Why Are Political Leaders Ignoring Global Warming as the Planet Heats Up?

When Mark Carney became prime minister, he immediately scrapped Canada’s carbon tax. He claimed this decision would help struggling Canadians while also addressing climate change and enhancing competitiveness. However, this move emphasized his political challenges over genuine environmental action.

What changed? The world faced new dangers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked an energy crisis, pushing Europe to revert to coal and gas. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in emissions as economies rushed to recover. Despite China making strides in renewable energy, its industrial activities still relied heavily on coal, increasing emissions.

As billionaires saw their fortunes grow, many from the middle class felt the strain. This economic disparity fueled populist movements. Conservative parties gained traction, often supported by fossil fuel interests eager to maintain their influence.

In Australia, the Coalition proposed replacing coal plants with nuclear energy. They argued this would help meet long-term Paris Agreement goals, but the Australian Climate Change Authority warned it could result in an additional two billion tonnes of carbon emissions by extending coal’s lifespan. This initiative was heavily backed by mining interests.

Earlier this year, Christopher Pyne lauded this nuclear strategy, not for its potential environmental benefits—but for unifying the Liberal party. He described it as a “gem” of a policy, revealing a disconnect between those in power and everyday citizens.

On the other hand, Labor plans for a faster shift from coal, focusing on gas-powered renewables, batteries, and hydro. However, like the Liberals, they also support increasing fossil fuel exports to avoid giving their opponents an advantage in the political arena.

Meanwhile, the costs of ignoring climate change continue to rise. The last decade recorded the hottest temperatures globally, with Australia now averaging 1.5 degrees warmer than in 1910. A study in Nature estimated the economic impact of climate change from 2000 to 2019 at approximately $2.86 trillion, averaging around $143 billion a year.

Despite clear signals of climate urgency, a majority of people want stronger climate action. According to a recent Nature study, 89% are in favor of it. Yet, when it comes to elections in countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.S., politicians often prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental policies.

As climate tragedies escalate and the risks become more evident, a striking question remains: Can political leaders find the balance between addressing urgent financial needs and effective climate action?

Nick O’Malley serves as the national environment and climate editor for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Source link