I woke up with this devastating news, once again about climate change…. unless you are a climate change denier that does not associate it with the relentless impact of decades of man-made catastrophe to the environment but to “natural circumstances that do not demand any action”.
That is precisely climate change: a change of logics not necessary deep analysis from experts. A tough reality that impacts the whole world particularly those regions more vulnerable. Either because of a lack of financial resources that do not allow them to face the new challenges, or just because of their geographical position, as the Netherlands or the coast of US. The latest even with enough resources to face the threat of rising seas they are impacted equally to least developed countries. That is the paradox for environmental changes: “wealthy or poor countries” become both vulnerable under current threats. Is it so, that being in a pro-environmental mood is the answer even if there are contradictions, or not enough forecast of the impact of this threaten ” new normal” for the planet.
The US has made of environmental isolationism a State issue that includes cultural and political sides as a way to prevent any kind of financial allocation, however, it has only raised more concerns on sustainability at a national level and their ambitious goal of being the 1st country in the world. America will never be 1st by denial but the implementation of innovative practices and legislation that encompasses the new challenges. Is it true that not investing in the environment supposes a financial gain, but comes from the short-termism, although with terrible consequences for future generations and in many cases -as with the rise of sea levels- almost immediately.
For instance, the sea level around Battery, New York, has risen by nearly 9 inches since 1950. Its speed of rising has accelerated over the last ten years and it’s now rising by 1 inch every 7-8 years.1 Scientists know this because the sea level is measured every 6 minutes using equipment like satellites, floating buoys off the coast, and tidal gauges to accurately measure the local sea level as it accelerates and changes.*
Even if the emissions target are met the relentless impact of climate change will continue.
According to *WWF “10.000 species go extinct every year” its real and in many cases the “hysteria” for not investing or changing current “business as usual codes” make the narrow-minded thought that innovation and protection it is about that: financial resources.Although it is about a new framework of relations: institutions, citizens and the private sector, that includes investment. Profits would not be affected because of a new dynamic but of a lack of creativity, innovation, legislation, and habits. Investment is a very important fact, but without the rest of the package will not work, as it demands the transformation of working codes not only production codes.
Climate change is a matter of culture in the sense that we do not thrive without changing traditional minds.
US withdrawal from Paris Agreement looks more of a political game rather than a conscious decision that creates an impact. The only ones that get benefits are those that would eventually be forced to restructure their businesses accordingly. More or less the same as Brexit, it is not about leaving Europe or climate change interests is about avoiding the natural transparency and accountability mechanisms that a global system demands.
Climate change deniers mainly from the United States represents an ultra-conservative climate-denying pressure group that is associated with the libertarian party. However, being against a welfare State with more freedom to citizens especially concerning taxes and more private responsibility, does not seems to have any relation to climate change or no protection to the environment. It supposes a different investment and management rather than a liberal perspective that still believes the State must take responsibility and action in those issues that cannot be lending only on private hands. Just because there are about humanity. When human rights and security are not guaranteed is not possible to rely on the private sector but to cooperate, together under a legal framework of monitoring.
If not, as I mentioned in one of my articles “Isolating US from green policies would make it less competitive”
Recent COP25 in Madrid exposure that there is an excess of politics and a little of the so-called “climate diplomacy”, in fact when we reflect about US Paris agreement withdrawal, we see that is a failure on negotiation. However, we see that consensus -even for those countries that pacifically accepted on their public speeches- is difficult because of politics and financial interests rather than a philosophy against climate change. Is it so that we need to work on the weakness: leadership-politics-transparency-accountability.
Climate change should not be a matter of debate but of ACTION and NEGOTIATION on measures and timing. Without hysteria…
https://sealevelrise.org/states/new-york/
https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/biodiversity/biodiversity/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/sea-level-rise-centuries-climate-crisis
SDG 17 Partnerships: the challenge of changing work codes
Isolating US from green policies would make it less competitive
https://thesustainabilityreader.com/2017/02/01/isolating-us-from-green-policies-would-make-it-less-competitive/
thesustainabilityreader 