Readjusting the Focus of Our Climate Movements

One would hope that a threat as apparent as climate change would be free from divided opinions, as a cause that everyone could get united behind. However, the unfortunate reality is that much like everything else today, climate change has also fallen victim to the current zeitgeist of excessive politicisation. As it finds its place at the forefront of polarising partisan political conversations, climate change has also found itself entangled in the web of national protectionism that the increasingly competitive world has spun.

The recent surge of nationalism across the world has led to a more inward-looking approach to environmental issues, ostensibly keeping the local considerations at the forefront of policies that are often to the detriment of the environment. Take Brazil for example, where leaders claim that they can do as they please with the Amazon and need not listen to the rest of the world. While a majority of the Amazon rainforest may theoretically fall on Brazilian soil; the impact of its deforestation does not limit itself to Brazil. The international community did voice their concerns and outrage, but in the majority of the protests against the government and legal battles, activists in Brazil were left to fend for themselves.

When discussing climate politics the focus needs to shift from domestic politics to a more globalised approach. This means that in the fight against climate change it’s time for international politics and frameworks to take the forefront, and activism must focus its attention on targetting international reforms.

This is not to discount the history and existence of international treaties. However, the efficacy of these treaties is a cause of concern. A majority of international environmental treaties are non-binding on member states, and others are simply ineffective. This is exactly why the focus needs to shift on pushing towards the creation of stronger international frameworks and treaties that can ensure stricter compliance.

The microcosmic approach to tackling climate change cannot work for much longer. Nature has scant respect for the imaginary political demarcations of our maps. As temperatures progressively begin to rise and weather patterns get disrupted, actions in Norway for instance are as relevant to a Norwegian citizen as they are to someone in the Maldives. As things stand, the onus of protecting the environment is left to individual states, allowing for other factors like economic growth and competition with neighbouring states to play an important role in the determination of environmental policies. When climate action is predicated on this individuated approach, incentives to make a substantial change can be hindered by the fear of falling behind economically. With no real repercussions for noncompliance with the existing treaties, there is little apart from morals and conscience that keeps states from overstepping their limits.

Binding international treaties, that are universally applied, are potentially an extremely effective measure in the fight against climate change. While there is indeed a case to be made for treaties to be differentially applied based on supposed levels of development,

there is a countervailing viewpoint that rejects the notion of pollution as a requisite for development. But this is just one possible solution to help keep nations accountable on the global stage, and there is an endless number of other solutions that can be proposed. Largescale protests and groups that transcend borders need to push for more international action against states that do not comply with global standards or otherwise simply do not act against climate change, for this is a cause that can truly be achieved internationally collaborative efforts alone.

Current climate movements seem to be limited to raising concerns and voicing dissent, and this dissent is important, there are no two ways about it. The conversation around climate change has to continue. Global movements that began to rise right before the pandemic hit, worked wonders in lighting a new spark for the dying flame that was the conversation around global warming. But these movements in themselves did little that was tangible, and rather simply lent support to other individuated groups that were left to carry out much of the work. Once again, this support is necessary but simply isn’t enough given the size of the platform and the gravity of the threats we face. Sweeping and immediate change is the need of the hour and this cannot be achieved by winning national battles while ignoring the larger war. For every successful stride made in one country, destructive activities are being overlooked in another. More concrete demands need to be made, and we must demand that a mechanism to ensure that every nation acts to ensure an end to climate change is put in place.

Simply put, it’s important to keep pushing national governments to act on climate change. But there lacks true accountability of the international community and disjointed efforts aren’t sufficient. Movements and activists across the world have the numbers, the solidarity, and the perfect platform to set in motion an international revolution that ensures a better tomorrow – all that is left is to act.