What is necessary for our generation to tackle climate change effectively?

By George Pickthorn - DUELS Essay Competition 2021 Winner

The question draws into discussion not just an examination of the necessary solutions to climate change but specifically what the most effective strategy for our generation is to adopt. More and more, public opinion is convinced by scientific evidence that human industry and infrastructure is, through the emitting of greenhouse gases, the primary cause of catastrophic conditions for the survival and welfare of people and wildlife around the world. This essay will argue that it is necessary for international targets to be better translated into domestic legal obligations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Our generation should demand better domestic legal policy in order to enforce GHG emissions reductions and encourage green or less carbon intensive alternatives for industry. International coordination and national (or even more localised) organisation cannot be substituted for one another; our generation should support a legal transition so that domestic and international commitments can work most efficiently together.

To understand the importance of domestic policy for our generation to tackle climate change, it is first key to assess the nature and significance of global action through international commitments. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is a notable example of this. The agreement broke remarkable new ground as it brought together nations from across the planet to agree targets of reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This reduction in emissions was pursued in order to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. These targets are defined as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and parties of the agreement are legally bound to form and communicate such targets. According to the agreement, these NDCs must be raised every five years as the transition to net-zero carbon emissions intensifies.[1]

However, there is debate as to whether or not parties are legally bound to realise their NDCs. There is growing consent that the targets should be binding but in fact, an investigation by the Climate Action Network has found that no EU nation is on track to meeting their targets set at the Paris Agreement.[2] If outcome orientated obligations are not pursued at the domestic level, then the targets set out at international agreements will not be met. The shortcomings of domestic climate policy and its relationship to international agreements should be transparent to our generation so a greater sense of accountability can be fostered.

By further strengthening domestic legal policy concerning climate change, our generation can hold institutions accountable in their efforts or lack thereof for transition. If a target of net-zero emissions is to be met by the second half of the 21st Century then institutions must be held responsible for emissions despite the challenges of zero-carbon supply chains and production. Emitters in all sectors must be given a deadline for net-zero emissions within a domestic legal framework. Global GHG emissions are the combined result of the actions of a great number of emitters and therefore a multitude of emitters must achieve a net-zero outcome. If our generation is to tackle climate change effectively, domestic legal policy cannot be lenient on any single emitter. The Hague’s finding of Royal Dutch Shell’s efforts to curtail carbon emissions to be insufficient in May 2021 is a notable example of climate litigation enforcing better standards on emissions. Domestic legal policy is well suited to implementing international pledges.[3] When it comes to climate legislation, domestic courts should be used as an effective tool for penalising emitters for our generation to tackle the problem.

Just as our generation must effectively tackle the conduct of heavy emitters, so should domestic policy influence market mechanisms to find viable alternatives to carbon intensive industry. Providing these solutions to avoid environmental disasters will avoid reactionary domestic policies such as the 1956 Clean Air Act implemented by the UK Government in response to intense pollution in London which was followed a few years later by similar policy in the United States enacted by President Nixon.[4] The huge growth in the UK offshore wind energy industry is a notable example in the global development of cheaper sustainable energy through domestic support.[5] The UK government has financed research in this sector as well as infrastructure for example Dogger Bank, the largest offshore wind farm in the world being built off the coast of North East Yorkshire. The importance of state support for developing sustainable energies is particularly important. Frequently products like mobile phones become more popular and cheaper as the technology develops, becoming more effective. In contrast, electricity sent to households from a sustainable generator is no more useful than that produced from the burning of fossil fuels. National governments should provide the bedrock for energy to make a transition to sustainability because more often than not, consumers won't create demand on their own. Our generation should push for domestic policy to support such industries in need of transition in terms of technological development and helping to retrain workforces. This support will tackle climate change by reducing carbon intensive industry and by giving opportunities to sustainable companies.

In conclusion, because climate change is a global issue, nations cannot on their own remedy it. However, without effective legal implementation at the national level, international agreements will not possess the necessary capability to enforce a reduction in emissions. Every year such action is deferred, the more substantial and critical the action will become. In order for our generation to press world leaders to take on stronger environmental domestic policies, the shortcomings of current domestic policy should be made more transparent to the public. The public should be better shown the pressing nature of climate change as well as the complex and diverse ways in which institutions and industries must alter their conduct and products to lower carbon emissions. Agreements in the future such as the COP 26 meeting later this year should progress international targets. Domestic policy should match this progress to enable change. Beyond glamorous promises, our generation must push change, making national governments responsible for better domestic policy to reduce emissions.

[1] Petra Minnerop & Ida Røstgaard, In search of a fair share: Article 112 Norwegian Constitution, International Law, and an Emerging Inter-jurisdictional Judicial Discourse in Climate Litigation, in the Fordham International Law Journal, 44.4, (2021), 847 – 920, (pp. 849), in < https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2819&context=ilj > [accessed 24 July 2021]. [2] Climate Action Network, Off Target: Ranking of the EU countries’ ambition and progress in fighting climate change, (2018), < https://caneurope.org/content/uploads/2018/06/CAN_Off-target_report_FIN.pdf > [accessed 26 July 2021]. [3] Lucas Chancel, Unsustainable Inequalities: Social Justice and the Environment, trans. By Malcolm DeBevoise, (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 2020), pp. 140. [4] Bill Gates, How to avoid a climate disaster§: The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need, (London: Penguin University Press 2021), pp. 180. [5] Paul Hawken, Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming, (London: Penguin Random House 2018), pp. 3.