Observations on our political climate

18 August 2019

What do we owe to people in other countries who are already suffering the dangerous effects of climate change, or who are sure to be impacted far sooner than we will?

“Not much at all” is, embarrassingly, the response that Australian leaders seem to think morally justified.

The injustice is that the countries being hit first and hardest by climate change are among the poorest, and having been low carbon emitters historically, these countries are among the *least* responsible for the current crisis. Nonetheless, they’re copping the worst of its effects. The small Pacific island states, for instance, are staring down the barrel of frequent extreme weather events, loss of coastal arable land, crop failure, degradation of fisheries, and threats to water supplies (among other devastating effects).

“What [high-emitting populations] are doing now is destructive on a scale that is unprecedented in human history”, says environmental ethicist John Nolt (on the CJSW radio program ‘Nourish’). “The World Health Organisation estimates that the effects of climate change – heatwaves, violent storms, the spread of tropical diseases and so on – today are killing about 200,000 annually around the world.”

Australia is a major contributor to this human catastrophe, being currently responsible for 5% of global carbon emissions (a proportion that could increase to as much as 17% of global emissions by 2030, if pollution from fossil fuel exports are factored in).

But at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu, marathon talks led nowhere fast, with Australia stubbornly resisting efforts by small island states to achieve a Pacific-wide consensus on the phase-out of coal. Meanwhile, back in Australia, Acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack showed ignorance and disregard for both the plight and dignity of Pacific islanders people when he expressed annoyance that island nations are ‘pointing the finger at Australia and say[ing] we should be shutting down all our resources sector so that they can continue to survive… There’s no question they will continue to survive… because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit.’

Setting aside the evident diplomatic gaffes, insults and ignorance, it beggars belief that Australia is continuing to expand its fossil fuels sector while our regional neighbours face not just imminent suffering and displacement, but actual existential threat. Why are our leaders not sensing the urgency of divesting?

Part of the answer is their fixation on economic efficiency, though it should be clear by now that efficiency is not the only value we need to be pursuing. Another part of the answer is the short-term decision-making bias inherent in our election cycle, and the self-serving desire to appeal to the short-term interests – largely, the self-interest – of the electorate.

We are not powerless here. There are actions we can take to lend greater political currency to the interests of countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati. We can be loud and persistent in letting our governments know that long-term environmental problems matter, and that the effects they’ll have on other countries are also our concern. This is ever more necessary as – in the face of the worsening climate and ecological crisis – our leaders continue to bend to the will of profit-motivated, selfish, uncharitable and compassionless elites.

The particular question “Why should Australia decarbonize swiftly?” and the related, more general questions: “Why should I do something that disadvantages me?” or “Why should I give up a convenience I value?” are questions that might well be asked. But we may find that they remain a puzzle only in a political climate that places concern for short-term self-gratification ahead of a concern for the wellbeing and survival of humans and the natural world.

The deeper questions we should be asking as philosophers are: What does distributive justice look like? What treatment do we owe to other people? Do we owe more to those who are more vulnerable? Do we owe more to those who have done relatively little to contribute to the global problems now affecting them? And how can we overcome the empathy barrier, which prevents us from responding compassionately to the suffering of others whom we don’t know personally?

……………………..