Why so much indolence in the face of the climate emergency?

At the same time that the images of Russian troops surrounding Ukraine focus our attention, the United States Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes an important report.

His main conclusion is that, in the next 30 years, sea level off the coast of the United States will rise as much as it did during the entire 20th century.

As a context to this data, it is enough to mention that in those 100 years the sea in the Atlantic coast of the USA rose in level faster than during the previous 2,000 years.

Why is it taking so long for humanity to deal effectively with the crisis that could end civilization as we have known it?

Why do politicians fail to make the necessary decisions to reduce CO₂ emissions, the gas that most contributes to global warming?

A first response is impotence.

What can a normal citizen do to prevent sea level rise?

Or to reduce the droughts, floods and forest fires that are now common?

This is a task for multiple governments acting in a very coordinated manner.

Individuals can do little to contain these climatic accidents, but they can do a lot by bringing to power politicians capable of mobilizing society and obtaining its support for the difficult decisions necessary to contain the climate emergency.

An initiative of such scope does not have many precedents, but with strong political will, massive popular support and new technologies it could become a reality.

Popular support for the fight against global warming is undermined by the sense of powerlessness that citizens are entitled to feel given the size of the problem and the confusion surrounding its solution.

Is the threat as serious as they make it out to be?

Are the proposed solutions the correct ones?

Can you believe the experts?

They are valid questions.

But, in some cases, they only seek to confuse.

Skepticism and confusion about how to deal with the problem are fueled by the politicization of the issue and by the interests that benefit from the current situation.

Two researchers, Doug Koplow and Ronald Steenblik, have just published a study reporting that governments that say they are doing what they can to reduce their CO₂ emissions spend $1.8 trillion ($1.6 trillion) at the same time. ), or 2% of world GDP, in subsidies directed to the most polluting industries: coal, oil, gas and agriculture, for example.

Large companies in these sectors know how to defend themselves against initiatives that threaten their profitability.

decades ago,

the tobacco industry funded “experts” and research centers that questioned a link between tobacco use and cancer.

For years they managed to postpone the acceptance by politicians and governments of this scientifically proven fact.

Tens of thousands of smokers lost their lives in that period.

Oil companies also finance skeptics who question the global climate emergency.

In 2019, ExxonMobil paid $690,000 to eight groups of activists and scientists who deny the crisis.

Oil companies also finance skeptics who question the global climate emergency.

In 2019, ExxonMobil paid $690,000 to eight groups of activists and scientists who deny the crisis.

Oil companies also finance skeptics who question the global climate emergency.

In 2019, ExxonMobil paid $690,000 to eight groups of activists and scientists who deny the crisis.

A difficult obstacle to overcome in the attempt to prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable for us is the lack of intergenerational solidarity.

"I don't care, I'm not going to be there when that crisis comes" is a comment we've all heard.

In fairness, it can be said that this lack of interest in the situation of the planet that our successors will inherit is also fueled by the lack of a clear political consensus about what to do.

The solutions now available such as the elimination of subsidies to highly polluting companies, or the payment of a tax on coal consumption result in increases in the cost of electricity, gasoline, heating, in the prices of manufactured products and much more.

These increased costs are immediate and concrete.

Instead, the benefits promised by solutions to global warming are long-term and no one can guarantee that they will occur.

They are a bet.

This duality between current and tangible costs and benefits that are hypothetical and for the future makes it politically very difficult to adopt the measures required by the climate crisis.

New energy technologies on the way will offer a solution.

But that solution is also going to require major innovations in political technology.

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber