Since climate change is caused by the actions of countries, the problem can only be solved by the cooperation of countries, and setting goals through international tools, and not as was the case in the Paris Agreement, in which each country was given a free hand to set goals, some of which are also not met
By: Ash Murphy, PhD Researcher, International Environmental Governance, University of Keele, UK. Translation: Avi Blizovsky
As part of a section where teenagers turn to environmental experts launched by THE CONVERSATION website, the researcher answers the question: "I'm afraid of climate change and the fact that many adults don't take it seriously - do you think politicians will take action and try to save what we have left?" – Carolina, 15 years old, Santiago de Chile.
Climate change is the most pressing threat humanity has ever faced. Changes in the natural balance of the Earth's atmosphere, caused by human behavior, have a great impact on the environment. Hurricanes are becoming bigger and stronger than before. Floods cover large areas, causing people to lose their homes. The droughts cause crops to wither, which increases hunger. The sea level is rising and one day it will swallow entire countries.
Scientists around the world agree that the effects of climate change will worsen unless we take action now. Of course there are things everyone can do to reduce their impact on the environment, like eating less meat, but in every country big changes are needed to meet this challenge. Which brings us to the excellent question: what are politicians doing to fight climate change?
Since climate change is caused by the actions of states, the problem can only be solved by the cooperation of states - and the best way to do this is through international law. In 2015, political leaders from around the world met in Paris, France to agree on a response to climate change. The result was an international treaty called the Paris Agreement.
Paris Agreement
In the Paris Agreement, leaders decided that it was essential to stop the atmosphere from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To do this, countries need to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, which trap heat and cause warming. So far, it sounds nice.
But there is a problem: the Paris Agreement does not offer direct instructions on what countries should do to reduce their CO₂ emissions. Countries do not have to meet specific targets to reduce their emissions. Instead, the Paris Agreement asks countries to set their own targets, known as "national contributions" (NDC).
The national contributions reflect the best actions of what each country's politicians are willing to do to tackle climate change.
Regarding the questioner, Chile committed to a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2007 levels. But a much stronger goal was to reduce emissions by 30% compared to 1990 levels. Between 1990 and 2016, Chile's emissions increased by 115 % – which shows the country has a bad history of dealing with climate change.
Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. It says it will try to reduce emissions by 28-26% below 2005 levels. But that pledge is not particularly ambitious for a country as rich as it is, and with all the sunlight it gets, the government could invest much more in solar power.
Brazil is home to much of the Amazon rainforest. It promised to restore more than 12-meter hectares of forest, about half the size of Great Britain or about a third the size of Chile. By protecting the CO₂-absorbing forest, Brazil can reduce its emissions by 37%.
it sounds good. But the new Brazilian government elected in 2018 does not intend to honor this commitment. Deforestation to make way for crops and cattle grazing has contributed to the devastating fires that have been occurring in the Amazon in recent months.
The goals declared by the European Union promise to reduce its emissions by about 40%. But because the different states are not required to share reductions equally, some states in the union will make large reductions while others will do very little.
These examples show that politicians in these countries do not take climate change seriously - and they are not alone. Many countries are not doing enough. At the current rate, humanity will continue to warm the Earth to somewhere between 3°C and 5°C, causing severe hurricanes, droughts and floods all over the world.
What can we do?
Climate change must be our top priority. People who can vote in elections should consider voting for parties that promise strong action on climate change. This usually means leaving the major political groups and choosing parties with a specific focus on the environment.
Another option is to support global movements like the Extinction Rebellion. By showing support for groups like these, the public can send a strong message to politicians that they care about the planet and life on it. Some young activists have even been involved in bringing legal challenges against governments that continually ignore their climate obligations.
To do this requires local legal mechanisms that guarantee the shipper the right to a clean environment, and individuals or organizations that can approach the courts, which can be an expensive endeavor. However, a legal challenge can make politicians realize the extent of the passions that go through people.
If we bombard politicians with messages, there is a chance to get them to do better and stop climate change, before the worst effects of global warming become a reality.
https://theconversation.com/will-politicians-take-action-and-try-to-save-the-planet-from-climate-change-122754
Editor's note: The writer did not refer to Israel, but in our case Israel, just like Australia, is a rich and sunny country. It is certainly possible to significantly increase the use of solar energy. Here, too, the decision makers have to overcome the natural tendency of capital and government and ignore the oil and gas lobby. The long-term drought is not from heaven, it is due to our behavior. Earth has its way of charging us for inaction.
For the article in THE CONVERSATION
More of the topic in Hayadan:
3 תגובות
The issue of global warming is definitely a minefield with a lot of emotions, politics, economics and money,
When questions arise about global warming as a natural cycle of nature and what is the contribution of man in this equation, the warming is almost certain (even there there will be those who will argue against it) and should be of great concern to each of us and you don't need the media, you can see it with your eyes on trips around the world glaciers that disappear and To compare the weather to previous years to those of us who have lived enough years (the dead coat in the closet), the question is what is the percentage of human influence, if at all, in the overall picture, this is the more explosive area in the view,
One of the problems you presented in the science of the multi-variable climate, in particular, is that there is no absolute certainty
These are highly probable, in contrast to this putting a paradigm on each side as if it were a cosmological constant (it is also not certain that the constants were always constant) only causes damage to the subject, beyond that the question remains why most climate scientists tend to think that man is a significant part of the acceleration of climate change do they all belong For which political party, are they some herd or are they all based on a false assumption or money and this is also true for the minority of scientists who do not agree about man's influence on the climate, the issue is extremely important and can have enormous effects on humanity and nature and in the case it seems that caution is needed and go with the sides of influence the human with the guiding sentence Better worry(safe) than sorry although every action should come logically and not emotional responses that do not look at the overall picture and may cause more harm than good
Political scientists did not invent global warming. It exists in nature, and it is caused by humans. This is the scientific consensus just like the earth is a sphere.
There are very few who disagree but they offer no coherent theories, just eat me drink me, and check their funding.
So typical! A doctoral student from the Faculty of Social Design states at the beginning of the article that it is clear that climate change is caused by humans. Now go argue with him on his own turf. All social sciences are built this way: you invent a false paradigm and now develop some crazy theory that you cannot argue with because you have to argue on the assumption that the false paradigm is the truth. You haven't started and you've already lost!
"Scientists from all over the world agree..." - What about those who disagree?