It’s safe to say that the issue of climate change is a hot mess. And quite literally so. With global temperatures increasing, wildfires rampaging, and extreme climates proliferating, it’s safe to say that the damage so far has been catastrophic.
How is it, though, that we haven’t gotten together and finally put up a fight against this existential threat? Well, the environmental movement faces many issues, and hence many open pathways. This article will look at the different ways progress can (or cannot) be made.
International agreements: a case-study on ozone layer depletion
COP26, the most recent high-profile climate conference was labelled a failure. Other international “landmarks” like the Paris Agreement seem the same. But the world has actually achieved something really great when faced with crisis.
In the 1960s, scientists started to notice the gaping hole in the ozone layer. This was mostly because of CFCs, substances that were used in many appliances, such as air conditions, and industry. Even though political response limped after scientific consensus, the global community swiftly implemented the Montreal Protocol, virtually banning all usage of CFCs. This worked for several reasons:
1. Citizen campaigns
Campaigns revolved around clear impacts to humans, such as the possibility of skin cancer, especially in Australia and New Zealand. This caused people to boycott hairsprays and bug sprays, which contained CFCs.
There was also a clear rallying cry and goal: that is, banning CFCs. This made the messaging more consistent, and also gave people an actionable step to take.
2. Creation of solutions (substitutes)
DuPont, a large company mainly responsible for part of CFC production, invested in the development of alternative chemicals. Moreover, scientists and policymakers acted faster due to one focus across sectors, allowing all resources to be devoted to this cause. At that point, transition to cleaner substitutes became far easier. Coincidentally, shifting towards these new chemicals turned out to be more profitable.
3. Financial assistance and funds for developing countries
The changes demanded were feasible for developing countries, making them more likely to accept. The Multilateral Fund was created so that money from developed countries could aid developing countries into switching their chemicals.
Also, the agreement was more tolerant to countries that heavily depend on CFCs (hot countries in need of cooling, such as India), by giving them an extended deadline (until 2028) to phase out CFCs. Countries that couldn’t meet the target were not subject to punitive measures. Instead, they received donations through this fund.
4. Nature of the industry
CFCs were only widely used in a select amount of industries and companies. This made corporate opposition weaker and less disruptive to people’s lives.
All these factors created the political pressure necessary to push world leaders into action. Unfortunately, there are several reasons why current international action on climate change might be harder.
1. Multiple spheres of the problem
For one, climate change seems to be an overwhelming issue for most people. The problem is rooted in how our industries work — from the energy we consume to our lifestyle choices. The environmental movement may also be inconsistent in its messaging of what to do, leading some to believe that we should focus on key industries such as cement and steel manufacturing.
2. Complicated international relations
Global tensions continue to persist. China, a major polluter, has softened the impact of COP26 by only agreeing to “phase down”, and not “phase out”, coal production. China’s relationship with the US has always been tense, suggesting that further external pressure will not change its stance.
If you ever find yourself in a debate about environmental strategies, you can analyse these different factors and why they might easier or harder to achieve under a certain motion.
Companies and why they’re hard to crack
Corporations are often painted as an ultimate evil in the fight for climate justice, and maybe rightfully so. ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, have sowed seeds of public doubt towards climate change and opposed climate action. This happens through several means:
1. Massive disinformation campaigns
According to Unearthed, Exxon funded fringe scientists and research groups that had opposing views on climate change. This gave them a spotlight to publish research that would question the validity of established climate research.
Along with this, companies have undermined public confidence about climate policy through a series of newspaper advertisements.
2. Lobbying groups
Industries become extremely powerful opposition when they are able to unite. Many companies have formed coalitions, such as the Global Climate Coalition, which has historically ran public advertisement and lobbying campaigns undermining the validity of climate change science. During COP26, lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry outnumbered any single nation’s delegation. Arguably, there is much more consensus now about the existence of climate change, so their current focus might be to delay the key climate change policies, such as the funding of freen industries.
Within the same industries though, there is a trend of environmentally-friendly firms, such as Pacific Gas and Electric, increasing their lobbying budget to gain a competitive advantage through new regulation; they’re only second in terms of lobbying budget behind ExxonMobil.
3. Backing selected government policies
This involves supporting specific government policies that are “less radical”, but still gives them good press. For example, backing carbon tax policies has become an effective public advocacy tool, but it comes at the cost of more effective policies, such as cap-and-trade policies.
Coalition groups are also very strategic in terms of who to lobby. According to Unearthed, ExxonMobil mainly lobbied moderate Democratic senators, those who were willing to double down on Joe Biden’s “extreme” proposal to fund clean energy. The politicians targeted are also those seeking re-election, an easy target for a company’s massive flow of campaign funds.
Companies, especially those based around carbon industries, have a strong incentive to protect their investments and shareholders. Also, many climate solutions often go against these companies, such as Joe Biden’s clean energy transition being funded by increased corporate taxes.
However, there are some positive trends that can change companies.
1. Counter lobbies
Within the same industries, there is a trend of environmentally-friendly firms, such as Pacific Gas and Electric, increasing their lobbying budget to gain a competitive advantage through new regulation; they’re only second in terms of lobbying budget behind ExxonMobil.
2. Shareholder activism
After characterising that companies care a whole lot about their shareholders, this exact mechanism can be utilised to advance progress. An example of this is change within Shell, where a shareholder campaign group called Follow This voted against Shell policies that would go against the Paris Agreement. This also caused Shell to reorient itself to set a net zero carbon emissions goal by 2050.
Related motions
- This House believes that environmentalist groups should fully abandon advocating for the mitigation of climate change (carbon taxes, carbon offsetting, planting trees), in favour of campaigning for adaptation efforts instead (e.g. building sea walls, exploring alternative living habitats)
- This House believes that environmentalists should emphasise blaming large corporations for environment degradation, as opposed to focusing on individual responsibility
- This House believes that climate activists should use gruesome imagery over scientific data as their primary mode of advocacy
- This House believes that environmental activists should advocate for nuclear power
Further reading
The information in this article is a compilation of several sources, which are listed below. We recommend you read them for further understanding of the topic.
- https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/back-from-the-brink-how-the-world-rapidly-sealed-a-deal-to-save-the-ozone-layer/
- https://www.earthday.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-montreal-protocol
- https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2021/11/19/li-shuo-on-the-surprising-vitality-of-green-activism-in-china
- https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/
- https://hbr.org/2016/10/research-whos-lobbying-congress-on-climate-change
Moreover, there are plenty of good debates available on YouTube regarding this topic. My favourite is:
- Australs 2020 Open Grand Final, That, as environmentalists, we would choose a strategy of working closely with corporations.