Right: Norway, another Scandinavian country, has not passed laws obliging governments to protect its population against the consequences of climate change. While the Norwegian government has committed to becoming ''climate neutral", it plans to accomplish this by buying carbon offsets from other countries.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against governments and companies being legally obligated to protect people from climate change
1. Corporations and governments are already taking action to reduce the impact of climate change
Those who claim that businesses and governments do not need to be legally obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions note that both are already working to reduce climate change.
Their supporters note that many major corporations are already taking independent action to achieve this end. By November 2018, 2,200 businesses and investors - including corporations such as Walmart, Hewlett Packard, Dropbox, and Apple - had announced their commitment to the Paris Agreement, pledging to hold temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
In 2018, McDonalds, one of the corporations that pledged its support for the Paris Agreement, set a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent for its restaurants and offices by 2030. McDonalds operates 38,000 restaurants in over 100 countries-which include both franchised and company-owned restaurants. In December 2020, McDonalds signed three new virtual power purchase agreements (PPA) for two wind farms and one portfolio of solar projects in the United States. The virtual PPA will total 1,130 MW (547 MW wind, 583 MW solar). A single MW (megawatt) is estimated to be sufficient to power between 400 and 900 homes for a year.
McDonalds has stated that its PPAs in the United States are only the first stage in its plan to meet its emissions target. Similarly, in September 2019, Microsoft announced its purchase of a total of 230 MW from two ENGIE projects in Texas, bringing Microsoft's renewable energy portfolio to more than 1,900 MW. This is enough to power 1.5 million United States homes. In August 2020, Walmart announced that more than 2,300 of its suppliers had signed on to Project Gigaton. Project Gigaton is an initiative between Walmart, environmental groups, and Walmart's suppliers to cut a billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution from the company's global supply chain by 2030. In November 2019, it had already resulted in nearly 94 million metric tons of avoided emissions. Major fossil fuel-producing companies have also argued that they do not need to be threatened with legal liability. They claim they are already taking action to ensure that the Paris Agreement reduction in emissions can be met.
Following the Dutch court ruling binding the Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its CO2 emission levels by 45 percent from those in 2019, Shell stated, 'We have [already] accelerated our efforts to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050, in step with society, with short-term targets to track our progress...
We are investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables, and biofuels. We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly.'
Supporters of Royal Dutch Shell argue that it and other major oil producers do not need legal compulsion to work toward reducing CO2 emissions. On February 11, 2021, over a month before the court's ruling, Shell had announced its strategy to accelerate its transformation into a provider of net-zero emissions energy products and services. Shell confirmed its expectation that total carbon emissions for the company peaked in 2018, and oil production peaked in 2019. Shell stated its aim to build low-carbon businesses of significant scale by the early 2030s.
It has also been claimed that governments do not need to be compelled to work to limit climate change as most are already striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bring this about.
In December 2020, the World Economic Forum stated that 25 countries and the EU were working toward some sort of net-zero commitment (in many cases by 2050, though some countries such as Denmark and Finland have earlier deadlines). Several Asian economic powers made net-zero commitments in 2020, including South Korea and Japan (by 2050) and China - the world's largest emitter - by 2060.
The Australian government, for example, despite facing criticisms from other nations for not having done sufficient, has defended its record, noting the additional $2bn spread over 15 years it has directed to help businesses and farmers reduce emissions, bringing total government investment to $4.5bn. The Australian government claims this investment will deliver 100 million tonnes of emissions reductions.
In February 2020, the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated, 'In Australia, we've reduced emissions by 12.8 percent. We've been leading the world on renewable energy investment... We've got our investments in the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project, the Marinus Link to Tasmania, the Battery of the Nation. We've got $500 million invested in power research.'
2. Reducing the effects of climate change is the responsibility of citizens and consumers
Those who dispute that corporations and governments should be legally obliged to reduce climate change argue that this is primarily the responsibility of customers and citizens. Corporations argue that while they produce products that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the choice to use these products and the way they are used is made by the individual consumer. When defending itself in court at The Hague, Dutch Royal Shell argued consumers such as motorists are just as responsible for the choices they make, and producers should not be penalised disproportionately. Shell noted that even at the height of coronavirus-induced lockdowns and travel bans, oil consumption only fell by around a quarter, which they claimed indicates the strength of consumer demand. Shell claims it is responding to what consumers want and that it seeks to move 'in step with society'.
This point was made by Renee Cho in an opinion piece published by Columbia Climate School's State of the Planet on December 16, 2020. Cho stated, 'Our consumer habits are actually driving climate change. A 2015 study found that the production and use of household goods and services were responsible for 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.' A similar point was made in a report released four years later in 2019. C40 Cities, a network of 94 of the world's biggest cities, issued a report estimating how much consumption habits drive the climate crisis. In those nearly 100 cities, where a combined 700 million live, the consumption of goods and services 'including food, clothing, aviation, electronics, construction and vehicles' was responsible for 10 percent of global greenhouse gases in that year. The C40 Cities report placed a large measure of responsibility on individual consumers to change their behaviour. It stated, 'It is...largely up to individuals to decide how many new items of clothing to buy, whether they should own and drive a private car, and how many personal flights to take.' Renee Cho further noted that much of what is purchased by those living in wealthy nations are non-essentials. She claims, 'After basic needs are met, consumers begin buying items for social status; as people try to acquire more and more status, more and more expensive status products are needed. Producing all these things generates climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.' Relatedly, it has been claimed that the behaviour of consumers will influence the conduct of corporations. Companies, it is claimed, will cease to produce what customers refuse to buy. A 2019 Nielsen survey found that 73 percent of global consumers would change their consumption habits to reduce their environmental impact, and 81 percent feel strongly that companies have a role to play in improving the environment.
In an opinion piece published in The Conversation on January 10, 2019, Morten Fibieger Byskov, Postdoctoral Researcher in International Politics, University of Warwick, stated, 'By changing consumption patterns on a large scale we might be able to influence companies to change their production patterns to more sustainable methods.' It has also been argued that citizens in democracies are in large part responsible for the policies of their governments. It is claimed that where voters demand governments act strongly to address climate change, governments are likely to respond. Demark is seen as an example of this. Denmark's parliament overwhelmingly passed an aggressive new climate law on December 6, 2018. The legislation aims to reduce the country's carbon emissions to 70 percent below its 1990 levels by 2030, with carbon neutrality targeted for 2050. The Danish people have been concerned about climate change for years, but the issue did not become a political priority until parliamentary elections in June 2018. Polls suggested that 46 percent of voters ranked climate change as their top concern, compared to 27 percent in 2017.
A pre-election Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Danes considered their next government should respond to climate change. This powerful voter expectation affected the programs of virtually all political parties. In contrast, it has been argued that where there is no clear voter expectation that climate change will be addressed, then there is no imperative for governments to do so. Australia has been cited as an instance of a country where a lack of voter direction on the issue has resulted in confused and indecisive government action. In March 2021, Rebecca Colvin and Frank Jotzo of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University released a study linking Australia's fractured attempts to deal with climate change with the lack of clear support from the electorate. They write, 'Australia remains a laggard on climate policy while being one of the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters. Australia was the first country to repeal a price on emissions, in 2014, after implementation in a turbulent political context two years prior.' The writers connect this faltering policy history on climate change with a lack of clear voter support for a more focused approach. They write, 'Research from the mid-2010s positions Australia as second only to the United States in terms of how divided along left-right political lines are attitudes toward climate change.'
3. Governments have a larger responsibility than to address a single issue
Those who argue against governments being legally compelled to set and reach emissions targets claim that this may be an unreasonable restriction to place on governments. They argue that governments have a wide range of sometimes conflicting responsibilities to meet. They also argue that sometimes a country's external circumstances change in ways that make it impossible for governments to meet prior commitments.
Australian Coalition governments have stressed the range of competing interests they need to address in addition to meeting the country's emission targets. The Abbott government elected in 2014, while adopting a 'direct action' approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, openly prioritised meeting the other obligations it had to its electorate. In 2017 Abbott looked back on his government's policy position, explaining it in these terms: 'The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia's standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up. After two decades' experience of the very modest reality of climate change but the increasingly dire consequences of the policy to deal with it, anything else would be a dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish.'
Subsequently governments have adopted policies claiming a less complete prioritization of economic interests. Instead, they have promoted what they have termed a 'balanced' approach. Speaking at the Minerals Council dinner in June 2021, the prime minister, Scott Morrison, reassured the mining industry that its needs would not be overlooked despite the country's emissions commitments. He stated, 'The Australian way... says we can make these (carbon reduction) commitments and not forsake our heavy industries, not forsake our mining industries. And most importantly, not forsake the people of regional Australia, who others would seek to have us ignore for the sake of pursuing those commitments.' In a radio interview given in February 2020, Scott Morrison gave an additional perspective on the range of interests that the government had to consider when shaping their emissions policy. He stressed the large number of voter concerns the government had to juggle, including employment, tax rates, and energy costs. He stated, 'The government's saying "we wanna get there with a balanced policy which doesn't put people's taxes up, doesn't take away their jobs, and doesn't put their electricity prices up."' Supporters of this 'balanced policy' approach also contend that it is sometimes necessary to take approaches that involve the release of emissions to combat unforeseen economic challenges such as COVID19. Increased use of gas-generated power (despite its adding to greenhouse gas emissions) is part of the Australian federal government's plan to boost the economy following the damage inflicted by COVID in 2020. In September 2020, Prime Minister Morrison stated, 'As we turn to our economic recovery from COVID-19, affordable gas will play a central role in re-establishing the strong economy we need for jobs growth, funding government services and opportunities for all.'
The government has presented gas as a transitional fuel to be used as part of a longer-term move toward renewables. In May 2020, Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus, Taylor, stated. 'More gas means more capacity to absorb renewables [into the grid] because gas is flexible, dispatchable generation.' Though not an emission-free fuel. Gas has been defended as a less polluting fuel which would reduce global emissions by 10 percent. The government has stated it is focused on ensuring that electricity remains reliable and affordable as the market transitions from coal, and, for this reason, it is promoting gas as the key plank of its plan. Boosting Australia's gas production is seen by the government as a way of keeping electricity costs lower and supporting economic growth. In 2019, chemical giant Dow announced the shutdown of its plant in Melbourne's west, citing rising gas prices as a major driver. Sydney-based RemaPak collapsed into administration the same year, saying its gas costs had rocketed from $4 to $16 a gigajoule. Increasing supply and competition by opening more sources of gas is intended to put downward pressure on prices and so promote industry and employment as the country struggles to move beyond the economic pressures created by COVID. The Australian's editor-at-large Paul Kelly commented in September 2020 on the challenge faced by the Australian government in boosting the economy post-COVID19 while also striving to meet its commitments regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Kelly wrote, 'With Australia in recession, the Prime Minister seeks a new fusion between climate policy and economic recovery.' Three months later in January 2021, the prime minister announced that the government had struck a two-year deal with large east-coast liquid natural gas (LNG) exporters to offer uncontracted gas first to Australian companies, in a bid to keep prices down and lower costs for manufacturers as part of the government's COVID-19 recovery plan. Scott Morrison stated, 'Gas is critical to our economic recovery and this agreement ensures Australian businesses and families have the gas supply they need at the cheapest possible price. This is about making Australia's gas work for all Australians, while also supporting economic growth and backing important �regional jobs in our expanding LNG sector.'
4. Climate change is a global issue; no single government or company can act against it independently
Those who oppose individual governments or corporations being held legally accountable for their efforts to combat climate change argue that this is a pointless measure because worldwide action is required to address climate change. According to this argument, until we reach a point where all countries and corporations can be compelled to carry a proportionate responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions it is unjust to hold any one nation or company legally accountable.
This position was explained in an analysis by Kemal Dervis and Sebastian Strauss published by the Brookings Institute on April 20, 2019. The authors state, 'because there is only one atmosphere and the emissions of any one country add to global greenhouse-gas concentrations as much as those of any other country... Europe may well reduce its emissions in line with (or even beyond) the aims of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, but if India and China's emissions keep increasing-or if Brazil allows the Amazon to collapse-those efforts will have been futile... without a binding international agreement or a supranational authority that can impose global green policies, few countries have an incentive to engage in sufficient mitigation efforts...'
In an overview of the progress being made by the world's top ten emitters between 2005 and 2018, Forbes noted that China, which at that time contributed 27.8 percent to the world's greenhouse gas emissions had had its emissions rate grow by 54 percent in those 13 years. Similarly, India, which causes 7.3 percent of the world's emissions, had seen its emissions rate grow by 105.8 percent in the same period. Such growth rates among major emitters are claimed by some to demonstrate the futility and inequity of imposing legally binding limitations on other nations which contribute far less annually to the world's greenhouse gas load. It has been argued that where there are no binding international agreements with real consequences for failure to meet targets its is not reasonable to expect low emitters to accept legal penalties within their own countries. In an address given to the Australian Institute of International Affairs on February 25, 2020, author and journalist Paul Kelly noted, ''It is the big emitters who will determine the fate of Paris [Agreement], and the current trajectory is dismal.' Kelly argued that the reason for this failure to adequately restrain the large emitters. He points to the 'the non-binding structure of the agreement: states were asked to nominate their own targets for emissions reductions, and there are no consequences for failing to meet those targets.' The complaint that all nations need to be taking climate action, particularly all large emitters, has been regularly made in Australia. Several Australian governments have argued that Australia contributes relatively little to the world's greenhouse gas emissions and so should not face compulsions when many larger emitters are continuing to contribute to global warming. This point was stated in a 2009 background paper written for the Australian federal parliament. The paper stated, 'Despite being amongst the highest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG) per head, Australia was responsible for only about 1.5 percent of the world's total annual emissions of such gases in 2005. Though welcome, any reduction in Australia's GHG emissions, of itself, will not have a significant impact on the overall level of GHG in the atmosphere.'
In May 2019, Sky News commentator Alan Jones used a single grain of rice taken from a bowl to demonstrate to his television audience how small a contribution Australia made to global greenhouse gas emissions relative to those of other larger emitters. Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has similarly stressed that restricting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions would harm the country without advancing the cause of reducing climate change. He argues that while 'the really big emitters' continue to release greenhouse gases there is no value in Australia limiting its economic development to reduce emissions. In 2017, referring to other major developed and developing nations, Abbott stated, 'Between them, they're building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations - often using Australian coal. Should Australia close down its steel industry; watch passively while its aluminium industry moves offshore; export coal but not use it? Of course not...' 5. Short political terms encourage democratic governments to focus on the present
It has also been argued that imposing legal penalties on governments for not meeting emission reduction targets is not reasonable given the short-term focus of democracies.
It has been claimed that the nature of democracies' electoral cycles restricts governments' capacity to make long-term commitments. According to this line of argument, democracies plan around their electoral terms. Plans are normally operative for the period during which a particular government has been elected. In an article published in Politico on June 18, 2020, Dale Jamieson, professor of environmental studies and philosophy at New York University, stated, 'Tackling climate change requires long-term commitments, yet the time horizon of democratic leaders is keyed to the electoral cycle.'
Further, if a particular policy proves unpopular over a government's term, the consequence will be either that the government is removed from office or, if re-elected, that it changes its policy. In either case, long-term adherence to a policy that does not have electoral support will not occur. Commentators note that this has major implications for climate change policies which need to be preserved with, monitored, and, if necessary, adjusted over the long term. This can be seen in the fluctuations in climate change policy in Australia. In a background paper produced for the federal parliament in August 2016, it is stated, 'Climate policy has been a polarising and highly political issue in Australia. Several proposals to establish an emissions trading scheme have come unstuck, with the former ALP Government finally establishing a carbon pricing mechanism in 2012. However, the "carbon tax" was repealed by the Abbott Government in 2014 [to be replaced by] the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)...'
In another parliamentary background paper updated in May 2016, it was stated, 'Climate change is a long-term, global problem. Long-term problems generally require stable but flexible policy implementation over time. However, Australia's commitment to climate action over the past three decades could be seen as inconsistent and lacking in direction. At times Australia has been an early adopter, establishing the world's first government agency dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; signing on to global climate treaties the same day they are created; establishing the world's first emissions trading scheme (ETS) (albeit at a state level), and pioneering an innovative land-based carbon offset scheme. But at other times, and for many reasons, Australia has erratically altered course: disbanding the climate change government agency, creating a new one then disbanding that; refusing to ratify global treaties until the dying minute; and being the first nation in the world to undo legislated action on climate change, with the repeal of the Carbon Price Mechanism.' The same background paper has noted that these policy fluctuations have occurred around elections and appear influenced by the electoral cycle. It states, 'Since 2007 Australia's response to climate change has featured prominently in federal elections with close scrutiny given to party policies. It has been suggested that two federal political leaders have lost their position in part because of their policies on climate change (Malcolm Turnbull as Leader of the Opposition in 2009 and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2010). It has been claimed that the need for democratic governments to retain electoral support for whatever their climate change policy is a fundamental obstacle to the meeting of long-term emission-reduction goals. In this context, some have claimed, there is little point in imposing legal obligations on governments to attain these goals. Professor Dale Jamieson has stated, 'No government can deliver solutions when its people are unable to recognise them or unwilling to accept them.'