The labyrinth of eco-imperialism

 

Climate change exists. Our actions on the planet play a significant role in it. Period. Science says so. Not a priest. Those who deny it have never read the abundant available scientific evidence, or worse, have fallen victim to algorithms that, in their effort to keep them connected longer, and knowing their weaknesses better than themselves, sucked them into an endless loop of conspiracy videos on this and other topics.

 

Are we experiencing an existential crisis or a planetary emergency?” I asked Professor Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, during an interview I conducted in my role as Director General of Global Shapers Buenos Aires, the local chapter of the Global Shapers Community in 2022. You can access the interview below.

 

Interview of Facundo Cajén and Natalie Pierce with Klaus Schwab[203]

 

To answer it, let’s quote Johan Rockström. For him, we are living through an existential crisis, which doesn’t mean the entire world will collapse tomorrow or exactly in 10 years. What he points out is that we have entered a critical decade for the future of humanity on the planet. This means we are close to surpassing the point of no return. What does this mean? That the planet will start to be unable to support the modern world as we know it. The emergency factor only comes into play when that risk is affected by the lack of time.

 

Yes, it may take centuries for this to result in more extreme climatic events than those already witnessed, such as ocean waters rising several meters and the emergence of new viruses that refresh our active memory of the pandemic unleashed by COVID-19.

 

Will we condemn future generations to live like this? A problem that Professor Schwab pointed out in the interview is “the fact that we have all become more selfish, and more selfish also means a shorter-term mentality, and I am very concerned about an intergenerational crisis because at this moment there is a tendency in the world to solve problems on the back of the next generation.” In the words of Jane Goodall, it is impressive how, being the most intelligent creatures to have inhabited this planet, we are destroying, at least for now, our only home[204]. We are intellectual, yes, but in many cases, not intelligent.

 

What can happen if we fail to bend the emissions curve during this decade? A healthy rainforest could tragically turn into a savannah if deforestation prevents its trees from recycling water, thus stressing its system. Another great example from Rockström is glaciers. Glaciers have a special characteristic that helps them maintain their solid frozen state, and that is their whiteness, which reflects most of the heat that comes from the sun. However, once they start to melt, they darken, reaching the point of no return because they start absorbing more energy than they can reflect.

 

International treaties that have attempted, and are still attempting, to reverse the current state of the system have not succeeded. Countries can fail to meet targets and even withdraw from these treaties without real repercussions or penalties. It is easy to blame China today for its high emissions. It is easy to side with industrialized countries that now proclaim the need to reduce our emissions. However, as Chandran Nair points out[205], the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country. More than a quarter of all emissions since 1751 were generated by that country, and even with China’s meteoric rise, its per capita emissions are less than half that of an American. This latter point explains the problem of those who benefit from the efforts of other countries without paying the corresponding ticket. How can the United States ask China or India to multiply their efforts in the fight against climate change when Americans, per capita, emit more than their Chinese or Indian counterparts, even when the latter emit more in absolute terms? How can you ask a country to slow down its development, with all the economic and social implications that entails, because of a problem initially caused by another? We cannot change a system at its root, such as the global industrial and energy framework, and expect there to be no new winners and losers. So how are we going to negotiate this?

 

The problem is the lack of real incentives to reduce and eradicate our emissions; otherwise, how do you explain that the fossil fuel industry receives, according to the IMF, 11 million dollars in subsidies per minute[206]? Various experts point out that without a carbon tax, this will never happen. Even so, implementing such a measure is not easy and it’s not popular either. On one hand, this would push inflation in the energy sector, creating new fiscal pressures on countries. Just remember the case of the Yellow Vests in France. In this case, the riots were caused by an increase in the fuel tax, which disproportionately impacted middle and lower-class workers. This demonstrates that addressing the crisis generated by climate change is not easy, as some measures can create immediate unrest in society, even when the cost of doing nothing to solve this crisis is worse than the remedy in the long run. Moreover, this illustrates the disproportionate damage that climate change generates among those who suffer the most and those who originally caused it. This is why no political leader wants to take the real reins of this issue. Is it feasible to imagine that someone in charge of a country for perhaps a four-year presidential term would devote all their energy and the country’s resources to mitigating the effects of climate change, which would take decades and a commitment to global cooperation, instead of solving other problems that society considers more urgent or immediate? Unfortunately, unless we change our mentality on this issue, it is likely that the necessary measures will only be adopted when the planet pushes humanity to the brink of collapse, so political leaders worldwide will no longer fear adopting the necessary measures because society itself will demand it.

 

Click here to read the next chapter 👉 
 


Click here to return to the Index 🔍 


[203] AlphaGo – The Movie | Full award-winning documentary. Youtube. (2020). Viewed on June 15, 2021, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y.

[204] BBVA. (2019). “Tenemos intelecto. ¿Pero somos tan inteligentes?”. Jane Goodall, primatóloga [Video]. Viewed on April 28, 2022, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFEPiyRu3EU&t=192s.

[205] Nair, C. (2021). Net Zero is no solution to climate change. It’s a fantasy for the rich. South China Morning Post. Viewed on November 30, 2021, at https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3154967/net-zero-no-solution-climate-change-its-fantasy-rich-countries.

[206] Carrington, D. (2021). Fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute, IMF finds. The Guardian. Viewed on July 5, 2022, at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds.