Ever since Rachel Carson published her book ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962, we have grown increasingly aware of the damage that mankind has been inflicting on the environment. From the first UN environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972 to the 2018 Katowice climate summit, numerous efforts and proposals have been tried and tested, and yet we are constantly told that we are not doing nearly enough. And so the lingering question remains: why has it proven so intractable to save the environment? The answers are complex and multi-faceted, requiring us to examine this issue at both the global and domestic levels and ranging from practical economic arguments to realistic political factors. Yet, difficult as it seems, we should not lose heart in the belief that through sustained and collective effort, we can certainly arrest – if not reverse – the prevailing trend of environmental decline.
At the global level, a key impediment to international efforts in saving the environment is the long-standing rift between developed and developing countries over which side should bear the greater responsibility to do so. On one hand, developing nations point to the fact that industrialized countries such as the USA, Britain and France should bear the bulk of the responsibility as they were the ones who contributed significantly to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for a long period of time during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. On the other hand, the developed world counter-argues that developing countries such as China, Brazil and India need to bear much responsibility as well because they are the ones currently polluting the environment at a much faster rate due to their rapid industrial development. China, for instance, has overtaken the US as the world’s largest polluter since 2008. While these competing interests of economic development and environmental conservation often come to a head, the truth is that behind the scenes, both developed and developing countries have long come to realize the shared responsibility in saving the planet. A case in point would be China which is discovering that decades of long neglect and polluting of the environment is beginning to endanger its future economic growth. In light of this, China led the world in 2017 with a $54.4bn investment in clean technology – about 40% higher than third-placed America. It has also implemented a cap-and-trade system which will move China towards achieving its Copenhagen commitment to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic growth by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Certainly, these measures demonstrate the optimistic trend that the gulf separating countries in this respect is narrowing, which augurs well for the internationalized fight against environmental degradation.
Another oft-cited reason for why it has been so difficult to save the environment is the purported trade-off between environmental conservation and economic growth. The argument goes that it is impossible to expect the environment to be protected when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to meet the infinite needs of a growing population and as their economies industrialize. In order to save the environment, it is often claimed that there is a need to phase out economically-efficient but environmentally-unfriendly equipment such as coal-powered plants; to increase the energy efficiency of machines; and to treat harmful industrial waste – all of which would entail higher costs of production and are steps that companies and countries have repeatedly demonstrated that they are loath to undertake. Thankfully, this popular but misleading notion that greater environmental protection can only come about by reduced industrial activity and slower economic growth is steadily being challenged by leading voices in this area. People are beginning to recognize that it is unrealistic and ineffective to expect corporations to act against their vested economic interests, and that economic growth can in actuality complement conservation efforts. The bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg penned a powerful article in Newsweek, in which he persuasively argues that helping people to emerge from poverty and promoting economic growth are among the best things we can do for the environment. He makes the persuasive case that it is only by allowing and facilitating disadvantaged communities and countries to get richer that would enable them to satisfy immediate needs – following which can they then afford to start caring about the environment. The economic history of developed nations such as those on the European continent also suggests that when living standards go up, people and societies can afford to reduce their pollution, stop cutting down forests, and stop dying from dirty air and contaminated water. Even in developing nations, good governance and choice policies are proven to be effective in promoting sustainable economic development. In Indonesia, ex-President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s developmental policy was characterised as being ‘pro-poor, pro-job creation, pro-growth and pro-environment’. This strategy heralded a period of strong economic growth amounting to 5.9% annually, even as Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 26%. This suggests that technocrats have moved away from believing that economic development and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive. Hopefully, this shift in thinking would gradually remove the bugbear that saving the environment involves huge economic sacrifices, and move us towards implementing policies that are able to accommodate both aspects crucial for our sustainable growth and well-being.
In a similar vein, a change in mindsets concerning green technology is also underway which bodes well for the future of environmental preservation. Until recently, much faith has been placed in costly climate-change solutions such as solar panels, biofuels and carbon capture technology. Yet, these examples of green technology have not proven to be the panacea that they are touted to be. As long as wind turbines and solar panels remain more expensive than fossil fuels while working only intermittently, they will never be the solution to our energy woes. As of 2016, Germany, the world’s largest per capita consumer of solar energy, produces just 6.6% percent of its energy. And to achieve this number one status, the country has invested $130 billion in return for $12 billion worth of energy. The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the end of the century? Just 23 hours. Similarly, biofuel production is now consuming 40 percent of the US corn harvest, even though it supplies only 4 percent of the transport fuel used in America. Around the world, the turn to biofuel crops is resulting in higher food prices – and hence increased hunger. It is estimated that if the European Union were to derive 10 percent of their transport fuels from biofuels, the price of food could increase astronomically by 76% or deprive an additional 600 million people of food. Indeed, the prevalent belief in green technology to save our earth has proven disappointing and constitutes yet another reason for explaining why it has been so difficult to save the environment. But this should not lead us to despair as there is now a growing consensus that we should divert some of the attention and resources on green initiatives to producing solutions for more obvious and needy problems, which would hopefully generate positive knock-on effects for the environment. World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. The World Research Institute has also incorporated an open-source online forest monitoring and alert system which depends on data contribution from users on the ground to investigate forest health and deter illegal logging. Poco a poco, these small steps which are dependent on mass collaboration and effort have had a transformative effect on the way in which we tackle the effect of anthropogenic activities on the environment.
Turning to the domestic level, a crucial aspect to understanding why it is so difficult to save the environment is local politics, and the lack of political will on a local level. In the United States, the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, politicians often ride into office on a ticket sponsored by large corporations with considerable vested interests. Corporatism is literally entrenched in the American constitution and in its politics. Profit-seeking corporations often hope that the politicians they endorse will implement policies that allow them to make more profits, and politicians are thus beholden to their powerful backers. As such, politicians are unlikely to implement policies that can help the environment but which may hurt businesses, for fear of offending their corporate sponsors and ruining their political careers. For instance, it is well-known that many Washington politicians have links to ‘Big Oil’ – influential companies dealing in oil and energy. During his first month in office, President George W. Bush appointed Vice-President Dick Cheney to head a task force charged with developing the country’s energy policy. The group – which conducted its meetings in secret – relied on the recommendations of Big Oil behemoths Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP America and Chevron. It would be the first of many moves to come during the Bush administration that would position oil and gas companies well ahead of other energy interests with billions of dollars in subsidies and tax cuts – payback for an industry with strong ties to the administration and plenty of money to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns. However, the good news is that in many countries, ‘green parties’, which are political parties who campaign on the platform of environmental conservation are slowly but steadily gaining popularity and votes among the electorate who is also becoming more well-informed about environmental issues thanks to greater media attention and coverage. Millennial politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have proposed drastic measures like the Green New Deal, suggesting a paradigm shift towards greater political will to solve pertinent environmental issues
In the final analysis, while history has shown us that the obstacles to saving our planet are real and formidable, recent changes in mindsets, policies and practices provide us with hope that they are not insurmountable. In time to come, the optimist in me believes that these hurdles can be removed as we work towards a cooperative yet realistic stance on saving our environment both at the international and local levels.