Nature with its resources is a necessary condition for people’s lives. Throughout the centuries-old history, the environment has ensured the vital activity of mankind and provided opportunities for further sustainable development, which implies meeting the needs of the population living at the present time, without harming subsequent generations. Difficulties appeared in the second half of the twentieth century as a result, on the one hand, of a qualitatively different scale of environmental impact, on the other – of the growing interdependence and globalization of the world, when events and actions in one part of the globe increasingly began to influence what is happening in other regions, and interstate borders turned out to be transparent for the consequences of anthropogenic activity.
One of the most critical challenges of the present day is climate change. When evidence of environmental collapse mounts, it becomes obvious that extreme action is required to avert disaster (Harvey, 2022). Nonetheless, contemporary communities have several challenges in combating the harmful impacts of climate change (Zimonjic, 2018). While public opinion and spending patterns play a part in increasing climate change, the foundation of the problem is capitalism’s economic structure, which promotes growth and profit over ecology and well-being. Using material from several publications, this essay will demonstrate how political agenda negatively influences the degradation of natural systems by distracting the policymakers from action.
One of the significant challenges modern societies have in combating the harmful impacts of climate change is the political agenda, which obscures the more comprehensive picture. For example, Monbiot (2022, para. 30) contends that the attention on plastic and waste in environmental issues is mainly driven by companies and the media, distracting from the broader issue of agricultural and sewage creating water contamination: “… A recent survey of public beliefs about river pollution found that “litter and plastic” was by far the biggest cause people named. The biggest source of water pollution is farming, followed by sewage.” This quote echoes my belief that we must address the underlying causes of climate change rather than merely the symptoms. This quotation also emphasizes the need to comprehend the complete breadth of environmental challenges rather than just those most evident in our everyday lives.
The other piece of evidence is found in the paper by Damian Carrington (2022, para. 6), which states: “Governments need to start tackling head-on how to do this in a fair and equitable way, which will require overcoming opposition from fossil fuel interests.” This quotation emphasizes the need of government assistance in overcoming such opposition. This phrase, in my opinion, underscores the necessity of political will in addressing climate change and the need for a transition toward more sustainable activities. However, the corporate agenda has prevented policymakers from taking effective action against climate change, and people need to demand structural change in the economic and political systems to address this issue.
In the late 1960s and early 1980s, environmental issues were put on the political agenda, because due to the economic damage that continued to be inflicted on nature, the further sustainable development of mankind was in question (Harvey, 2022). By this time, environmental pollution in a number of regions had reached a threshold level, in other words, a critical state, when various species of flora and fauna and even entire ecological systems were threatened with extinction. However, there are still disputes about how great the environmental danger is. Some researchers and politicians proceed from the fact that although the problem exists, however, it is greatly exaggerated, and the limits of human economic activity are far from being exhausted (Carrington, 2022). Both approaches to environmental issues – optimistic and pessimistic – are based not only on some factual material. They also build their assessments based on certain theoretical views, including about human nature, the possibilities and expediency of cooperation, etc.
At the same time, both optimists and pessimists agree that the economic development of the world entails a number of undesirable consequences (Harvey, 2022). However, if the former who are represented mainly by those who adhere to neoliberal views believe that humanity is able to cope with environmental problems using, among other things, modern achievements of science and technology, as well as various forms of international cooperation, the latter are very skeptical.
Pessimists, among whom there are many realists, as well as representatives of environmental trends, but there are also neoliberals, proceed from the fact that international institutions will not be able to cope with the problem. They claim that since the national interests of states and the economic needs of individual corporations will always be stronger than the abstract interests of the common good (Harvey, 2022). Nevertheless, the search for solutions to the problem is underway, and despite the pessimistic forecasts, the number of international agreements on environmental protection is increasing, and states, including countries of the global south, which are especially experiencing economic difficulties when creating various treatment facilities, are paying more and more attention to ecology.
Researchers dealing with environmental issues also differ depending on what they see as the main reason for the aggravation of environmental issues at the end of the twentieth century. Some authors, for example Carrington, tend mainly to explain the difficulties by population growth and, as a consequence, by increased consumption and increased economic activity, which are at the limit of the planet’s capabilities (2022). Others focus more on the political component, which they see as an aggravation of the problem, or vice versa – ways to solve it.
The environmental sphere occupies an increasingly important place on the international agenda, but gaps in the implementation of environmental policy put it at a disadvantage. They do not allow to take advantage of a number of competitive advantages. Environmental problems are becoming one of the priority issues of international relations along with international security and economic development. However, since the 1990s, environmental policy has been perceived as a burden, and sometimes as a threat to economic development (Monbiot, 2021). Experts have identified the main risks that countries face due to the lack of activity of their environmental policy.
The economic risks are most obvious: decarbonization reduces the demand for fossil fuels. In addition, there are significant risks of loss of business competitiveness in conditions when the use of green technologies and a low carbon footprint become an important competitive advantage. Foreign policy risks are associated with another likely blow to the image of the country, which will be actively represented as an environmentally irresponsible state (Zimonjic, 2018). The internal political risks lie in the likely intensification of public discontent and protest moods due to the aggravation of social problems associated with environmental degradation.
It is environmental policy that can become unifying for society and political elites. Environmental policy should not copy the agenda of other countries neither in terms of priorities, nor in terms of instruments. Efforts to improve people’s health and quality of life, renew the economy and use natural potential in solving environmental problems to strengthen foreign policy authority should be at the center.
References
Carrington, D. (2022). Shut down fossil fuel production sites early to avoid climate chaos, says study. The Guardian. Web.
Harvey, F. (2022). Carbon dioxide will have to be removed from air to achieve 1.5C, says report. The Guardian. Web.
Monbiot, G. (2021). Capitalism is killing the planet: It’s time to stop buying into our own destruction. The Guardian. Web.
Zimonjic, P. (2018). Nearly a third of Canadians don’t believe humans, industry ‘mostly’ cause climate change: Poll. CBC News. Web.