Climate Crisis Calls for Concrete Political Answers

Gabriele Casano
PhD student in “Risk, Security and Vulnerability” at the University of Genoa, Italy; researcher at CIMA Foundation. Supervisor of the “Internship Research Project” at the Einstein Center for International Studies

In a world forced to face a potentially catastrophic climate crisis, individuals do not know where to turn. The myth of the nation-state is crumbling day by day, and with it the presumption that globalisation is the illusory bearer, always and everywhere, of opportunities for economic growth. The ability of politics to define the priorities of societal life and to ensure that they are realised is increasingly weakened.

It seems obvious to perceive climate change as one of today's greatest challenges; however, the inability to adequately address it does not seem to be of equal relevance. While climate change has undoubtedly entered the political and cultural debate in almost every country in the world, the instruments adopted to remedy it do not seem to be sufficient locally, and even less globally. There is no doubt that politicians and economic elites have not yet been able to define and outline a concrete change in the government of the climate crisis. The reasons for this are multiple and have deep roots in the broader phenomenon of ungoverned globalisation. In some respects, we could describe climate crisis as just another perverse expression of the lack of government of globalisation; or even define it as the conjunctural and apical expression of the negative externalities of a consumerist world-system. Externalities that are hidden behind privileges that people are not really willing to renounce, or only to a small extent. Externalities that turn out to be lower for some than for others. Indeed, the consequences of climate crisis are significantly more pronounced in the poorest and most vulnerable regions and strata of the population across the globe.

Their calls for help and support often clash with indifference, but even more often with the inability to provide remedies and concrete solutions. For years, the research community has been arguing the need to invest more in the fight against climate change, especially in those contexts where resources and capacities are scarcer. Yet, little has been done in this direction. Of particular relevance, is the condition of the African continent, considered by the most reliable experts as one of the places most sensitive to climate change. Africa has a population of 1.4 billion and is undergoing strong demographic expansion; nevertheless, the African continent is responsible for less than 3% of the world's total greenhouse-gas emissions. Having ascertained the correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, it is clear that we are facing a paradox. A paradox that the international community has not wanted to, and has not been able to overcome. Because it is exhausted by the contingencies of the recent pandemic crisis, the weakening of the multilateral system, the direct and indirect effects of the war in Ukraine, and the persistence of limited political farsightedness, particularly on the part of the political class and economic elites, etcetera.  In addition to new ideas and new approaches to tackling climate crisis, we need a new awareness of politics' role in governing today's society and an affirmation of an international solidarity that supports, first and foremost, the needs of the most vulnerable. Today's situation calls for political action at the global level based primarily on the principles of climate justice, having regard to fundamental concepts such as vulnerability, risk and resilience.

The ineffectiveness of climate change regimes so far established at the international level does not need to be here further discussed, although the reasons for this ineffectiveness can be summarised in few words. At first, there is a congenital inability of the international system to define coherent, binding and decisive long-term strategies; moreover, law still remains a weak instrument on the international scene, and it is even weaker when implemented in an intergovernmental approach. These elements are only apparently distant from reality; they constantly manifest themselves in the clash between human political action and the materiality of the historical process in which we are immersed and which we contribute to defining. Responsibility must be assumed; drastic decisions must be taken.

Despite an undeniable inability to govern globalisation, a glimmer of hope is represented by the ‘global minimum tax’, an agreement between 136 OCSE countries for a 15% minimum taxation on the profits of multinationals to prevent them from relocating to countries with more favourable tax treatments and consequently reducing the redistribution capacity of states. This is a not insignificant sign of an international willingness to act, through a courageous regulatory attempt of the global market, against growing inequalities and to reduce the neo-liberalism that has characterised international economic policy over the past 30 years. This instrument would be ineffective if implemented at the national level; indeed, it would risk undermining the state itself. Here is yet another paradox. If the holder of political power (the state) decides to act alone, it finds itself incapable of intervening effectively in governing the mechanisms of globalisation; on the contrary, if it is allied with a majority of its counterparts, it may be able to govern those same mechanisms. In the short term, federalists must encourage such a mechanism and operate for the adoption of the proposal at the individual signatory countries' level. Furthermore, it is crucial to guarantee the implementation of an international body capable of resolving related disputes.

Despite the virtuous case presented above, which raises hopes for a global-scale return of politics in the management of globalisation, in practice there are no 'international champions' on the horizon who are prepared to take on these onerous tasks. The European Union is still far from being able to take on this role due to a number of weaknesses, mainly due to its unachieved political integration process. Individual states are even more incapable of playing such a role: internal and external economic challenges dictate the political agenda almost unopposed; and there are no emerging credible solution-oriented policy scenarios. Nevertheless, despite nationalist resurgences, there is a hidden popular awareness of the impotence of the public entity in ensuring public goods for all. This last one calls for a restoration of confidence in politics at every level, from local to global. This is almost as complex a challenge as climate change itself and, in both cases, time is not on our side.

In view of the above, radical paradigm shifts are needed in economic and social practices as well as in political ones. The latter have a far greater responsibility than the previous ones: the responsibility of collective representation. In a world dominated by globalisation, the possibility of encounter and exchange is available as never before, which entails an expansion of action and thought, but also an explosion of the variables at stake and the responsibilities associated with them. Economic globalisation and, to a lesser extent, social globalisation, have outpaced politics, creating a short circuit that makes the human condition more uncertain and vulnerable than ever before. We need to be aware of this and require politicians worldwide to make the change of pace that is now more necessary than ever.