Climate change brings a complex challenge to coordination. Action taken by each country or company alone, even if costly, is not harmful. If I sacrifice myself and my neighbor does nothing, I will have paid a heavy price, but in the end we will share the same result. Even if everyone did their part and we could limit global warming, it would not generate visible impacts.
Life will go on as usual, and we will have avoided hypothetical disasters that never materialized. Among the climate disasters that are occurring, it is impossible to choose any one and say with certainty that it is a direct result of climate change. But if no one does anything, their frequency will increase, the Earth’s climate will be more severe, and the result will be disastrous.
The goal of reducing emissions so that the Earth’s temperature does not rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius is no longer achieved. In general, such a situation requires an authority that imposes restrictions on everyone and punishes those who do not abide by these restrictions and think only of their short-term gains.
In the absence of a global authority capable of punishing disobedience, it is up to each country to freely choose whether or not to adhere to NDCs. If you hit the target, great. If it doesn’t hit, nothing happens. Not surprisingly, membership left something to be desired.
Given the hypocrisy surrounding major climate events and the celebrities who attend them, it is very tempting for any government to do what Trump did: deny the existence of the problem, turn it into a partisan polarizing point, end environmental restrictions, and achieve short-term growth for its population.
The presence of California Governor Gavin Newsom helps somewhat mitigate the absence of the US government. But this bad example – and this pressure – drags many other actors down. Bill Gates’ change in rhetoric on the climate issue is part of this process. The presence of international companies in the COP is low. Corporate commitment to sustainability goals was also low.
At a time when nationalism is on the rise, allocating part of the budget to investments that will not bring direct tangible benefits to the population, but will constitute a reduction in a global effort with diffuse benefits, is not an easy political choice. Unlike, for example, the decision to invest more in armaments when an aggressive power threatens its borders.
We are witnessing a general setback at a time when Brazil is proposing a more ambitious commitment to the environmental agenda. Lula’s speech, which places Brazil at the forefront of countries that adhere to scientific evidence and do not want to back down in the fight against global warming, may be the means to mobilize those leaders who still enjoy this priority.
But for the commitments made in Belém to be sustainable, it will be necessary to work with public opinion. They showed that the environmental issue concerns everyone, that it is not limited to any party to the political conflict, and that if we invest in caring for the environment, everyone will benefit. If sustainability becomes a captive topic for the left, it will become a more distant goal than it has been so far.
Current link: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue letter F below.
About The Author
