How the whole world has effectively bottled effective climate change action
Share This Article:
Climate change, one of the key fundamental issues of not just my generation but the ones immediately before mine and likely after mine, is being ignored and not taken seriously enough.
By anyone. The issue has become a victim of the bi-partisanship of geopolitics. This is something that everyone in the world must work together on. But they're not because, you know, the left hates the right, the right hates the left, everyone hates the
If climate change is not acted upon, then quite frankly, we would have such a drastic change on this planet, that it could cause unprecedented destruction. Rising sea levels will affect ecosystems, the melting ice caps destroying the home of polar bears and the like. Rising sea levels will see low-lying nations such as The Netherlands and Kiribati become lost to the sea. An increase in temperature will affect crop growth, malaria could return to Central Europe. Famines and extreme weather will increase. But, instead of coming together to tackle this issue, the international community seems to be at a loss to do enough. The Paris Agreement was met with positive reports around the world - but when it comes to it, it quite simply does not do enough. A report from Bloomberg and another from Nature (the science journal who published Watson and Crick's DNA model and the Dolly the sheep experiment) have both said that the current targets won't be enough to limit a temperature increase of two degrees, which scientists have stated is the point in which things will really drastically deteriorate.
At that point, temperatures will be out of the range previously experienced throughout human history. This will trigger the most extreme effects. Reports have shown there will be a 5% chance that the target will be met by 2100. Several countries are struggling to keep their targets - and there's no punishment for failure to do so. Let's be honest "name and shame" is pretty meaningless on the diplomatic playing field. The Paris Agreement really doesn't begin to do enough to address the issue. And now, let's look at the major players. Climate change is such an important issue, it would make sense to have a government department focused on that? Well, Theresa May closed down the Department of Energy and Climate Change and moved it into a Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy. Greg Clark, the minister with the portfolio, Clark had supported targets to cut greenhouse emissions in the past.
- Article continues below...
- More stories you may like...
- Why everyone should Boycott the Grand National
- Are we too quick to cancel?
- 'I signed up to be stem-cell donor and this is why I think you should do the same'
All this seems to suggest that the British Government have sidelined responsible climate change action. They may have signed up to lead an attempt to remove the reliance on coal with Canada, they want to phase out coal use by 2030. But Canada, Justin Trudeau hasn't been a friend to the planet.
He backed Donald Trump on the building of both Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines as well as approving two crude pipeline projects. A true environmentalist would never dream of doing such a move. The oil transported by these pipes, when burnt would cause massive greenhouse emissions. The effect on the economy has to be considered, but of course, if there's no planet, there will be no economy, and the mess created in future generations could lead to financial Armageddon and economic ruin. People prefer renewables because they're cheaper. There's no conspiracy, here. If you genuinely possess the view that people use oil because they're evil, ask yourself, does that really make sense? Are people really going to spend more just to screw people over? Do you really have such a low view of human beings? As a result, government policy needs to focus on reducing the price of non-renewables and making renewables viable. This may result in a short-term loss, but, that may be what we need, someone to be honest to voters and explain, that this may be a price worth paying. Looking back, Thatcher's moves to close the mines and pits have probably been a significant step in reducing the carbon footprint in the country. Trump may want to keep coal industries running, he may have to, to help his appeal to blue-collar voters. But coal in the US is on its' last legs, it's time for something new. Former US Vice-President Al Gore has received awards for his work on climate change, he too, needs to practice what he preaches. His home uses 21 times the energy of a typical American home. His solar panels account for just 5.7% of the energy consumption, with the majority derived from NES, which uses coal and natural gases. There are also countless stories of politicians and celebrities using private jets that emit massive carbon dioxide despite the warning of the dangers of that. With these anti-global warming statements, I welcome them, of course, I do. But, I am yet to see a major effort from the international community that will be able to tackle the problem properly. Until then, it's going to worrying to see what happens, we need proper targets, that are ambitious and realistic. We need proper investment in renewables and away from non-renewables. Most of all, we need people who are willing to lead by example, which I am not seeing.
You might also like...
People who read this also read...
CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MONTH