, business leaders and activists. It is meant to be a precursor to a “meaningful global agreement” expected for the year 2015.
Some pledges are particularly significant. The European Union pledged to cut emissions by 80 per cent to 95 per cent by the year 2050. President Obama signed an executive order on “Climate-Resilient International Development” with the aim of factoring in climate resilience in its development programmes and investment.
This executive order acknowledges that climate change threatens to “roll back decades of progress in reducing poverty and improving economic growth in vulnerable countries” while increasing the risk of “intra-national and international conflict over resources.”
Several countries have made pledges to reduce their emissions and invest in alternate sources of energy. Some have also pledged to provide financial support for the Green Climate Fund – a fund aimed to assist developing countries in implementing practices to counter the effects of climate change.
It is difficult to succinctly summarise the enormity of the challenge at hand. The summit, although positive, falls short of the radical approach which is needed in order to tackle this problem in the long term.
A cursory look at trends in international security over the past century shows that major changes in the international order often resulted in a more complex security milieu; the end of the Cold War saw an increase in security threats from non-state actors such as terrorist organisations, human smugglers and international organised crime.
Climate change too is a serious threat. It endangers the very existence of several states. A number of islands in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific Ocean are particularly vulnerable to its effects
Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, Fiji, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Maldives are greatly concerned about rising sea levels; some are actively searching to purchase large areas of land in the event that the entire nation has to relocate. If predictions prove to be correct, these measures are not merely speculative but necessary.
The livelihood of other communities is being threatened by extremes in weather. Drought or flooding is leading to the displacement of a number of people; migration due to issues of climate is set to increase in the coming decades. Extremes in weather have also led to fluctuations in global food prices. Such increases led to widespread rioting in 2007 and 2008.
The seasonal opening up of parts of the Arctic Ocean may increase tensions in the region. The Arctic Ocean may become a sea of opportunity; additional sea routes may open up and the possibility for resource exploration and exploitation is likely to increase. Change cannot simply be brought about by altering the political structures. Any efforts which the international community might wish to pursue are hindered by an economic model which remains carbon-reliant.
The ground-breaking studies spearheaded by Nicholas Stern challenge our understanding of the link between economic growth and climate change. Lord Stern argues that choosing between the two is a “false dilemma”; rather, moving away from a high-carbon model can generate more economic growth.
He makes the case that it will be far more cost effective to tackle environmental degradation and climate change as a matter of urgency rather than to deal with their effects in the future.
In a video message to the Climate Change summit, Prince Charles echoed such thoughts and emphasised that the need for concrete action is now critical. He describes such measures as being “the only rational choice” since they are “neither inherently bad for business nor against economic interests.”
There are still some who deny that climate change is brought about by human activity. Regardless of the view one holds, one cannot deny that a concrete and timely response is needed. In the words of the Prince of Wales: “There is simply too much at stake.”
andre.deb@gmail.com