In a controversial decision that sent shockwaves through the climate action community, Rishi Sunak announced a significant overhaul of some of the UK’s legally binding environmental objectives. On September 20th, 2035 became the new 2030. Sunak’s decision, veering away from the 2019 roadmap to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, is making waves for its ‘pragmatic’ makeover. As the world grapples with the ever-escalating climate crisis, should we be pushing back deadlines, or should we be pushing ourselves further? Undoubtedly, the long-term gains of environmental policy endorsement far outweigh any short-term costs, right? Due to political culture however, this is not often a reality.
Politicisation of the Issue
Politicisation of climate change has been major in contemporary political discourse. The persistence of polarised views on environmental issues has made it increasingly challenging for policymakers to enact radical environmental policies that would guarantee our achievement of net zero by 2050. This has been especially the case in the US. A 2022 Yale survey showed that only 55% of the population believes that scientists think climate change is real. Skepticism has delayed action as politicians grapple with the absence of bipartisan support. This affects international cooperation, as polarisation can strain diplomatic relations and undermine efforts of collaboration. Pledges made on the world stage often falter when they return home, derailed by governments more focused on personal re-election goals than global responsibility.
Short-Term Cycles vs. A Long-Term Perspective
Across democracies, especially in the West, elected officials hold office for relatively brief periods. This inherent short-term focus often means that many political decisions are made focusing on short-term gains that would ensure re-election. Environmental issues demand sustained and future-oriented commitments. But here is the dilemma: the benefits, while significant, are not instantly tangible, while costs are more immediately felt. Economic concerns, particularly job losses and potential cuts in industries reliant on fossil fuels, generate considerable resistance to radical change. In this context, the hesitation to implement comprehensive environmental policies stems partly from a fear of economic strain and political unpopularity. The misalignment between the short-term cycles of politics and the long-term perspective required for effective environmental policy thus can be a significant barrier to progress.
So… is there hope then?
While understanding the complexities of environmental policy-making is crucial, it can be overwhelming and discouraging. I know, I have been there, feeling paralyzed by the frustration that change is not happening fast enough and the creeping apathy that often accompanies it. However, it is essential to recognise that Rishi Sunak’s decision is not a reflection of the electorate’s opinion. In the UK, our collective concern for the environment is among the highest in the world. The IPPR finds that over three-quarters of the population (77%) thinks we must do ‘everything necessary, urgently as a response’ to the climate crisis. It is also not representative of the global trend. Many countries, such as Germany, Sweden, and Costa Rica, have made steadfast long-term commitments to environmental sustainability while successfully managing economic and employment transitions in the energy sector. The significant surge in solar power adoption in Europe is another positive advancement, with a nearly 50% increase in 2022. These are signs that progress is happening, and it is inspiring. Looking forward, the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP 28) set in Dubai and convening on November 30th promises to be the most inclusive COP ever. So even though it is important to understand why environmental policy-making has been slow-moving to better advocate for it, there are many reasons to stay hopeful and ambitious as we work together towards global progress.