January Opinion Article
Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
In light of the 2019 efforts to raise awareness of the climate emergency, are the current political commitments made in response both sufficient and realistic?
Amid a growing awareness of a climate emergency, political commitments have not been sufficient in addressing the rate of environmental deterioration, rendering them largely toothless in practice. Having been the hottest decade on record, it could be argued that climate change has transitioned from a mild concern to heated panic. With movements such as the Global Climate Strike and Extinction Rebellion championing climate activism, 1,330 governments have been pressed to pass binding motions to declare a climate emergency and the EU have pledged to eliminate greenhouse gases by 2050. However, despite some sweeping political commitments, there is concern that targets set are insufficient and in some cases, unattainable.
A prime example of these failed political commitments can be shown in Australia. Political responses to the Australian bushfire crisis, which has destroyed 2 million hectares, taken at least 27 lives, and killed or injured around 1 billion animals, have been criticised as largely a political campaign in the wake of upcoming elections. Furthermore, these responses have been criticised as weak, particularly as the Australian government not only ignored warning from chief firefighters of the possibility of crisis-level bushfires last April, but refused to acknowledge connection between climate change and the fires until mid-December. As a country that pledged to reduce climate emissions from 2005 levels by 26-28% by 2030 in the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN now predicts that emission levels by 2030 will be well above target. Despite this, the government continues to claim that it will be on track to achieve these goals. The ignorance of previous pledges can also be seen in the country’s failure to attend a UN climate summit in September and withdrawal from an international climate change fund. It is hoped that forthcoming responses to the most recent developments of the bushfire crisis will propel the Australian government into proposing sufficient and realistic political commitments to tackle climate change.
In 2019, the UK government has taken action to try and tackle the climate emergency by creating a target to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. This is a great target to aim for, which could significantly reduce the UK’s contribution to the climate crisis. However, the efforts to reach this goal have been insufficient and have meant that the UK is not on track to meet its fourth and fifth carbon budgets, according to the MP report ‘Clean Growth: Technologies for meeting the UK’s emissions reduction targets’. It is argued that large changes in lifestyles would be necessary to allow the UK to meet these targets. This would include eating less meat and dairy, having fewer cars, taking fewer flights and abandoning gas boilers at home. Especially when considering the UK’s recent departure from the EU and the conservative government’s priorities, it seems unlikely that implementing policies to change so many lifestyle habits will come to fruition.
