How are the government policies contributing to the climate crisis?

In just 2021, the United Nations identified climate change as the ‘biggest threat modern humans have ever faced’.[1] For the past decades, myriad scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating human activity as the direct cause of our suffering planet. Deemed the Anthropocene, the human-led burning of fossil fuels is the largest contributor to the earth’s rising temperature. The burning of the fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas, account for 75% of greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions.[2] The increasing concentration of these gases in our atmosphere trap the sun’s heat, thus causing continuous global warming. Comparing the earth’s temperature at pre-industrial levels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has tracked this rise to have reached approximately 1°C for the first time in 2015.[3] The effect of this has already manifested; in 2015, humans experienced the warmest year in over 10,000 years, including record heat waves in India and Pakistan with temperatures reaching as high as 49°C.[4] Causing over 2,500 deaths, the May heatwave experienced in India was ranked the fifth deadliest in history. [5] These levels, and the effects of such warming, are only set to rise if current activity continues. Therefore, to mitigate the effects of a warming planet, the IPCC has declared a planetary threshold of 1.5°C.[6] If this threshold is overshot, the damage caused to our planet becomes irreversible.

Figure 1:Oxfam, 'Who Is Responsible for Climate Change?' (www.oxfamamerica.org 3 December 2023) <https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/who-is-responsible-for-climate-change/>.

To many, the Paris Agreement enacted in 2016, represented a ‘beacon of hope’ for genuine climate action.[7]Adopted by 196 parties at the UN Climate Change Conference, the Paris Agreement represents an international treaty dedicated to limit global warming to the crucial temperature of 1.5°C. Alongside this, 200 nations endorsed 17 Sustainable Development Goals to reach by 2030, in order to further ensure the achievement of this global climate target.[8]

A decade on from the Agreement’s initial conception, and it appears that minimal progress is being made to achieve these targets. Whilst the Climate Action Tracker has found the global adoption of policies to drop from the 2015 estimate of 3.6 to 2.9°C of warming, it is still clear that not enough is being done by governments to stay within the planet’s crucial threshold.[9] This comes after November 2020, where it was found that of all global net zero policies, only two had been enacted in law.[10] The status of other net zero policies remained as either proposed legislation or under discussion, with some countries recorded as contributing no discussion at all towards reaching their net zero targets.[11] The consequences of this are evident, as the report states that current governmental policies are on a trajectory to cause warming temperatures 0.8°C higher than the Agreement’s target.[12] It is clear therefore, that not enough progress is being made. Concurring with this assertion, Kemp predicts an even more critical scenario whereby the overall trajectory of current greenhouse gas emissions would increase temperatures to between 2.1 to 3.9°C by the end of the century.[13]

   The implications of these trajectories manifesting are dire. It is predicted that a global temperature rise of 2°C would see an additional 29 days of heat and warm spells, with 37% of the world’s population being exposed to at least one heatwave per five years.[14] Furthermore, average rainfall could increase by up to four percent, biodiversity will suffer, crop yield will decline, category 4 and 5 tropical storms would become more common every year, and sea levels will continue to rise.[15] The consequences of failing to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement are immense and the stakes are high; our planet and our home is at risk of extreme destruction. So, if the consequences are so severe, why are these targets not being met and why are governments reluctant to put their net policy goals into action?

Figure 2:  Net zero targets announced by 127 countries worldwide as of November 2020. Compilation based on ECIU (2020) as of 23 November 2020 complemented by CAT analysis.

   A legal investigation into the working of the Paris Agreement Treaty sheds some light on this. Despite the United Nation’s definition of the Paris Agreement as a ‘legally binding international treaty on climate change’,[16] a closer look at the Agreement reveals the phrasing of ‘legally binding’ to translate in rather vague terms. The lack of enforceable conditions within the Treaty seems to arise from the fact that US backing of the treaty was dependent on the nation not being held accountable for their outcomes in relation to climate goals.[17]This spurred policymakers to instead make the treaty’s processes legally binding rather than the condition of meeting the targets set forth.[18] It would therefore appear that the Agreement operates under expectations rather than concrete sanctions.[19] Furthermore, while nations are expected to put forth their plans and targets for decreasing emissions, they have autonomy to revise these targets at any point without facing significant sanctions for doing so.  

   Perhaps the most significant blow to the Agreement, is its lack of economic consequences. Considering that the undertaking of meaningful climate action would induce significant economic disruption for many high emitters, the lack of economic sanctions for failing to meet targets appears a flimsy oversight. Rather, the Agreement relies on political peer pressure, which has shown time and time again to fail when in competition with short term economic gains. This was indeed demonstrated upon Trump’s withdrawal from Obama’s Clean Power Plans. Despite receiving backlash, this action which is detrimental to the climate movement, failed to warrant any significant repeals. [20] Moreover, without fear of facing any severe economic or political penalties, it is unlikely that developed countries will rush to meet their responsibility for funding climate action in developing and underdeveloped states on top of meeting the targets for their own nation.

    This lack of contractual structure within the Agreement thus explains the disappointing progress reported by the Climate Action Tracker. Nations are not moving with enough urgency because the consequences for not doing so fail to warrant this urgency. In this sense, it is useful to perceive the threat of climate change, and ensuing climate inaction, through Rob Nixon’s framework of ‘Slow Violence’.[21] The notion of ‘Slow Violence’ suggests there is a pertinent time lag between the actions we commit now and the direct effects of these actions, which either manifest gradually and out of sight or will not take full effect until years to come.[22] The problem of course, lies in the fact that once these effects take hold, it will be too late. Nevertheless, this concept is useful in highlighting the necessity for governments to be held accountable by short term penalties under the Paris Agreement. With the climate crisis seen as a long-term, and somewhat distant issue by many leaders, governments are more reluctant to make the short term sacrifices necessary to help the crisis. They are even less likely to make these short-term sacrifices if they receive no material consequences for not doing so. In this way, it must be argued that for meaningful change to be incentivised, the damage that will be caused by climate inaction needs to be bought to the present via economic and political legalisations. Until this occurs, governments are not contracted to sign onto a steadfast commitment to achieving their net zero policies in the time necessary.

Figure 3: Christian Yonkers, ‘What Is Climate Change and Why Does It Matter?’ (www.sustain.life) <https://www.sustain.life/blog/why-climate-change-matters>.

      Indeed, it appears that governments are not only failing to meet their goals but are also actively exacerbating the issue of climate change. This is evidenced by recent findings from the International Monetary Fund which revealed that fossil fuels still account for 85% of all global subsidies, even though reducing these subsidies would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28%.[23] Despite the burning of fossil fuels being the largest contributor to climate change, governments are simply not willing to reduce their role in this. Pledges claiming to end fossil fuels subsidies by 2025 have clearly been pushed to the side, as G7 governments have been found to continuously provide at least $100 billion each year supporting the ongoing process of extracting and using oil, gas and coal.[24] On top of continuing investments in ongoing fossil fuel projects, governments have been found to approve new fossil fuel projects since the Paris Agreement. Grossman highlights this, detailing that in 2019, global oil and gas companies had approved $500 billion investments in projects directly undermining the Paris Agreement’s targets.[25]

   The evidence is clear. Our governments are not doing enough. While the Paris Agreement represents an ideal ambition, it’s failure to materialise fully in reality could result in catastrophic consequences for the planet and humankind. Climate change is an imminent threat it is therefore only right that government failure to act upon this issue urgently be met with responses appropriate to the level of damage and harm that is at risk.  It is therefore vital that the terms of the Agreement are revisited, and the treaty becomes ‘legally binding’ in reality as well as on paper.

[1] United Nations, ‘Climate Change “Biggest Threat Modern Humans Have Ever Faced”, World-Renowned Naturalist Tells Security Council, Calls for Greater Global Cooperation | UN Press’ (press.un.org23 February 2021) <https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm>.

[2] United Nations, ‘Causes and Effects of Climate Change’ (United Nations2024) <https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change>.

[3] IPCC, ‘Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 oC’ (2018) <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/>.

[4] Climate Analytics, ‘Global Warming Reaches 1°c above Preindustrial, Warmest in More Than…’ (Climate Analytics24 November 2015) <https://climateanalytics.org/publications/global-warming-reaches-1c-above-preindustrial-warmest-in-more-than-11000-years>.

[5] ibid

[6] IPCC, ‘Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 oC’ (2018) <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/>.

[7] Ross J Salawitch and others, Paris Climate Agreement: Beacon of Hope (Springer International Publishing 2017) <https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-46939-3>.

[8] Moazzem Hossain, Robert Hales and Tapan Sarker, Pathways to a Sustainable Economy (Springer International Publishing 2018) <https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-67702-6>.

[9] Climate Action Tracker, ‘Global Update: Paris Agreement Turning Point | Climate Action Tracker’ (climateactiontracker.org1 December 2020) <https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global-update-paris-agreement-turning-point/>.

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] Luke Kemp and others, ‘Climate Endgame: Exploring Catastrophic Climate Change Scenarios’ (2022) 119 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences <https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119>.

[14] Dr Emily Greenfield, ‘What Does 2° c of Global Warming Looks Like? - Sigma Earth’ (Sigma Earth2 February 2023) <https://sigmaearth.com/what-does-2-c-of-global-warming-looks-like/>.

[15]Dr Emily Greenfield, ‘What Does 2° c of Global Warming Looks Like? - Sigma Earth’ (Sigma Earth2 February 2023) <https://sigmaearth.com/what-does-2-c-of-global-warming-looks-like/>.

[16] UNFCCC, ‘The Paris Agreement’ (United Nations Climate Change) <https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement>.

[17]Lila MacLellan, ‘Is the Paris Agreement Legally Binding?’ (World Economic Forum22 November 2021) <https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/11/paris-climate-agreement-legally-binding/>.

[18] ibid

[19] Moazzem Hossain, Robert Hales and Tapan Sarker, Pathways to a Sustainable Economy (Springer International Publishing 2018) <https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-67702-6>.

[20] ibid

[21] Rob Nixon, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor (Harvard University Press 2011) 1 1–44.

[22] ibid

[23]Clayton Coleman and Emma Dietz, ‘Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI’ (Environmental and Energy Study Institute29 July 2019) <https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs>.

[24] Shelagh Whitley and Leah Worrall, ‘G7 Governments Provide $100 Billion Each Year to Support Oil, Coal and Gas despite Pledging to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies – New Report’ (ODI: Think Change4 June 2018) <https://odi.org/en/press/g7-governments-provide-100-billion-each-year-to-support-oil-coal-and-gas-despite-pledging-to-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-new-report/>

[25] Emily Grossman, ‘Emergency on Planet Earth’ (2020) <https://www.ole.bris.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-8983295-dt-content-rid-52702032_2/xid-52702032_2>.