Opinion
The imperative of responsibility
Almost four months before 20 nations signed an agreement to be coal free by 2030 at the climate summit held in Bonn Germany, Donald J Trump, the president of the United States promised his support group that he would provide ‘clean coal’ jobs.Sandesh Ghimire
Almost four months before 20 nations signed an agreement to be coal free by 2030 at the climate summit held in Bonn Germany, Donald J Trump, the president of the United States promised his support group that he would provide ‘clean coal’ jobs. Trump’s promise to his constituency also came with a threat of disengaging the US from the Paris Climate Accord. At the recently concluded summit, the US became another hiccup as the country’s delegates ostensively advocated for coal use and nuclear energy. Many international news agency satirically claimed that the US delegates were as good as “advocating for cigarettes at a cancer summit.”
The reluctance of a major power house to work towards mitigating what could be the biggest crisis of humanity is a setback that has upset many who are seeking climate justice. However, this did not deter several national representatives from around the world (including Fiji, which presided over the summit) from releasing statements that the recently concluded Conference of Parties (COP 23) was a resounding success.
These declarations of success can mainly be attributed to the commitment of several nations to be coal free, an initiative dubbed ‘Powering Past Coal’. This commitment to produce coal free energy could help limit the annual temperature rise to under 2 degrees Celsius. A number of organisations that work for climate safety have speculated that this deal could create a framework around which policies and plans to combat the risks of climate change could be built.
However, several factors could hinder the success of the ‘Powering Past Coal’ coalition. Out of some 200 countries, only 20 have agreed to join the deal, and countries like India and China, who are among the biggest producers of coal based energy have yet to make commitments to reduce, and subsequently remove, the use of coal.
It is also being argued that the United Kingdom and Canada proposed the coal free deal, not out of an inherent concern for the environment, but as a veil to gather political forces against the American president. Especially given the fact that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol (the international climate agreement that preceded the Paris Climate Accord) in 2012 and has increased investment in setting up oil pipelines, thus giving rise to suspicions that Canada does not, infact, have a vested interest in ensuring the success of the deal. Further, the countries that have already joined the coalition will not have to substantially change their energy infrastructure to become coal free.
Thirdly, a clear environment friendly alternative energy source that also meets the rising energy demands is not yet available. As a consequence, countries like India that are aiming to become economic forces to reckon with in the 21st century are shifting to nuclear based energy to fulfil their growing needs. The dumping of nuclear waste poses a regular threat to the environment, and if a nuclear disaster occurs, the devastation may be worse than the havoc wrought by Chernobyl in 1986.
Combating the problems of global warming and climate change requires unified global action, but the substantial number of climate deniers and the age old habit of conducting an economic cost-benefit analysis for all actions has meant that growing environmental concerns have been drowned out by economic talk. Sceptical politicians and business people have to be convinced of the financial benefits of adopting environment-friendly energy sources.
Many people in power want to favour activities that boost the economy in the short term, but inevitably damage the environment over a long period of time. Trump is a prime example of such a leader.
Perhaps this lack of concern regarding the need of future generations stems from the fact that, in the history of mankind, there has not yet been a need to concern oneself about anything beyond the need of one’s immediate lineage. This climate crisis threatens the life of people that have yet to exist. To phraphrase Hans Jonas, our moral system is not yet equipped with the framework to ensure the rights of people who have yet to exist.
Combatting the unprecedented problem of climate change will require radical solutions. ‘Powering Past Coal’ is a start, but long term solutions are required. For this, there has to be a proper revaluation of our economic and technological goals, which will start once the ethical framework is expanded. For that to happen, there has to be dialogue between all sectors of society. How this can be achieved is still an unanswered question.
- Ghimire is a journalist associated with the Kathmandu Post