Environmental Challenges and Climate Change XVI.III - February 2020
1
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Dear Readers, It is often said that the 2010’s was the decade we finally woke up to climate change and the many environmental challenges that threaten the future existence of life on earth. The 2020’s will be a crucial decade for determining whether we can enact significant change, or whether we continue on our current trajectory. The Observer’s “Environmental Challenges and Climate Change” shines light on the multifaceted challenges that the earth faces as a result of human action and what the future holds. We begin with our “Sustainability and Depletion of Natural Resources” section. Tonia Teodora begins by discussing the impacts that fast fashion has on water pollution, textile waste and the exploitation of workers. Rosemary Wilson discusses how our consumerist mentality of constantly seeking the newest phone model is leading to the depletion of precious resources, which in turn has detrimental effects on the environment and human health. In the context of the wildfires in Australia, Rhianna Hamilton looks at the unsustainable use of aquifers in Australia, and Mohit Mann also analyzes water insecurity and the challenges that this may pose to our world moving forward. Annie Seeley then takes a look at how developing countries balancing economic growth with being environmentally friendly need not necessitate a zero-sum game, and Iona Cleave looks at how the illusion of cheap meat is driving deforestation and environmental degradation in the Amazon. Oliver Munn concludes the section by reminding us not to forget the importance of oil in Alberta for the growth of the Canadian economy-at least for the time being. In our second section, “Climate Change and Health,” we have two writers analyze the health effects that climate change can have, a topic of discussion that is sometimes overlooked. Vruksha Vakeeswaran takes a look at how climate change has impacted global health more generally, and Cassandra Van Drunen analyzes how climate change is responsible for an upsurge in allergies, which has detrimental health and financial impacts. In our third section, “Philosophical and Theoretical Approaches to the Climate Crisis,” many writers take theoretical and philosophical approaches to climate change, and discuss how we should frame the problems that we face. From a Hobbesian perspective, Owen Wong examines how a world government is required to regulate climate change, otherwise everybody will solely look out for their own interests. Noor Yassein looks at how an over-emphasis on individual action in the fight against climate change 2
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
obscures the fact that it is largely a corporate issue. This is followed by Ethan Mitchell framing the climate crisis within a global system of exploitation and domination. Angela Feng concludes the section by looking at how an Indigenous way of looking at earth and all things in it as having agency can help us to protect and cherish it. We conclude the issue with our final section, “Topics in Environmental Security, Regulation and Policy.” Libby Graham analyzes the threat to human security that rising ocean levels pose, and Claire Parsons writes a letter to earth discussing how corporate greed, and the failure of government to enact protective policy, has failed her. Bibi Imre-Millei discusses the need to reconsider how fast we are to deploy military as a response to climate disasters, and Arianne Petch concludes the issue by looking at how UN climate discussions have been dominated by the North and have made little progress due to political deadlock. I hope this issue allows readers to think critically about some of the most important challenges we face as we take ease ourselves into a new decade. The environmental challenges and the climate crisis we face involve more than meets the eye, and writers have worked hard to shine light on some of the most pressing issues humans and the earth face in order to give an in-depth understanding of the environmental crisis. Thank you again to our wonderful team and to our readers! If you have any questions or concerns, or are interested in writing for The Observer, please do not hesitate to contact us at contact@theobserver/qiaa.org, or follow us on Facebook(The Observer - Queen’s University) or Instagram(theobserver.qiaa). Happy reading! Sincerely,
Jacob Ahearn Editor-in-Chief Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2020
3
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
MEET THE TEAM Print Editorial Team Bibi Imre-Millei - Assistant Editor - Masters In Political Studies Libby Graham - Assistant Editor -- 3rd Year History Major and Global Development Minor Angela Feng - Assistant Editor - 4th Year Global Development and Environmental Studies Ethan Mitchell -Assistant Editor - 4th Year Politics Daer Ding - Layout and Design Editor - 3rd Year Film and Media Studies
Writing Team Arianne Petch
Vruksha Vakeeswaran
Mohit Mann
Tonia Teodoro
Claire Parsons
Cassandra Van Drunen
Owen Wong
Rhianna Hamilton
Global Development Major and Politics Minor
4th Year Biology
4th Year Politics and History (McGill)
4th Year Politics
2nd Year Politics
2nd Year Life Sciences
2nd Year Politics and Economics
Politics Major and Global Development Minor
Iona Cleave
Noor Yassein
3rd Year Human Geography
Politics Major and English Minor
Rosemary Wilson
Annie Seeley
4th Year History Major and Classics Minor
3rd Year Economics and Philosophy
Oliver Munn
2nd Year Politics and Economics
4
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
T a b l e o f Contents
06 Sustainability and the Depletion of Natural Resources 07
#OOTD: Are Fast Fashion Choices Destoring the Earth Tonia Teodoro
09
How your Smartphone is a Small Goldmine Rosemary Wison
11
Off the Deep End: Analzying the Risks of Australian Groundwater Use Rhianna Hamilton
14
Living in the Age of Water Insecurity: One of the Greatest Challenges of Our TIme
“Amazon Burning” - The illusion of Cheap Meat Iona Cleave
The Pertinence Fossil Fuels Still
Carbon Emissions and Economic Development: Options for the Developing World Annie Seeley
5
21
Play Oliver Munn
23 Climate Change and Health Climate Change: The Greatest
24
Global Health Threat Vruksha Vakeeswaran Climate Change is Why Your’re Sneezing More and Here’s Why Cassandra Van Drunen
Mohit Mann 17
19
28 Philosophical and Theoretical Approaches to the Climate Crisis
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
26
T a b l e o f Contents 30
32
Environmental Regulation: A philo-
It’s not you.... and it’s not me
sophical Perspective
either
Owen Wong
Claire Parsons
41
The Weigh of the World on Our Shoulders: How Our Culture of Indi-
The Greatest Enemy: Deploying
vidualism Hinders the Fight Aginst the
Militaries to Fight Climate Disaster
Cimate Crisis
Bibi Imre-Millei
43
Noor Yassein 33
A World Worth Saving: Reconquering A Just Future Ethan Mitchell
33
UN Climate Talks Dictated by the Self- Interested Global North
Environmental Personhood: THe Solution to Water Conservation? Angela Feng
37 Topics in Environmental Security, Regulation and Policy 39
Sinking Lands, Rising Voices Libby Graham
6
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Arianne Petch
45
Sustainability and the Depletion of Natural Resources
7
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
#OOTD: Are Fast Fashion Choices Destroying the Earth? By: Tonia Teodoro Although fast fashion is a cheaper alternative to haute couture fashion brands, it comes with a higher price tag. The cost of fast fashion may take less out of your pockets, but it certainly leaves a stain on the environment. However, haute couture fashion brands just as often resort to the same unsustainable practices that hurt the environment. They mark prices up even higher and use the same techniques for production. The difference lies in the life of the clothing; expensive clothing items are not as often recycled due to their perceived value. Although their quality may be slightly better, higher fashion brands should not be equated with environmental friendliness. Fast fashion is an industry with goals of high speed and low costs in order to deliver the newest trends that are seen on celebrities and on the runway, at a significantly lower quality and price. The pressure of having a different #OOTD or “outfit of the day” encourages overconsumption and constant trendiness. The pressure to improve production and speed leads to the cutting of environmental corners. Cut corners usu8
ally come in the form of water pollution, and increasing levels of textile waste, not to mention the abuse and exploitation of workers which abounds in these factory environments. The appeal of vibrant colours, prints and fabrics are unknowingly achieved with the use of toxic chemicals. Globally, the second largest polluter of clean water is textile dying, after agriculture. Although many countries have banned or highly restricted the use of certain chemicals in the production of clothing from these companies, there is still damage being done. Clothing companies often cut corners and avoid following these rules by relocating their factories to locations where those same rules do not apply. According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s report titled “Putting the Brakes on Fast Fashion,” the industry produces twenty percent of global wastewater and ten percent of global carbon emissions, which exceeds the amount produced by all international flights and maritime shipping.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
The dyeing of textiles, being the second largest global water polluter, uses approximately two thousand gallons of water to produce a piece of clothing comparable to a pair of jeans. In order to produce one cotton shirt, it takes approximately seven hundred gallons of water, which equates to enough water for one person to drink at least eight cups per day for over three years.
up to eighty five percent of textiles make it into landfills each year. It is imperative to note that not only is the fashion industry a large polluter of the planet, but it also serves as one of the planets’ largest contributors to modern day slavery. Our trend-focused obsession with fashion creates grave consequences for those producing and manufacturing the clothing that we are purchasing. Not enough attention, thought or awareness is brought to this subject. As consumers of fast fashion, we do not see the person who fabricated the clothes. We are distanced from the realities of what truly goes into the fabrication of the product. Despite popular belief, the garment manufacturing process still remains, for the most part, human powered. The workers in this industry are often obligated to work in poor conditions while earning a non-livable wage. It has been reported that brands such as Forever 21, Missguided and Urban Outfitters do not pay their workers a living wage and have little to no environmental policies. This is not to exclude luxury brands such as Dior, who is extremely secretive with their workers’ wages and its supply chain, and Burberry, who have been known to destroy unsold merchandise.
In fashion, the most commonly used type of fabric is polyester. Polyester, when washed in domestic washing machines, shed plastic microfibers that eventually can pass through sewage and wastewater plants, adding to the increasing levels of plastic in our oceans. These plastics do not biodegrade and therefore represent a harmful threat to wildlife. Microfibers are consumed by smaller creatures, making their way up the food chain to larger fish, which are then eaten by larger animals and humans. Washing these clothes can release anywhere up to five hundred thousand tons of microfibers into the ocean each year, which is the equivalent of fifty billion plastic bottles. The production of polyester releases two to three times more carbon emissions than cot- In order to ensure the survival of the planton, and it is unable to break down in the ocean. et, we, as consumers, need to radically alter our patterns of consumption and demand. Although An unintended consequence of fast fash- some apparel companies are cutting back on ion is the high production of textile waste. With textile pollution and promoting more sustainable the ever-changing trends emerging from so- methods of growing cotton, this is not enough. cial media, an abundance of clothes are being In March 2019, the United Nations launched the bought and disposed of. Consumers are buying Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, which will aid in over sixty percent more garments in 2014 than coordinating efforts across fashion agencies in they were in 2000, and keep them for half the order to lessen the harm of the industry. It is unreamount of time. Fashion companies are doubling alistic to expect shoppers to discontinue buying and tripling their annual fashion collections, with new clothing, but it is important to recycle used European companies averaging two collections and unwanted clothing and to shop from retailper annum in 2000 to five collections in 2011. ers that follow sustainable environmental pracMedium to low quality fashion brands such as tices. By utilizing more sustainable methods of Zara and H&M put out anywhere from twelve to shopping and being on trend, slowly and clothtwenty-four collections per year, and much of this ing piece by clothing piece, we might be able to clothing is disposed of. According to the United see a difference in the future of the planet and Nations Environment Programme, every second, the impact that the fashion industry will have on the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles the global carbon emissions and environment as is landfilled and burned. If this continues, by the a entirety. year 2050, the fashion industry will have used up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. In total, 9
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
We live in a fast paced world, where the latest technology is heavily marketed to consumers before it all to quickly fades into the shadows of obscurity. One of the best examples of this is the smartphone. Every year something slightly better is released that has just enough improvements (no matter how small) to replace its predecessor. It has become a custom in our society to always get the next best thing, to the extent that we can barely remember what number the iPhone Apple is on. Is it the iPhone 10? 11? This rather wasteful pattern is an exploitation of consumerist mentalities by bigger companies, which hold little accountability for the environmental destruction that these attitudes lead to. It might be time to take a pause and ask questions like ”where does my phone come from?” and “what does it take to produce it?” Sustainability has increasingly become a priority for many, and luckily there are multiple solutions for taking care of our planet and still keeping our phones. That is, as long as both individuals and bigger companies start taking some responsibility.
How your Smartphone is a Small Goldmine
What does it take to create a smartphone?
By Rosemary Wilson
The process of actually creating a smartphone is very intricate and requires many nonrenewable resources from our planet. In your phone is a compacted plethora of materials, including 0.034g of gold and 0.34g of silver. However, your phone also encloses rare earth metals, such as yttrium, lanthanum, terbium, neodymium, gadolinium and praseodymium. It is strange to think that a metal can become endangered, but this list of elements are indeed becoming scarce due to their location in the Earth’s crust.
of this chemical solution is called tailings, which cause erosion and releases toxins into wastewater. It is especially worrisome that the Jibu mine is located next to the largest river in the Jiangxi Province called the Ganjiang, which is now becoming full of sediment produced by these tailings. Not only does this hinder the environment itself by preventing regrowth and poisoning wildlife, it is actually quite harmful for the local human populations since they are then consumLet’s focus on a large example found in ing these trace elements through crops which China, specifically the Jibu mine from the Jiangxi absorb this waste water. Such consumption can Province. Ganzhou, the area the mine is in, is lead to various cancers since these heavy metals also known as the “Kingdom of Rare Earth,” and are all considered carcinogens. according to an article by Jie Yang accounts for 40% of rare earth deposits in the country. All this effort into making a phone The mining process at Jibu is quite toxic, for it’s not just topsoil that is removed, but chemicals such as sodium chloride and ammonium sulfate are also leached into the soil in order to properly extract various metals. The byproduct 10
is rather anti-climatic, for such devices are replaced annually. To put it into perspective, phones are being replaced at such a fast rate that it is estimated that about 10 million are scrapped in the EU alone.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
These numbers are all related to the consumerist pattern that large companies promote through the release of newer device models every year. The marketing that goes behind any new product is to make it seem better than ever before, and stresses the importance of not falling behind your peers by being burdened with old technology. Some electronics are even produced with the intention of breaking after a limited amount of time, forcing you to go out and purchase a replacement.
Here are some solutions Now, I’m not saying you should discard your phone and invest in a landline. One easy solution is to stick with your current phone, even as newer models are released annually. As simple as this option is, however, we cannot expect the entire world to follow, as our economy is built upon the grind of marketing and consumerism. This is where the second option comes in, which is the implementation of specialized recycling plants. This is a way to help divert all the waste build up that would further release toxins into the environment. When your phone gets thrown out it becomes e-waste, and can get exported to China where workers, including children, try to break apart the phones to gather the resources inside. This further contributes to pollution, for the materials of the phone can break down in the soil and rivers, causing further health problems for local residents. In order to end this wasteful cycle, materialist scientist Veena Sahajwalla came up with the idea in 2016 to make small recycling stations in every community called “micro-factories,” where phones can be safely disassembled and the valuable materials, like rare earth metals, can be retrieved while anything harmful can be incinerated.
Why big companies should be held accountable
vent people from replacing broken parts with those of other devices, and forces consumers to otherwise unnecessarily buy new phones. Bigger companies, like Apple, need to start supporting these innovative ideas of recycling, and stop creating needless waste by making it more difficult to reuse the important components that make up phones. I think that a large incentive to achieve sustainability will be realized once these resources become scarcer, leaving big companies no other choice but to start recycling, and to start building the electronics to last longer. It is complicated because a large company is not like an individual, and so it does not feel the same guilt about the environment. Being sustainable hinders financial intake. A CEO may care about the environment, but overall a company’s priority is to constantly generate income. Moving forward, the only way a company will become more mindful of the environment is if they are held accountable, and the public begins demanding more sustainable methods of production. By avoiding the cyclical nature of consumerism, we all can make a big difference just by being more appreciative of the technology we already have, which would force these companies to change tactics, and start investing in sustainability and recycling plants in order to regain public appeal. The only way to send our message is if a company’s finances are compromised. If we keep buying every new phone that comes out however, we are only feeding into this unhealthy supply and demand. The fact that resources such as rare earth metals are becoming endangered is a sign that companies should start changing priorities, for eventually we will run out, and the people and environment surrounding the mines will be completely spent. As for us consumers, hopefully a new appreciation has been inspired, for our phones are more than disposable rectangles of plastic. They are truly microcosmic goldmines.
Such an innovation would certainly help reduce the amount of waste and the scarcity of these rare earth metals. Yet, as phones are evolving, it is becoming harder to detach screens so that the materials can be taken out. This is to preISSUE XVI.III 11 the observer
Off the Deep End: Analyzing the Risks of Australian Groundwater Use By: Rhianna Hamilton Australia has had a difficult relationship with climate change, ranging from species loss to the exacerbation of devastating bushfires. Such issues are only made worse by government inaction and the shifting of blame onto other actors. However, while it is clear that addressing these issues is difficult, politicians must make an effort to use scientific consensus to draft effective environmental policy. Within Australia there are a variety of environmental and ecological concerns, but I would like to focus on a less obvious but more immediate one: groundwater. I will argue that Australia must immediately form a proactive plan in conjunction with scientific consensus on groundwater. I will demonstrate this by discussing key problems with Australian groundwater in relation to the bushfires, discuss the disproportionate impact this will have on rural Australia, and conclude with policy recommendations. Groundwater is a valuable resource relied upon for urbanization, agriculture, and industry. It is pulled from underground aquifers and 12
generally becomes overused when freshwater resources at surface level diminish. The water yields that come from aquifers vary based on factors like salt content, depth, and ecosystem reliance. Regardless of how large aquifer yields are, there are still valid concerns about the sustainability of public reliance on this resource. Natural aquifers take between a year and a millenia to fully replenish depending on region and depth. This is especially unfortunate when taking into account that Australian groundwater use is estimated to have doubled from the 1980’s, and is only rising. As rainfall levels diminish, the availability of surface-level freshwater will drop with it. As such, groundwater will be of increasing value and it is essential that the Australian government and public understand and address this as a crisis. The Australian bushfires have shed light on how climate change can exacerbate irregular weather patterns and make their impacts widespread and detrimental. This phenomenon is especially obvious in the context of water use.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
The bushfires mean that surface level water is becoming increasingly undrinkable due to factors like ash and animal carcass contamination, soil erosion, and infrastructure damage. These problems aggravate water issues, such as the availability present prior to the fires. For example, Perth projects a water supply gap of 70 gigalitres a year in their city alone. Furthermore, 30 percent of Australia’s groundwater is too high in salinity to use, making this situation potentially more dangerous than expected. Despite the drought and hot temperature, water restrictions have not been enforced regularly, leaving many regions vulnerable. From a policy perspective this is damning. Only a small fraction of groundwater use is actually measured, meaning governments do not know how much water is actually being used and where from. Given how long it takes for aquifers to replenish, this is extremely risky.
13
It is important to understand that the state of freshwater availability is shaky and groundwater acts as a final safeguard. However, current consumption levels reflect a society that sees its water as limitless. This is deeply flawed and will only cause more problems if not immediately addressed. Regions that are poor, rural, or Indigenous will suffer from water scarcity earlier and in more extreme ways than those in affluent areas. This is due to unequal resource allocation, lack of access to public services (such as inconsistent freshwater), and the prevailing power dynamics that ignore poor regions when allocating funding. Furthermore, urban centres like Perth and Victoria are based around prosperous water basins. This means that they are in a safer posi-
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
a cap on unnecessary water use for things like automatic garden-watering systems, overwatering agriculture, and reliance on water in mining. Addressing these issues would not only benefit freshwater availability but would also positively reduce the impacts of emissions for other environmental sectors. There should be attempts to promote community gardens and small scale agriculture, the implementation of more effective technology to preserve water, attempts to remodel lawns to be natural gardens rather than pristine grass, and reduction of reliance on mining as an energy resource.
tion and less likely to run out of a water supply than their rural counterparts. Due to higher economic and ecological prosperity, these urban regions can afford more effective water cycling systems and are centred around innovation institutes that promote sustainable infrastructure. In comparison, rural Australia has less access to freshwater and lacks the political resources of knowledge, infrastructure, and funding, on top of their pre-existing disadvantage. The high salinity content of aquifers, reduction in rainfall, and poorer infrastructure means these regions will likely face more difficulty in coming years. At present, prosperous cities are not well prepared to handle water scarcity, but poorer and more rural areas are completely unequipped.
In addition to this, attempts must be made to recognize scientific innovation, which will facilitate social movement to water sources other than aquifers and surface water. Such a system change involves ensuring water systems are cyclical to ensure that water use can be repurposed and filtered. Perth has made impressive strides in this region through investing in water reuse systems focused around grey and brown water. Additionally, investment in desalination technology would facilitate better use of aquifers and act as an emergency back up. Lastly, it is of utmost importance that the government puts effort into monitoring water use to better understand what sectors need to be targeted and what long term plans need to be made. This is especially true in vulnerable areas. Putting these steps in place will be a good start to address upcoming water scarcity in Australia.
To address this, the government must work to enact system-wide changes. This means reducing water-use drastically. At present, it is very rare that water restrictions are put in place, but this will need to change. There needs to be ISSUE XVI.III 14 the observer
be addressed immediately in order to preLiving in the Age of Water to serve the rightful existence of all of humanity. Insecurity: One of the Great- Consequently, as this natural resource becomes scarcer in certain places, its availabilest Challenges of Our Time ity has become a major social and economic concern throughout the world.
By: Mohit Mann
The World Economic Forum recently listed water scarcity as one of the greatest challenges of our time. Freshwater resources are crucial not only as a form of consumption but also for agricultural production and food security. Our present and future food and nutritional security depends on the vitality of ecosystems, which in turn depend on fresh water to thrive. However, freshwater resources around the world are dwindling at an alarming rate. Over the course of the last century, water use has increased at a rate more than twice the rate of population increases globally, and it continues to increase in all sectors. This problem is compounded by the effects of climate change, which additionally exacerbate the risk of droughts. With over two billion people living in countries that face high water stress today, finding immediate solutions to the issue of water scarcity is imperative.
Water is a precious substance that is vital for all known forms of life. While water covers the majority of the Earth’s surface, it is becoming increasingly difficult for humanity to readily access fresh water that is fit for human consumption. Fresh water scarcity, which has become an acute issue over time, therefore has global repercussions that need 15
There are many different reasons for water scarcity today. It can occur as a result of physical shortage (physical water scarcity), institutional failures, or the lack of adequate infrastructure to ensure regular supply, even in areas where fresh water is abundant (economic water scarcity). 96.5 percent of the water on Earth is ocean water while only 2.5 percent of the water on Earth is drinkable. Moreover, only 1 percent of this drinkable freshwater is easily accessible in rivers, lakes, and streams. The rest of it is trapped in glaciers and snowfields. Water scarcity involves water crisis, water shortage, water deficit, and/or water stress. The overuse of water, the pollution of water, conflict over land, distant water sources, droughts, and governmental access all act as substantial obstacles to acquiring freshwater resources.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
The pervasive illusion of there being plenty of water around the world poses a substantial threat to finding adequate solutions to this global problem. As such, masking water scarcity though policies, laws, and practices intensifies the ecological implications of global water insecurity.
The supply of fresh water, then, has the potential to influence geopolitics, diplomacy, and even conflict around the world in the next decade. This increased rivalry over freshwater resources in both domestic and international spheres can be understood as ‘hydro-politics,’ which is politics affected by the availability of water and water resources. 16
For instance, since water is a necessity of all life forms and is essential to human development, its depletion has direct consequences for industries that require substantial amounts of freshwater to operate and for the domestic politics of nations that do not have sufficient water resources or the infrastructure required to provide them. Such complications often result in conflicts, and as greater amounts of people are left without freshwater supplies, these conflicts are likely to become more widespread. The ramifications of these developments are clear: hydro-politics will become an increasingly relevant element of domestic and international politics over time. Hydro-politics especially sheds light on the fact that water pervades every aspect of our lives. We collectively depend on water for our survival, but it also fuels the commerce, trade, innovation, and economic success of countries. Many countries are separated by bodies of water, which act as natural borders. While these countries may share access to
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
these bodies of water without much contention, the depletion of freshwater resources can affect their respective outlooks towards one another. There is no doubt that freshwater supplies are drying up in the 21st Century and demand for this invaluable resource is presently surging throughout the world. It remains no surprise, then, that some have begun to describe this valuable resource as the next oil. Like oil, water is needed in nearly every industry and is needed nearly every day. Thus, water’s viability as a commercial resource can create conflicts when it becomes scarce. For instance, countries that are covered mostly in desert, such as many Middle Eastern countries, have historically competed against one another over water diversion. Conflicts such as these can certainly become commonplace as water becomes increasingly scarce. However, water’s role in shaping politics is not a novel phenomenon. Water has shaped politics for centuries. For example, large bodies of water formed natural boundaries between people and nations in the ancient world and countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia have quarreled over the development of water from the Nile for centuries. Nevertheless, the contemporary geopolitical landscape looks quite different and water access has become paramount. Many experts therefore agree that world peace hinges on sufficient access to water for all –to put it more precisely, world peace depends on hydro-politics.
tions to ensure the protection of freshwater resources. Governments are largely responsible for ensuring that communities have access to clean water. Furthermore, water insecurity is a collective problem that a handful of governments cannot tackle alone. It requires the efforts of many governments on both domestic and international fronts. Although efforts are already being made in the domestic realms of various countries, binding international accords for natural resource issues are quite difficult to achieve. Thus, it remains to be seen how countries will overcome their differences in order to tackle this issue on an international scale. Water scarcity is undoubtedly one of the gravest threats to humanity in the near future. With the depletion of freshwater resources around the world, billions are left without this precious resource. And where this problem is the most acute, people (especially women and girls) are forced to travel 4-6 miles a day in order to secure safe water. The world must come together to ensure the rightful existence of humanity by tackling this problem. Otherwise, this crisis will only become more devastating. The next oil is the lifeblood of all known forms of life, and unless it is secured, all of humanity will simply cease to exist.
Water scarcity cannot be alleviated overnight. Yet, there is still some room for optimism. In areas where aquifers are drying up and rainwater is increasingly unpredictable, innovation to cope with freshwater scarcity presents a way forward in the form of conservation technologies. For example, solar disinfection, desalination, and sustainable infrastructures offer unique avenues for combating water scarcity that were not available in the past. However, such innovations require new kings of training, capacity building, and recognition. Furthermore, these innovations cannot alone combat the problem of water scarcity. Countries must also develop and enact better policies and regula17
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
nues generated by carbon-taxing in developing low-carbon technologies. Coal is relatively inexpensive and guarantees a high energy-output per unit. Industrial firms, to maintain low input costs, thereby select coal over non-renewable alternatives. Carbon-taxes can increase input costs of coal and incentivize substitution. Subsidizing research can also stimulate innovation, and bring about technologies that can efficiently maximize value-added per energy input.
Carbon Emissions and Economic Development: Options for the Developing World By: Annie Seeley Rapidly industrializing, developing countries are experiencing a renaissance in carbon-intensive coal. China, India, Vietnam, South Africa, Turkey, and Indonesia constitute 85% of the global coal investment. Treated as a bloc, developing countries account for 60% of global emissions per annum. This article will explore how developing countries can transition from carbon-intensive to low-emission manufacturing processes, without jeopardizing economic growth. Policies facilitating this transition include: carbon-pricing, strategic subsidizing, and the ‘shrinking’ of the industrial sector.
Developing countries prioritize economic growth over environmental sustainability, not simply out of careless indifference or selfishness, but due to what they fundamentally perceive as mutually exclusive goals. By decoupling carbon-emissions from economic prosperity, developing countries can pursue climate policies assuredly.
Economic literature suggests that sustainability efforts can positively impact economic growth albeit above a certain threshold—as GDP is correlated with energy use up to a certain point. A certain degree of energy-use is required to satisfy basic sustenance and countervail poverty-levels. Many developing countries rely on carbon-intensive investments to alleviate poverty. For instance: Countries in East and South Asia, and the Pacific, successfully decreased poverty levels, but increased total emissions by over 200%. In Sub-Saharan Africa, increases in poverty corresponded with decreases in carbon-emissions. These studies suggest that efforts to alleviate poverty correspond with relatively high per-capita emissions and that poverty is negatively-related to carbon-emissions. Developing countries can, however, make a concerted effort to regulate total carbon-emissions and improve production efficiency. The EU Emission Trading System (launched in 2005) restricts emission-intensive behaviour through carbon-pricing and by requiring European firms to purchase carbon-emission quotas. A global marketplace for carbon-emission quotas could prioritize quotas for developing countries while regulating their carbon-use.
Steckel et al., argue that developing countries ought not replicate the highly energy-intensive, though profoundly lucrative, industrialization of ‘first-world’ nations. Instead, developing countries should look to low-emission alternatives. Developing countries can invest reveISSUE XVI.III 18 the observer
Yang et al., evaluates the relationship between environmental policy on regional economic growth, by focusing specifically on China’s Low-Carbon Pilot Policy (CLCP). The study observes that sustainability efforts to decrease emissions-per-capita do benefit regional economic growth by incentivizing innovation. For Steckel et al., carbon-taxing is the “most efficient, ‘first best’ policy instrument” to alleviate high emissions. If carbon-pricing achieves its desired effect, energy prices will increase, thereby pressuring firms to innovate to keep input costs low. Carbon-taxing incentivizes firms to invest in low-carbon technologies, thereby increasing energy efficiency, reducing emissions per unit of energy, and reducing total energy use. However, carbon-taxing can incur high financing costs, which, being particularly disadvantageous for developing countries, may negatively affect investment in low-carbon technologies. The government can intervene by investing revenues from carbon-pricing in subsidizing research. Critics of carbon-taxing also argue that carbon-taxing may induce ‘regressive’ effects on the poor, that the poor would pay disproportionately more for the higher energy-costs. Governments can alleviate the negative effect of carbon-taxing on the poor by adopting transfer schemes favouring the least well-off and investing revenue
19
from carbon-pricing in infrastructure. Another criticism of carbon-taxing focuses on how carbon-taxing negatively interferes with economic growth and industrial development. Effective climate policy can encourage investment in the manufacturing sector, thereby facilitating structural change by ‘shrinking’ the industrial sector. Policies facilitating the shrinking of energy-intensive industrial sectors can assist developing countries in transitioning from emission-intensive modes of development to sustainable alternatives. Other methods to accelerate this transition include: carbon-taxes, investing in renewable energy, and moving towards substitutions. The forces driving structural change consist of changes in the patterns of demand brought about by increasing incomes and labour productivity. Developing countries ought to continue developing their economies, while gradually transitioning from coal to non-renewable-based industry. These countries can continue experiencing rapid economic growth without contributing to environmental degradation with some additional legwork. Investing now in non-renewables by using revenues from carbon-taxes, which incentivizes firms to pursue sustainable alternatives, can bring about lucrative returns in the future. Low-income developing countries need not completely relinquish themselves of coal. A carbon quota-system can adjudicate carbon-use among developing countries.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
‘Amazon Burning’ – The Illusion of Cheap Meat By: Iona Cleave nential population growth, the rise of middle classes in developing countries, and dietary transitions have amounted to the average person now eating twice as much meat as the average person two generations ago. This growing demand helps to inflate the global beef trade, which drives expansion of the livestock industry and, in turn, deforestation of the irreplaceable Amazon. Beef - the number one culprit of deforestation – is highly unsustainable, pollutive, and energy intensive to produce. However, the world is hungry for it. JBS, the Brazilian butcher supergiant, is the world’s largest supplier of beef, slaughtering over 35,000 cattle every day and supplying all over the world.
The series of newspaper headlines that read ‘Amazon burning’ caught world attention for a few weeks in August 2019 and lost it soon after. But the fires did not stop. They continue to rage today as illegal loggers and land grabbers fight further into the Amazon, setting the rainforest ablaze. It is easy to look at the disastrous situation in the Amazon and not associate our own consumption habits with it. Yet, within this globalised world, we are all complicit, interconnected and responsible. The situation continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. The Amazon holds its place as the largest surviving single expanse of tropical rainforest in the world. Yet, every minute an area the size of a football pitch is cleared as pressure for land increases at the ‘agriculture frontier.’ The dominant driver for these land grabs is cattle ranching, which amounts to over 80% of Amazonian deforestation. As global consumption of meat continues to surge rapidly, this is a booming industry for states in South America. Expo20
Our so-called ‘shrinking world’ has facilitated a growing spatial disconnect between the production of food and its consumption, adding to the high emissions embodied within the global beef trade. However, this is hidden by the power, efficiency and economies of scale enjoyed by these agriculture conglomerates that fuel the illusion of ‘cheap’ meat. Therefore, behind the façade of ‘cheap’ meat lies a cost that the environment cannot afford: emissions through destructive production and transportation practices. The burning of the Amazon itself is an environmental disaster. It directly produces carbon dioxide emissions whilst removing the ‘lungs of the planet,’ destroying the long term capability of the planet to re-absorb these emissions and devastating the Amazon’s rich biodiversity. However, it is also innately a human disaster. Indigenous communities are on the front lines as they come into
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
conflict with loggers and land grabbers, and are displaced from their traditional lands. Environmental activists, often from those same Indigenous populations, are subject to threats, violence and even assassinations. Most recently, in September, the appaling murder of a long time ‘gaurdian of the forest,’ Maxciel Pereira dos Santos, in Brazil due to his tireless work to protect an Indigenous community and their land. What’s more, small scale farmers are being dispossessed of their access to livelihoods as they are unable to compete with the dominant conglomerates, and locals are continuously displaced due to the fires. In terms of the ‘global commons’ we’re all at a loss as our atmosphere is filled with more greenhouse gases.
richest countries on earth- pledged a measly $20 million to the Amazon cause, whilst the media lost interest. It should certainly make us question where our priorities lie.
The fires we watched rage in summer are far from over. And, if anything, they are a violent and ruthless call for change. We need to challenge our growing dependence on meat within our diets, question where our meat comes from, stand up against these frighteningly powerful agriculture conglomerates and demand more sustainable farming practices. In this tightly interconnected and shrinking world, all of our actions have real and sometimes profound consequences. If the fires teach us anything, it’s that we need to engage more in the world and un The Amazon sits firmly at the heart of derstand that nothing is too big to change. the capitalism versus climate debate. A familiar story of the potent forces of free market capitalism and economic globalisation battling against the impending global climate crisis and the need for environmental protections. In this debate: to save the Amazon or to exploit it as a lucrative resource, Brazil favours the latter. President Bolsonaro’s current ‘war on the Amazon’ has created abundant new free trade agreements, dismantled protections on the Amazon, and slashed protection agency budgets, allowing for a recent surge of deforestation both legally and illegally. This is a clear intertwining of corporate greed and government interests, in which corruption, power and hidden forces are championed. This needs to be more openly recognised so that we can demand greater transparency and accountability, particularly in the supply chains of agribusinesses. We should ask: are we really eating truly ‘Canadian’ beef by ‘Canadian’ farmers? Or is it owned by the same companies that buy cattle reared on black listed, deforested land? As consumers, collectively we have a big voice, and we need to call on our governments to enact this change. We all watched in horror as Notre Dame burned, the media went into a frenzy, and close to $1 billion was pledged instantly. Conversely, the G7 - some of the 21
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
By: Oliver Munn
The Pertinence Fossil Fuels Still Play Over the past few years, Canada has seen a surge in environmental protection movements which have called for cuts to the oil and gas industry and a move away from fossil fuels. While this movement is rightfully looking out for our future, the world continues to consume 100 million barrels of oil a day. By 2040, renewable energy resources such as nuclear power, biofuels, and hydro power are expected to supply roughly 7% of our energy needs. While this is a positive step forward, it proves the point that the expectation of many to move fully away from fossil fuels in the next few years is simply unfeasible. This isn’t to say that important strides in the area of renewable energy haven’t been taken, it simply means that the exchange from fossil fuels to renewable energy realistically will not occur for several years. Alberta resides in the Canadian west and has become the poster boy for everything that environmentalists hate about Canadian oil production. Alberta has been producing oil and gas since the 1850s and in 2015, produced 79.2% of Canadian oil and gas. It utilizes the third largest natural oil reserve in the world and its capital investment totalled about 26.5 billion dollars in 2017. If Alberta was a country, it would be the fifth largest oil producing nation. The skepticism around how clean Alberta produces its oil comes from the roaring period of the late 1900s and early 2000s. This era of incessant industrialization acted as a precursor to the environmental movements
22
that are occuring in the present day. While this era was no doubt bad for the environment and rightfully led to a belief that Alberta is a dirty producer of oil and gas, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers executive vice president has pointed to the fact that Alberta’s emissions per barrel of oil produced has decreased roughly 30% since the 1990s. Canada can also claim that they were one of the first nations to institute a carbon tax on large industrial emitters. This carbon tax has raised 463 million Canadian Dollars for energy research to further reduce Canada’s carbon footprint. This carbon tax has been wonderful in the regard that it has helped progress Canada towards creating a tandem relationship between oil and gas and renewable energy in the near future. At the Paris climate agreement, Canada also established their own lofty goal to limit the change of global temperature to 1.5 degrees celsius. This demonstrates that while Alberta and Canada as a whole are one of the top producers of fossil fuels, they are not as bad as advertised. Canada is currently the 9th largest emitter of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide, when released in abundance, traps heat in the atmosphere thus melting ice caps and causing ocean levels to rise. While 9th in the world seems rather high, its output of 540.8 MT is miniscule when examining the output produced by other nations in the world. For example, in 2016 China produced 9056.8 MT and the US produced 4833.1 MT.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
While these two nations serve as the biggest polluters in the world, Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions pale in comparison and as of 2019 only contribute 2% of the world’s CO2 emissions. While this statistic would be better off lower, it serves a purpose in this capacity to demonstrate that Canada is really not the problem when it comes to harming the environment. This is in contrast to the US and China who combine to create 45% of the harmful emissions created through oil and gas production. This high level of production can be attributed to the immense capitalistic focus that exists in these nations and the demand that they face in the everyday global market. The global reliance on their production (including oil and gas) has developed these nations into the global superpowers that they are, with the negative externality in this circumstance being the increasingly alarming carbon footprint that they leave behind. These statistics indicate that Canada is only a sliver of the problem when it comes to carbon emissions and that we should instead focus on attempting as a global community to help China and the US lower their emissions.
Fossil fuels are pertinent in the production of 96% of the items that we utilize everyday. Fossil fuels can be found in items such as plastics, medicines, computers and MRI machines. More evidently, fossil fuels also power the transportation industry through the fuel they provide for cars and airplanes. These items are essential in everyday life and humanity relies upon them everyday as they provide essential services.
Recently however, there has been an uptick in the usage of renewable resources to provide services that could in the future years to come, replace oil and gas. This is evident through the recent progression in efficiency of solar panels and wind turbines which promise a brighter and cleaner future. In fact, renewable energy sources powered about 17% of Canada’s total primary energy supply last year. Canada also ranks 7th in the world in renewable energy usage. Canada is especially good at producing hydroelectricity as we generate about 10% of the world’s hydro power. This stands to prove that while renewable en-
23
ergy is not quite efficient enough to replace oil and gas, society as a whole has begun to utilize cleaner energy. One of the main issues with the teardown of the oil sands is the national revenue that cannot be replaced, as the fossil fuels industry funds around $108 billion towards Canadian GDP. This industry generated almost 530,000 jobs in 2017 and provided $8 billion in average annual revenue to the national and provincial Canadian governments between 2016 to 2018. Over the next 10 years, the oil sands industry is expected to pay an estimated 17 billion in provincial and federal taxes including royalties. This is an amount that the Canadian government cannot go without despite Justin Trudeau’s promotion for the removal of fossil fuels. This point is evident through his payment of $4.5 billion to purchase the highly controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline despite having championed for higher environmental restrictions during his campaign. The simple reality is that the revenue that these pipelines generate helps pay for many government programs and despite the backlash that the industry has faced recently, is expected to rake in $300 billion over the next 10 years. Ideally, the Canadian government will find a way to transition our energy industry towards renewable energy without taking any massive losses through the process of slowly cutting back our fossil fuel expenditure. Working to ease renewable energy into prominence and not suffer economic job or expenditure losses will be key in this process. Whether Albertans want to admit it or not, the long term future of energy rests with the protection of our planet and the promotion of renewable energy. This being said, the near future still relies on the usage of oil and gas. These statistics serve to prove that Canada is doing a good job at producing renewable energy, we just do a better job of producing fossil fuels. While the future in 50 years will be dominated by renewable energy, the present and foreseeable future remains with the fossil fuels industry. While this is not the most popular of outcomes, we as Canadians need to understand the importance of fossil fuels and how much they provide for us.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Climate Change and Health
24
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Climate Change: The Greatest Global Health Threat
By: Vruksha Vakeeswaran
Changes in weather and climate have always influenced the state of human health. With rising temperatures and the increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the prevalence of respiratory diseases and other ailments are on an upward trend. It is for this reason that the World Health Organization has predicted climate change and air pollution to be amongst the greatest global health threats of this decade. As humans continue to indulge in activities that increase carbon emissions, disease prevalence will increase with the majority of the burden falling on the global south. Certain geographic areas, such as the African and Asian regions, will endure a greater toll, as they have been used as waste disposal grounds by several Western Countries. Improper waste disposal contributes to higher levels of carbon-based particles in the atmosphere, which are produced by burning petroleum-based products. The emission of greenhouse gasses creates a layer of insulation that traps radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. As the atmospheric temperature rises, the incidence rate of tropical diseases becomes rampant. Coincidentally, countries that import global waste are commonly categorized as tropical countries, which have an existing high rate of infectious diseases that are brought upon by their warmer climates. Therefore, tropical countries often endure 25
a higher burden of disease, when they are further strained by the importation of waste. Undoubtedly, there is a desperate need for global collaboration, now more than ever, to help mitigate the health consequences of climate change by enabling effective waste management and disposal globally. Scientists have raised concerns and have issued warnings about climate change for several decades. 2015, in particular, was known as the year of the “Death of Denial,� as the world began to realize and endure the consequences of climate change. According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is expected to be 8 degrees warmer by the year 2100. This number may seem minuscule on a scale, however, the effects can be as significant as life or death. The greatest irony is found in the fact that humans are the most affected by the climate crisis while also being the greatest contributor to the causes of climate change. Humans contribute to climate change by way of waste incineration, burning of fossil fuels, and deforestation. Some of the effects of climate change include droughts, intense storms, floods, and forest fires. In addition to destroying animal-life and plant-life, there are significant risks posed to public health and safety. For example, areas affected by drought face the issue of inac-
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
cessibility to drinking water, while areas affected and overall unbearably hot temperatures, which by floods can serve as transmission grounds for can promote the spread of tropical diseases and several water-borne diseases. water-borne infectious diseases. In pursuit of preventing the situation from escalating further, Canada, especially, needs to lead the path the Malaysian environmental minister successfulof change in this field as its landmass is one of ly returned partial amounts of the waste back to the largest in the world. The climate variation its originating country. that currently exists, as a result of the differences in geography, presents a problem as the effects Consequently, it is evident that waste of the climate crisis will be extremely varied be- management is an issue that transcends nationtween provinces. al boundaries and requires immediate attention. Landfills are the third leading cause of methane emissions in the US according to The EnvironAs a trailblazer in the field, mental Protection Agency (EPA). Methane is a Canada was one of 175 signatoform of carbon emission that is approxries in the Paris Climate Agreement specific imately 30 times more potent at trapping radia— a global pact to combat climate tion than carbon dioxide. As a global leader in change and to accelerate the prog- the implementation of new, robust technologies, ress towards creating a sustainif the global north has been incapable of managable future. However, interestingly ing its own waste accumulation, it is absurd to expect the global south to manage their own waste enough, Canada, among several other countries, was accused of ex- and that of another nation.
porting 1500 tonnes of waste to the Philippines in 2013 and 2014.
Similarly, upon China’s ban on the import of plastic waste from the UK, the US, and Australia, several residents of Jenjarom, Malaysia seized the opportunity to import plastic waste that was formerly exported to China. This led to the establishment of several illegal waste management facilities, where plastic waste was either burned or buried in order to maintain low operational costs. According to Greenpeace, in a span of six months, Malaysia imported 754,000 tonnes of plastic waste. Jenjarom’s geographical proximity to Port Klang facilitated the direct importation of illegal waste into Malaysia. The burning of plastic has several direct, detrimental effects on human health, as it releases toxic chemicals such as dioxins, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls into the atmosphere. The presence of these chemicals have been linked to increased risk of heart disease, damage to the nervous system, rashes, headaches, and worsened asthma. In some cases, prolonged exposure to plastic fumes can be cancer-causing. Indirectly, the incineration of plastic waste poses an equally toxic threat to the environment as fossil fuels do. Burning plastic increases the release of greenhouse gases, which leads to the warming of the Earth. With drastic shifts in atmospheric temperatures, there is an elevated chance for heavier rainfalls, droughts, 26
Some traditional suggestions to combat climate change have included eliminating the burning of fossil fuels completely and shifting to renewable energy sources. However, one distinct caveat is the immense fiscal investment that this would require on a global scale — an investment that is impractical. As a result, scientists are developing technologies that will enable the use of current energy sources while preventing carbon particles from entering the atmosphere. This solution tackles the underlying issue of carbon particles entering the atmosphere while temporarily allowing the use of fossil fuels for energy. However, an issue that remains unresolved is the export of waste from developed countries. As perceived leaders of the world, the global north needs to be held accountable for its role in denying the responsibility of its own waste output. Efforts to eliminate the release of greenhouse gasses, such as investments into modern technology, will prove counterproductive if waste products are exported to developing countries to be burned. This would, in turn, increase methane levels in the atmosphere which warm the Earth and lead to several of the aforementioned effects on human health. Hence, climate change needs to be tackled on all fronts and in unison by all nations. By doing so, the upcoming decade may serve as an opportunity to foster the greatest global health solution to the greatest global health threat: climate change.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Climate Change is Why You’re Sneezing More and Here’s Why By: Cassandra Van Drunen Allergies are a widespread phenomenon throughout North America that can severely impact one’s overall life experience, in addition to being a potential financial burden to many families. This rise in both climate change and air pollution has extensively impacted human health, specifically in regard to respiratory conditions such as allergic rhinitis and asthma. There are many components, overall, from climate change that have influenced the increase of allergic diseases.
impacted, and the amount of the population suffering from either of these ailments. In addition, pollen allergies are also associated with certain types of food allergies, specifically plant food allergies, which have the potential to be impacted by the change in pollen patterns.
Furthermore, imperative evidence has come to light which indicate that the increase in global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels have impacted overall pollen production. There are many species of plants that can use increased After analyzing climate change patterns, carbon dioxide levels as an integral resource to researchers expect there to be a momentous increase their growth, reproduction, and pollen change in the patterns of pollen, plants, and production. The major source of allergy, ragfungi spread. Though the patterns are yet to be weed, has been one of the plants whose allergen studied globally, the overall production of pol- has increased with the change in carbon dioxide len and pollen season length appear to have levels. There has been a significant amount of reincreased. With the increased global tempera- search into ragweed allergies as it is one of the tures, pollen seasons have increased by up to 27 more prevalent allergies globally. By modelling days between 1995 and 2011, depending on the the effects of climate change, researchers predict part of the world. With the last five years claim- that by 2050, ragweed allergen concentrations in ing the spots for warmest surface temperatures, the air will be four times larger than they currently it is expected that this number will continue to are. As of 2019, approximately 8% of the United increase in the coming decade. These patterns States (approximately 26,356000 people) suffer combined with the complicated network of inter- from a ragweed allergy and with global temperaactions with pollutants, dust storm materials and tures rising, this number is expected to rise(10). thunderstorm events, it is expected that there Even in locations where ragweed allergies were will be huge negative impacts on respiratory ail- not typically present, for example in Australia, ments such as asthma and allergic rhinoconjunc- this epidemic has been introduced and it is extivitis, with regard to both their severity on those pected to continue to spread under the current ISSUE XVI.III 27 the observer
climate change crisis. In addition to the increase in pollen production, those in the global population who are a part of what the World Health Organization(WHO) coin the “fragile and vulnerable settings,” are also at risk of being severely affected by allergies in the coming decade. The WHO placed “fragile and vulnerable settings” as the fourth greatest risk to overall global human health in 2019. Approximately 22% of the global population, 1.6 billion people, are included in this category, many of whom are additionally affected by one or more of poverty, weak health services, drought, famine, conflict, and population displacement. These disadvantaged populations suffer the largest burden of respiratory ailments such as asthma and severe allergies. Dr. Juan Carlos from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has stated that “[households]making less than $50,000 every year -- are one and a half times more likely to see treatments fail. They are also almost twice as likely to have an asthma exacerbation.” Climate change is not only creating additional medical problems for the global population, but is also becoming a financial burden for families worldwide. In 2016, the United States alone sold over $6.8 billion dollars in allergy medication, which is equivalent to more than 735 million units of medication.
In addition, over 17 million doctor visits were made in the United States due to allergies, and those who suffer with any form of asthma accumulate an average of $3300 in medical expenses annually. Though the cost of the medical care alone can be a financial burden to families globally, these costs do not include the time lost by both children and adults. In 2007 alone, allergic rhinitis caused adults to miss 3.5 million work days and children to lose 2 million school days. In terms of an individual family, it was estimated in 2015 that a lost work day costs a family approximately $106 USD and a lost school day would cost families $75. With the climate change affecting the amount of those suffering from these ailments, it is likely that these numbers have been 28
rising in the past decade, and will continue to rise. This financial burden can be difficult for families in poverty to manage. Though the prospects of this article seem grim, researchers have been working on ideas to help decrease the overall effects that climate change has on allergies. Among these plans is to promote policies that will increase access to nonpolluting sources for creating energy, decrease the amount of vehicles using emission-causing fuels, plant non-allergenic trees to address the high levels of carbon dioxide, and provide education to the population on the serious risk that climate change is having not only on respiratory health, but on global human health in general. One example of a country working to address these issues is China. China, being well-known for contributing to some of the world’s worst air pollution, has put a plan in place to reduce its overall carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65% (in GDP). Even some of the more green countries on our earth are putting a plan in place to help reverse the effects of climate change. Denmark’s capital, Copenhagen, known for having more bikes than cars, is aiming to be the world’s first carbon-neutral city by 2025. These countries, along with many others such as India, Indonesia, and Chile, are all headed down the right path in influencing the earth’s safety for the better. Though these countries are all making tremendous impacts, I believe that initiatives need to be spread to other countries and companies known for their large environmental impacts. Two of these countries include America (13.9%) and Russia (11.5%). Beyond countries, it has been estimated that 71% of the global emissions are caused by 100 companies alone, some of the top offenders being China Coal (20.3%), Saudi Arabian Oil Company (6.1%), and Gazprom OAO (5.5%). In addition, I believe that our governments need to put in place initiatives to relieve the financial stress that comes with allergy ailments, especially for those suffering from the effects of poverty or fragile communities as well. Respiratory impacts may not be something that many think about when advocating for climate change, but it is an important cause to fight for in this coming decade.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
By:
Philosophical and Theoretical Approaches to the 29
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Climate Crisis
By: Owen Wong Environmental Regulation: A Philosophical Perspective The climate is changing, yet governments are sluggish in their response to the imminent environmental crisis. Written in 1651, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, provides insight into the current policy making confusion. Hobbes’ suggestion that individuals will pursue their own interests at the expense of others mirrors the actions of states in the international community. To regulate climate change, Hobbes’ work indicates the need for some form of world government.
calls the State of Nature.
The Hobbesian state of nature is characterized by constant conflict. Driven by self-preservation in the absence of a government, individuals will pursue their own interests at the expense of others. For example, if someone’s neighbour has food, one might use force to steal the food for one’s own benefit. For Hobbes, individuals in anarchy are naturally selfish, individualistic, and free from moral constraints. The state of nature is Central to Hobbes’ work is the question of one of war. what legitimate political authority is. To answer Hobbes’ philosophical work can provide this question, Hobbes’ formulates a thought ex- periment based on his understanding of human insight into the current climate crisis if it is transnature. In his experiment, he dissolves the state, lated into the terms of game theory (an academhuman history and social conventions. What re- ic discipline that studies strategic situations). mains is an anarchic environment that Hobbes ISSUE XVI.III 30 the observer
The assurance model captures the essence of Hobbes’ work. The model shows that individuals who wish to preserve their life, and live peacefully, must mutually cooperate and collectively lay down their “right of nature.” Hobbes defines this right of nature as, “the liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature.” To achieve peace, everyone in the state of nature must agree to stop using force and to follow a set of agreed upon rules. However, laying down the right of nature will only happen if the process is enforced, as some people will not realize the benefit of mutual cooperation. These people will defect from the agreement. Since the process is not enforced, no rational individual will cooperate out of fear that one defector might jeopardize their safety. Mutual defection leaves everyone in a state of war.
nature, there is a long run global incentive to cooperate, yet, this rarely happens. For example, 174 countries signed the Paris Climate Change agreement in 2016, the aim of which was to lessen the impact of climate change. Out of the 174 countries who signed the pact, only seven kept their agreements. These figures suggest that although mutual cooperation is beneficial to actors in the long run (reducing global emissions), mutual defection does occur.
States mutually defect because they can benefit in the short term, not realizing the long term consequences. Shortsightedly, states often believe they are better off to unilaterally defect. Defection might enable states to build their economies, employ cost efficient but “dirty” technology, and gain a competitive advantage over states cooperating and engaging in carbon reduction programs. These states cause an assurance issue similar to individuals who defect in the state of To solve the problem of mutual defection, nature and do not lay down their right of nature Hobbes argues for a sovereign. A sovereign is a when all others do. The possibility of a unilatersupreme leader who has the power to exercise al defector leads to the mutual defection of all force, ensuring all citizens mutually cooperate. states. It is not to the benefit of any state to maintain their agreements and bear the cost of collec The international community mirrors tive action while others defect. Ultimately, since the Hobbesian state of nature. It has no sovthere is one state that may unilaterally defect, the ereign to impose laws and standardize justice. majority of states defect from cooperation.
States are always at war or ready to engage in war. States in the international community pursue their national interests above all costs, often to the detriment of other states. The interaction among states is notable as they are the highest level of political authority that can legitimately exercise force and demand domestic compliance.
Here, Hobbes provides insight as to how to effectively regulate the climate change collective action problem. To solve mutual defection in the state of nature, Hobbes argues for a supreme sovereign who would use punishment so harsh that it would never be in the interest of a state to mutually defect. He believes that the benefit of submitting to a supreme leader is always greater than the consequences of remaining in the state The assurance model of the state of na- of nature, a state of constant mutual defection. ture reveals that collective policy suffers from the possible defection of states, similar to individu- If the climate crisis reaches a point in which als in the state of nature. Hobbes would suggest the consequences of sluggish governmental rethat self-interested states in anarchy require a sponse jeopardize the immediate sustainability sovereign to guarantee mutual cooperation. The of the planet, Hobbes would suggest that the current international system has no sovereign. In- people of the world would demand a global stead, it has the United Nations (UN). government. Such a government does not need to be a harsh sovereign. It simply needs to have The UN acts as a forum for agreement more teeth than the United Nations. making. However, should states decide to break their agreements, the UN has no power to force compliance. Similar to individuals in the state of 31
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
The Weight of the World on Our Shoulders: How Our Culture of Individualism Hinders the Fight Against the Climate Crisis By Noor Yassein We live in a culture where individuals have and deny the threat that climate change poses, become our focus. With stores filled with self- or find that the changes in daily life they are behelp books, websites on “how you can make a ing asked to make are too overwhelming. difference,” and constant media bombardment on new diets or new research on the best way to change your life, it isn’t any wonder that individualist movements have become our go-to However, climate change inaction for every problem we may have. This mindset on a corporate level has much more is especially prominent in developed countries, who also happen to be the most egregious car- of an effect than individual inaction bon-emitters. But not everything has a one-size- – the highest polluting corporations fits-all solution. Our individualistic society, while are huge, and so even with individunot necessarily problematic as a concept in and al action at an ultimate high, the acof itself, is certainly problematic in dealing with tions taken by businesses have the the climate crisis. An individualist focus puts the blame on individuals themselves, and places the stress of solving the climate crisis on their shoulders. This often results in one of two things: either people becoming overly stressed and do everything they can, subsequently becoming even more stressed and hopeless when nothing changes, or people refuse to do anything at all. In an article by Peng Xiang, Haibo Zhang, Lina Geng, Kexin Zhou, and Yuping Wu, this was referred to as “climate change inaction.” This phenomenon can occur at all levels – the corporate, governmental, and individual. Often, when it occurs at the individual level, it is because people underestimate 32
ability to make or break the actions of everyone else. However, individualist culture fails to recognize this, and instead places the blame on individuals for not living green enough.
Not only does such an individualist culture cause problems for the individuals themselves, but a recent study by Hilary Komatsu, Jeremy Rappleye, and Iveta Silova in the journal Anthropocene found that countries with higher levels
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
of individualism were found mostly to have higher eco-footprints, and less eager to take action against climate change. They point out that the main focus of these societies, Canada being one of them, tends to be personal benefit, and doing what is necessary in taking action as a group to combat these issues is not always immediately beneficial to each individual person. However, changing our culture in time to respond to the climate crisis is a monumental task, and one with an uncertain outcome. But collective action can still be encouraged in individualist societies. Political action is the best example of this, as it tends to be individualist actions geared toward achieving collective action. As an article in the Guardian by Martin Lukacs points out, people have been taught to think of themselves more like consumers than citizens. We are incredibly lucky to live in a country in which thinking of ourselves as citizens in order to make a difference is not only possible, but encouraged. Democracies like Canada are supposed to represent the voice of the people, and so if the people speak up, the government has to act accordingly. There are a multitude of actions we can take in order to encourage governmental action. These actions include but are not limited to: signing petitions, speaking to Members of Parliament about bills or actions to undertake, learning about the issue and what the government is doing, and spreading this knowledge to friends, family, or others. The greater the mass awareness, the higher the likelihood of collective action. Activism on the local level is also important. City officials can make important changes in encouraging widespread environmentally friendly living, such as urban planning with intentions of lessening commutes or making public transport more convenient and affordable. These are just a few examples of actions that individuals can take in order to help mitigate the climate crisis, and slowly build capacities for collective action.
is up to us, as citizens of democratic countries like Canada, to take appropriate steps to encourage solutions at higher levels that will lead to systemic change, and start making the differences our world so desperately needs. As the saying goes, many hands make light work – and this situation is no different. If we work together, we have the ability to change the course of humanity. .
The individual nature of our inclinations should concern us all. The climate crisis is not up for debate: it is a fact - and should not be framed as a politically contentious issue. The reality of the climate crisis cannot be solved through individual action alone. Individual greener living is still useful, but we should be careful not to trick ourselves into comfort by thinking it is enough. It ISSUE XVI.III 33 the observer
A World Worth Saving: Reconquering A Just Future By Ethan Mitchell
The world is sick. Gas masks are being distributed in New Delhi schools. Wildfires are devouring Australia. The planet is being wracked by the morbid symptoms of a disease, and every day it seems closer to being terminal. Our climate has changed, and it has changed because of us. And now, looking out from the precipice, we are forced to consider the environmental collapse we have brought about. The first step is recognizing that it is part of something bigger than pollution and corporate disregard. Environmental degradation is only one aspect of the system that is leading the world down this path of devastation, suffering, and helplessness. In order to fully understand the problem we are facing, and to put forward a real solution to it, we need to see the climate crisis as the product of a global system of exploitation.
ier countries to ‘outsource’ production (and pollution) to the countries that had been exploited, such as India or China. This has helped to further industrialize those Southern countries within a competitive world system to the point where former imperial colonies now make up the greatest share of world emissions.
This process can be seen as an internalization and redeployment of those industrial methods by developing countries in an effort to assert themselves on the world stage after so many years of domination. This can be seen in the fact the bulk of industrial pollution in countries like China comes from domestically targeted production. Therefore, the climate crisis is inseparable from the brutal regime of subjugation that European powers exerted over the world, and is, in a way, the final manifestation of it.
At the root of everything is colonial domination. The industrial modes of production that nowadays pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere were originally developed in the heyday of European imperialism, fed by resources plundered from the Global South. It was this unInternational exploitation is not confined even industrialization that took from the South to within national boundaries, however. Transnadevelop the North, that created the imbalance tional corporations produce a huge chunk of that allows producers headquartered in wealth- global emissions, and exploit the natural resourc34
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
es of the planet, as well as the people who inhabit it, operating with near impunity and disregarding the human and environmental consequences of their actions. Indeed, as of 2017, 100 companies were responsible for 71% of emissions. From destroying ecosystems, to uprooting indigenous communities, to paying workers starvation wages for precarious backbreaking work, private commercial entities are situated in a system that cannot be detached from its exploitation, particularly in the Global South. In recognizing the many-faced exploitation that has driven us to the climate crisis, one thing becomes clear. Climate change cannot be tackled alone. Any response must also seek to change the larger systems that have made it possible. If our response fails to take a full view of the problem, we risk perpetuating the cruel structures that have brought us to this point.
35
If we continue to operate with the same profit-seeking motive and lack of respect for people, the ‘green transition’ will mean that we change only the minerals we displace people to harvest, and the specific goods we exploit workers to produce. For example, it would be unacceptable to increase the production of battery powered vehicles if we built them with Cobalt harvested by mistreated child workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It would also be unacceptable to make a transition that minimized natural resource extraction without improving labour standards or financial security for vulnerable people. A ‘just transition’ must seek to eliminate exploitation, rather than repurposing exploitative systems to produce environmentally-friendly goods. Current supply chains stretch across the world, and will, if redirected and not fundamentally challenged, continue to benefit those at the point of consumption at the expense of those at the
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
points of production.
wounds of colonialism, possibly through free technological transfers or investments. Perhaps If we do not take serious steps to redress we will then have the potential to create a new the imbalance created by colonial subjugation, international relationship. we will remain in a system in which your place of birth largely determines the quality of your life. A Popular participation is a necessary condijust transition must deliberately work to heal the tion for the above to be realized. Unaccountable wounds of colonialism, and the burden must be decision-making by a small group of self-intertaken by those who have benefited most from it. ested elites has driven much of the exploitation listed above. It is time to reject the corporate Another integral part of the international boardroom and bring public input to the levers system that must be remedied by climate poli- of the economy, through increased democratic cy is the increasing concentration of wealth and regulation of companies, protection of workers’ power in the hands of the few. In 2018, the rich- rights, and popular input into policy. Economic est 1% owned 45% of global wealth. It is the power must serve the common interest. massive amount of resources, and consequent social power, that these international socio-ecoWith a truly international effort that draws nomic elites deploy that allows them to oversee on popular support from citizens across the the degradation of the earth and its people with world, including those in the most intensely excomplete impunity. If we do not dismantle this ploited areas, we can push for a bold reformation system of elite economic decision making, indig- of the global economic and political structures enous and marginalized people will continue to that have led us to environmental collapse. We be victimized. In other words, doing little more have the potential, not just to fight back against than spray-painting imperialism green. the climate crisis, but to reshape the brutal systems of exploitation that have produced it. All of this is to say, the climate crisis is not a policy issue, to be fixed with well-tailored legislaFrom the fires of a crisis, we can forge a tion. It is a political issue, to be resolved through world worth saving. a determined effort to shift international power structures. It is an opportunity, not just to preserve the earth, but to fight for a better one. We cannot rely on political elites to deliver these changes, especially after their attempts in Kyoto and Paris engendered nothing but disappointment and suspicion. Initiatives we take must instead be firmly rooted in cross-border popular mobilization. This would involve organizations pressing for political change that draw support from a widespread base of support, and that meaningfully elevate the voices of citizens across the world, particularly those who are most vulnerable under the current order. In order to redress the historic erasure of marginalized voices in policymaking, it is essential that a drive for change involves an equal partnership between citizens of the Global North and South, with meaningful input from both. It is not enough, however, to have formal equality. The starting point of this reconstituted relationship must be material reparations to redress the ISSUE XVI.III 36 the observer
Environmental Personhood: The Solution to Water Conservation? By Angela Feng Potawatomi is an Anisinnaabe language that breathes life into what English perceives as inanimate objects. One would refer to the elements as “who” and “she/he,” but never “it.” This denies nature of its selfhood and kinship, similarly to how it would if we refer to a person as “it.” Robin Wall Kimmerer, author of “Braiding Sweetgrass,” calls this “the grammar of animacy.” She writes, “…the language [Potawatomi] is a mirror for seeing the animacy of the world, the life that pulses through all things, through pines and nuthatches and mushrooms.” What are nouns in English are verbs in Potawatomi. Kimmerer explains the verb, wiikwegamaa, to be a bay, indicates the water is living and autonomous. This difference in language reflects the contrast in the human-nature relationship between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems.
Kimmerer argues that learning the grammar of animacy could shift our perception of land and resources and make them sovereign entities. Many countries have demonstrated 37
this shift by granting their waters legal personhood. The New Zealand parliament was the first to do so by passing the Te Awa Tupua Act in 2017, which gave the Whanganui River “all the rights, power, duties and the liabilities” that a person has. Since the mid-1800’s, Maori tribes’ traditional authority over and guardianship of the river has been slowly eroded by European colonization and extinguished by government decree. Whanganui has experienced much exploitation since then. Its rapids have been dynamited to carve easier routes for tourist paddlers, its gravel has been extracted for railway construction and its headwaters dammed for hydroelectric power production. The Te Awa Tupua Act signifies the victory of the Maori tribes of Whanganui, who have lived by the river for over 700 years and have been fighting for the recognition of Whanganui River as their ancestor for over 140 years. Similarly, a court in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand granted the Ganges River legal personhood in 2017 as well. The Ganges,
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
starting from the Himalayas, running across the Northern Indian plains and into the Bay of Bengal, is the most sacred river to over 1 billion Hindus. It’s known as “Mother Ganges.” The river’s holy water symbolizes purification and is integral to Hindu rituals and ceremonies. Over 10 million people congregate at Ganges River to bathe every 12 years. It also provides drinking water to over 30% of India’s population. Despite its ecological and religious value, the Ganges is amongst the world’s most polluted rivers. It receives 1.5 billion litres of untreated sewage and 500 million litres of industrial waste each day, in addition to the bodies of the recently deceased from burial rites. After 3 decades of struggling to clean the Ganges and 3 billion dollars spent on restoration programs, granting the Ganges legal personhood may be the turning of India’s efforts to preserve its sacred river.
India faces separate issues. Scholars are questioning how the legal personhood of the Ganges will pan out in terms of practical reality. Himanshu Thakkar, an engineer who coordinates the South Asia Network on Dames, Rivers and People, says the government must begin looking at the governance of the river. Thakkar turns to the monitoring of sewage treatment plants as an example. None of the 22 plants in Delhi are performing at their designed quantity and quality and the reasons are unclear. He calls for strengthened management systems for treatment plans as well as tighter regulations for industrial waste management. Furthermore, there is a significant gap between science and religion. The urgency of the scientific information has been eroded by the cultural belief that the Ganges river is self cleaning due to its purification abilities. Sadhviji Bhagawati Sarawati of Ganga Action Parivar, a non-profit organization that advocates for the cleanup of the Ganges, calls for cross sector collaboration to educate the general public on the harm of chemical waste and plastics on the river. Like Thakkar, Sadhviji also calls for the government to enforce industrial waste regulations and strengthen waste management infrastructure to divert waste from the Ganges.
There are questions that remain in the aftermath of granting environmental legal personhood. Will nature be able to sue humans for harm inflicted? Who will represent the water? How do we quantify the amount of compensation nature must receive? There have been no lawsuits brought forth, thus outcomes are difficult to speculate about. Furthermore, the recognition of the legal rights of water is not a magic bullet solution to issues of sustainability. New Zealand and India face a different set of challenges in their efforts The recognition of the intrinsic rights of address the root of resource degradation, that rivers and water bodies beyond their use for huare entangled within a web of social, economic mans is a milestone achievement for the environand political issues. mental movement. However, there is still much work to be done. Governments must establish In the context of New Zealand, Maori lead- effective legal frameworks to uphold the newly ers believe this emphasis on law is misplaced. acquired rights of nature. More importantly, we Although the Te Awa Tupua Act recognizes the must re-orientate our relationship with the envispirit and sovereignty of the Whanganui River, as ronment to one that respects the teachings that well as acknowledges the Maori worldview, it is nature offers, which can be the key to our current only the beginning in fostering a relationship of environmental challenge. However, in order to mutual respect between the New Zealand gov- understand these teachings, we must listen and ernment and its Indigenous communities. Mean- begin learning the grammar of animacy before ingful reconciliation calls for the acknowledg- time runs out. ment of colonial legacies and the recognition of traditional ways of living. This entails governance of resources in accordance with traditional knowledge systems, which relates humans to the natural world through mutual responsibility rather than ownership.
38
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Topics in Environmental Security, Regulation and Policy
39
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
Sinking Lands, Rising Voices By: Libby Graham
Although the heavy sounds of icebergs splitting from glaciers and crashing into the ocean can carry far over salty waves and water, it won’t come close to reaching the ears of those who live on the islands of the Pacific. What they do notice, however, are the encroaching tides and sinking shores.
of residents. One Tuvaluan billboard reads “Climate DISPLACEMENT is not an option for me. I was born here and I grew up here. My friends are here and my family are here too. I will remain here, as this is my HOME.” This isn’t, however, to say that they are passive to the coming floods. A UNDP financed seawall has begun construction and plans are being laid to dredge and raise Over the past century, ocean levels have parts of the capital island, although this expenrisen about 7½ inches and are likely to contin- sive project has not yet received funding. ue to rise at an ever growing rate. Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands are just a few of In Kiribati over 37,000 mangroves have the countries that face the threat of drowning. been planted to help restore the ravaged ecoBut rising oceans aren’t the only impacts that system, protect coastlines, and improve food climate change has had on these states. Inten- security. During a visit to the country in 2011, sifying storms, drought, rising temperatures, dy- then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon aided ing reefs, and the erosion of farming land has in this project and displayed his solidarity with completely altered these communities’ ways of the atoll nation, expressing the importance of clieveryday life. This leaves the question, what can mate change awareness and action on a global be done to save these islands, the people that platform. Kiribati has also participated in climate inhabit them, and the cultures that have thrived education initiatives, one of which being the Clithere for generations? The most important an- mate Challenger Voyage which connected and swers to this question, of course, come from the encouraged Pacific island communities to spark people themselves. discourse on conservation practices.
The voices from the Government House in Tuvalu urge its citizens to stay on the island, the phrase “come what may” adopted as official policy. And this sentiment is echoed in the beliefs 40
“1.5 to stay alive” is a matra of climate activists in the Pacific, which asserts the need for global temperature rise to remain under 1.5℃ in order for nations like the Marshall Islands to stay
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
mate change refugees, but these have been refused on account of “come what may” attitudes. There are many innovative ideas coming from these countries that people are willing to adapt as necessary to preserve their homes. While Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands are often silenced by Global North behemoths like the United States, their combined voices are rising in volume and power. In 2015 they helped shape the Paris Agreement and in 2018 brought attention to their nations’ needs during the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. But the simple fact of the matter is that in order for real change to occur, large governments and international organizations with greater financial means must help and pay heed to the voices of Pacific island nations, whose futures are being engulfed by the ocean.
afloat. During a speech on the country’s capital island, Majuro, climate scientist Chip Fletcher said that this goal was almost certainly unattainable but hope could not be lost as there are still options to be pursued. Previous president of the Marshall Islands, who exited office in January 2020, has stated the need for more focus to be put on adaptation to climate change rather than mitigation because its effects are already at their doorstep. Like in Tuvalu, one possible adaptation solution is dredging and reclaiming land from lagoons, but this comes along with adverse impacts including a hefty bill and environmental damage.
Fiji, another Pacific island nation with a relatively large land mass and population of almost 1 million, has Libby Graham already started climate change relocation. The coastal town Vunidogoloa now lies abandoned and overrun by wildlife. Fiji has also extended a hand to Tuvalu, offering land to Tuvaluan cli
41
Pacific island nations are being dealt a poor hand, suffering greatly from the consequences of rising global temperatures; consequences that they have played a negligible role in creating in the first place. Countries like China and the US, who alone are responsible for almost 50% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, are the main contributors to climate change and should, therefore, be held majorly accountable for reversing their negative impacts. But these nations are also the ones that have been shirking their obligations at climate meetings and backing out of international climate treaties in favour of bulking up their already expansive bank accounts. Thus, the solution (at least as much of one as is possible) is two fold. Island countries should be able to practice self determination by choosing what adaptation and mitigation techniques they deem to be most suitable for their needs, and countries with large pockets and even larger environmental footprints have to start listening to the rising voices of these sinking islands. The fate of hundreds of isles and millions of people relies on expanding collaboration, and the creation of partnerships that focus less on money and more on humanity.
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
It’s not you… and it’s not me either
By: Claire Parsons
I think we had a pretty good run, you and I. Some of my fondest memories are sitting on cottage decks surrounded by pine trees and fresh air. I remember swimming in the ocean and walking down the streets in the summer before the temperature skyrocketed. I had pictured children running around lush green parks, the way I had as a kid. Then one day, the man with money took control of you and it was over. My romance with my Earth destroyed.
house gases than the entirety of Australia.
Sure, they tell you that they are treating you right, but anyone from the outside can see that they are not enough. Companies like P&G have largely reduced the amount of emissions they put out during production but still dump hundreds of single-use plastics that cannot be decomposed. Think of it as a backhanded compliment, something to hide their mistakes. These companies only love the public money that fuAfter it was over I felt like it was my fault. I els them through investors, all of the corporaleft the sink on while I brushed my teeth, I loved tions I’ve mentioned have shares on the market. to go for a joy-ride just for the thrill of driving, I They’d rather pay dividends than invest in you. bought the cheaper product because I had to. I lost you. Although, when I thought about it for longer I realized that you had been stolen from I also hate to be the person to tell me. you this, but they’re lying to you. The The corporations of the modern capitalist corporations promise that if there was system claim to love you, but the top 20 leaders just legislation to keep them in check have contributed to 35% of the emissions that they would comply. However, they’ve poison you day by day. The top 100 produce up been paying off the people who are to 70% of those emissions. When they get asked meant to protect you for years. $200 about it they deny responsibility for how their million dollars was paid by the top 5 products are used. It should be noted that these fossil fuel companies to perpetuate products are literal fossil fuels and come from the misinformation campaigns and companies like Chevron, BP, ExxonMobile, and lobbying organizations against climate Shell. It should also be mentioned that the top change. 15 American food companies make more greenISSUE XVI.III 42 the observer
BP spent $53 million on its own, the most of any organization in the US. They try to get you to believe they work with low carbon materials and present a company paid climate expert to ‘prove’ that their measures are environmentally friendly. With these lies going around on modern social media platforms, how are any of us supposed to know how to help you? How are any of us supposed to truly know how badly you need our help? Moreover, how are we supposed to elect the right people when we cannot differentiate between who is getting their money and the people who have your best interests at heart? The true question I have asked myself since I realized I lost you was how can I get you out of this toxic cycle? I know I don’t deserve you, none of us deserve you. All I can promise is to treat you as best I can before it’s actually too late. I’ll look up where my politicians get their money, I’ll try and reduce what I get and reuse what I have. When I do buy, I’ll make sure they have you in mind. I know that some companies are willing to treat you right as well. Food and beverage company, Unilever, has reduced the waste their products create post consumption by 29% since 2010. More than that, the companies I buy from will need to have you in mind. I’ll advocate for laws that protect you. I’ll pay attention to the globe so that worldwide companies behave in every section of the world so that Jakarta stops sinking and Australia finally stops being on fire. I’ll raise my voice for those who can’t. I’ll ask for transparency. I’ll vote. Look, I can’t change overnight but you deserve better than this. So, while I know I don’t deserve you, I will try harder every day to one day meet the bar. The corporations? They won’t change unless we make them, they’ll use you until you’re broken and then take their private space rockets and abandon you. I’m not a Jeff Bezos type, but I know that what I have over the money man is that the green I value is in the trees, the fields, and the flowers instead of the stuff in my wallet. 43
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
The Greatest Enemy: Deploying Militaries to Fight Climate Disaster By: Bibi Imre-Millei Fire. Floods. Fighters. As the climate crisis worsens, and local services and aid organisations become overwhelmed in the wake of natural disasters, military deployment becomes more attractive. In January this year, Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, agreed to deploy the navy and army to assist with evacuations and help volunteer firefighters fight the wall of flames which has burned through the country this fire season. In Canada since 2010, there have been over twenty deployments of Operation LENTUS, the code given to domestic deployments in response to natural disasters. The most recent of these deployments was in mid-January, when over two hundred soldiers were sent to Newfoundland in response to a historic snowstorm which covered the province. Deployments overseas in operations in response to natural disasters and resource wars are foreseen to increase. Climate change has begun to be thought of as a war against extreme weather, as countries fight to stay afloat, sometimes literally. But what we sacrifice when we choose to deploy the military over civilian emergency services is sometimes glossed over in favour of supporting any kind of assistance to those in need.
disasters. They are specialised to deal with the rescue and medical needs of local populations, and often know the area affected in ways that national, or international bodies may not. These services exist and prepare specifically for emergency situations and serve their areas either as part of the municipal government apparatus or as a volunteer force. While militaries are increasingly deployed in response to extreme weather events, most have very little training on how to deal with these situations effectively. The US military rarely runs exercises which incorporate natural disasters, instead the focus is on more traditional warfighting maneuvers. Despite this deficit, in 2015 climate change was identified as a primary concern for the US military in the context of both resource wars abroad, and a breakdown of services in the aftermath of natural disasters at home.
But local emergency services, though they have specialised training, often lack resources. Further, disasters often hold unique opportunities for corruption. As management costs rise, and federal and international agencies provide funding to alleviate confused situations, appropriation of resources is common. In 2014, then governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, was investigated for appropriating relief funds granted Local emergency services are trained to for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy to create respond to a variety of events, including natural tourism ads for the state. Emergency services are 44
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
often underfunded, and sometimes run on volunteer labour. In Australia, fire-fighting is made up of primarily volunteers, including in the state of New South Wales, where the fires were the most severe. In late December of 2019, Scott Morrison agreed to pay volunteer firefighters a one time payment of $6000 for their service during the fire season. One time payments are often offered in emergency situations to unpaid or underpaid local services, but they do not offer substantive fixes for underappreciation and lack of long term compensation. Avenues for corruption are potentially heightened in countries where emergency services are privately funded, or where they are not adequately funded. These concerns often result in calls for military or militarised involvement from broad sectors of society. With its often exorbitant funding, high-tech equipment, and public perceptions of competence, the military signals a way to bring order and safety to frightening and complicated situations. Military deployment is often helpful in the early stages of a disaster when emergency services are overwhelmed. The ability for quick mobilisation and freer use of funds can give an immediate boost to local responses. But some militaries are just as underfunded as emergency services, and lack the public trust to be seen as relief workers. Further, the use of military funds is often inefficient, as large equipment like aircraft carriers and other naval vessels often used in evacuations can cost millions to operate. This was the case in both Australia, and Puerto Rico, where aircraft carriers used to evacuate local populations far exceeded the costs needed to properly train and pay emergency services for the same tasks. As people worldwide see the military helping to evacuate civilians and mitigate natural disasters, they may begin to see soldiers as the most legitimate responders to these crises, as they often step in when emergency services fail.
missions and put aid workers at risk of attack. Some military branches have natural disaster response in their mandate, but this doesn’t necessarily mean they should be normalised as first responders.
By securitising the climate crisis and therefore necessitating military deployment, we may risk framing natural disasters as warfare against the planet, and climate crisis as the greatest enemy. The huge carbon footprint of militaries cannot be forgotten, and brings questions of who soldiers deployed to fight natural disasters are fighting against, and who they are protecting. This is not to say that militaries should not prepare for natural disasters. On the contrary, the lack of training on natural disaster response is part of what makes militaries inappropriate responders. It is unlikely that they will never need to be deployed in these situations. As climate crisis effects greater populations each year and militaries will increasingly have to operate in extreme weather conditions, a nuanced approach to the navigation of these events is needed. Instead of relying on military responses, emergency services and first responders need to be built up, trained, and adequately paid. While Australia’s current climate disaster will likely continue as long as the Prime Minister continues to deny climate change, a concrete step toward better response would be the incorporation of firefighters into the paid public service. Emergency response worldwide can no longer be a volunteer force with other commitments, as these services will be crucial in the future security of humanity. It is of great importance to prevent further effects of climate change through the many methods discussed in this issue, but we need to begin to think seriously about how we should respond when we look out our windows to see fire and floods.
However, military deployment (especially foreign deployment) is also steeped in politics. Deployments may say more about the material interests of specific countries than their commitment to helping local populations. Humanitarian aid organisations have been calling for limited military deployments in response to natural disasters since the 2000s, as they may hinder aid ISSUE XVI.III 45 the observer
By: Arianne Petch
UN Climate Talks Dictated by the Self-Interested Global North “Tick Tock� read the signs of protestors outside of the most recent UN climate talks in Madrid, Spain this past December. With climate change no longer creeping up in our rear view, this 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) was meant to strictly enforce the global standards of national emission reduction defined in the Paris Agreement in 2015. Unfortunately, in the case of most political talks surrounding climate change, discourse shifted from accountability and a collective ambition to reduce warming, to the negotiation of political loopholes surrounding the agreement. The COP is the highest decision-making institution surrounding the articles set out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was established in 1924. The ultimate goal of this convention is to prevent the potentially dangerous effects of greenhouse gas concentra46
tions. The almost 200 countries that have ratified its articles are deemed the parties to the convention. More recently, the Paris Agreement, created in 2015, has been developed in order to build on the convention, holding countries more accountable in the fight against climate change. An essential section in the Paris Agreement is the definition of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), where each Party must put forward their best efforts in reducing their national emissions. The goal of this long-term reduction plan is to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but well below 2 degrees Celsius. The intended objective of COP25 was to navigate the next steps towards full implementation of the previously agreed upon NDCs, in order to fully reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, with the global temperature increase at about 1.1 degrees Celsius already, the
ISSUE XVI.III the observer
goals of the Paris Agreement may be already out of reach.
Current NDCs are insufficient. With the rate of warming increasing, there is just not enough ambition in Global North countries to enhance their contributions to emission cutting, despite the necessary pledge in the Paris Agreement to put forth their best efforts. What is disappointing but nowhere near surprising about these pledges is that only 37 countries have pledged to update their NDCs in 2020, and those missing from the list: all the major Global North countries including Canada and the United States.
not keep global warming below levels agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.
Too many of the major topics were sidetracked, with the call to action being lost among the disagreement of political jargon within the agreements and negotiations. The underlying theme of these tensions was the lack of ambition displayed by wealthier countries within the Global North. Their priorities are nowhere near the same as smaller, developing countries. This disconnect has led to negotiations being centred around the North asserting that they should not be held to the same standard as their fellow parties. Their priorities remain centred around the negotiation of loopholes, rather than workThe countries that are putting in the work and ing to address the systematic points of dispute, enhancing their goals are those with more to such as those within the controversial natural carlose but less resources to protect themselves. bon market. So where are the international powers in all this? Stuck in a comfortable, yet outdated, fossil fuel Carbon trading within the market is esdependency. We can find these leaders on the sentially governments issuing permits to go over wrong side of the divide between the driven, previously set emission limits, freely or at a very hungry for change, real world; and the aged, low price to companies in the respective carbon slow-paced, political processes of the climate emission sector. However in the end, the only talks. These countries, such as China and Brazil, parties arguing in favour of the carbon market are arguing that there should be no obligation to are those that stand to gain the most through enhance their NDCs, asserting that it is a coun- its manipulation. There has been an overwhelmtry’s choice, not something to be enforced by the ing focus on arguing varying standards, politiinternational community. cal technicalities and finding loopholes through which counties in the North can get away with There may be one sliver of hope for the a lack of accountability. The issues surrounding Global North, the proposal of the European the global carbon market, the continuation of Union’s “European Green Deal,” through which outdated carbon credit trading or even the acthe confederation has pledged a bloc-wide countability for emission reduction within carbon goal of net-zero carbon by 2050. The question sectors has been pushed another year. Not only of whether this will be a big enough step to pull had it remained unresolved from last year’s talks, other international superpowers out from their it has been deadlocked once again, with the goal dependency on fossil fuel is still very much up in being lost among the political jargon and prothe air. Many NGOs believe that this might place cesses required to drive real action. a significant amount of pressure on one of the world’s largest polluters, China, if the pledge is These talks ended in more questions than finalized before the EU-China summit which is answers, more confusion than clarity and, shockscheduled for September 2020. If the EU can ingly, less accountability and legitimacy than the maintain momentum in the official implementa- last. Protestors and the rest of the world watching tion of their pledge, hopefully this can pressure are left in awe and disappointment at the lack of China into rethinking their 2020 NDCs. As prom- momentum achieved in response to the sense of ising as this all may sound, with global warming urgency being demanded. The world is calling already running ahead of predicted schedules, for action, but as we have seen, with politics in are pledges for 2050 enough to make a differ- the way, action is almost impossible to come by. ence? Many NGOs are arguing that more shortterm targets need to be set as these promises will ISSUE XVI.III 47 the observer
The
Ob ser
ve r
O Facebook: The Observer Queen’s University
Instagram: @theobserver.qiaa.
Website: theobserver-qiaa. org
48
ISSUE XVI.III the observer