Life inherently comes with a multitude of problems. Only a small subset of these problems threaten the existence of humanity and all other biological life. One of these problems is the consequence of fossil fuels and other carbon emissions: global warming. As a direct result of the lack of action from governments and other global institutions, climate change continues to worsen, and we lack the benefits of a greener economy. However, evidence shows that little to nothing is being done in the grand scheme of things. Governments, global institutions, and individuals should be pushing for a green future.
Our climate matters. The climate that makes up Earth’s atmosphere is perfect for living beings such as humans to be able to thrive. However, damaging our atmosphere through climate change is detrimental to planetary life, including humans. The United Nations states that “limiting global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 °C would help us avoid the worst climate impacts and maintain a livable climate.” They go on to explain that “policies currently in place point to a 2.8 °C temperature rise by the end of the century” (United Nations). The 1.3-degree difference between the estimated and targeted temperature rise may seem small, but that slight difference results in an immense impact on our climate.
Various factors contribute to the detrimental progression of climate change. One article titled “Assessing Regional Progress Towards a ‘Green Energy Economy’” found that long term, there is little to no progress toward a green energy economy, with per-capita income growth being the main short-term obstacle. They conclude by writing that a “far more ambitious and integrated approach” is needed (Mundaca and Markandya). Furthermore, the authors in the research article “Identifying Impact of International Trade and Renewable Energy Consumption on Environmental Quality Improvement and Their Role in Global Warming” find that, in G-7 countries, gross domestic product (GDP) and imports greatly increase carbon emissions by 0.597% and 0.427%, respectively (Khan et al.). Kyla Tienhaara explains in “Governing the Global Green Economy” that the G20 has not been doing enough in the way of “promoting a ‘green recovery’ from the Global Financial Crisis and has similarly failed to stimulate ‘green growth’” (Tienhaara). The authors in “A Review of Africa’s Transition from Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy Using Circular Economy Principles” reveal that countries such as Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa, and Egypt are still mainly using fossil fuels as their primary energy source (Mutezo and Mulopo). Finally, an analysis in “Population Growth and Climate Change: A Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy-Demography Model” shows the existence of a feedback loop between population growth and climate change. An increase in the labor force leads to economic growth and, as a result, emission levels. These increased emissions lead to climate change which, in turn, leads to a rise in mortality rates (Lupi and Marsiglio).
All these factors contribute to climate change and global warming. NASA states that “Global climate is projected to continue to continue warming over this century and beyond.” They go on to say, “Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.” Sea level rise due to melting polar ice, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, more heat waves and droughts, a longer wildfire season, changes in weather patterns, and more. These issues lead to a snowballing effect of other problems. One such example is the impact on biodiversity. A change in climate will force various species to either adapt or die. While the time to stop some of these effects may have already gone past, we can still slow some, and prevent others. It may even be possible to reverse some of the effects of climate change and reap the benefits of a green energy economy.
Governments and global institutions should focus their efforts on increasing institutional quality, renewable energy consumption, and exports. Those three factors lead to a significant improvement in carbon emissions and environmental quality. In “Identifying Impact of International Trade and Renewable Energy Consumption on Environmental Quality Improvement and Their Role in Global Warming,” the authors’ research shows that institutional quality leads to an average decrease of 0.051% in carbon emissions long-term. Additionally, they found that renewable energy consumption elicits an long-term decrease of 0.055% on average. They also explain that exports engender a staggering 0.286% average decrease in carbon emissions in the long run. Finally, GDP and imports respectively yield a 0.597% and 0.427% increase in carbon emissions (Khan et al.). Individually, these reductions may seem small. However, if governments and global institutions focus efforts on all of these factors, carbon emissions will be significantly reduced.
Industrialization in growing countries means that energy needs will increase. Governing bodies of these countries must focus their efforts on using renewable energy over fossil fuels. In “A Review of Africa’s Transition from Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy using Circular Economy Principles,” the authors describe the current situation regarding green energy in Africa. They find that Africa’s energy needs are projected to increase due to industrialization, population growth, and economic growth. The authors explain that “most of sub-Saharan Africa’s energy supply comes from renewable energy sources, while countries such as Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, South Africa and Egypt (the Big Five) are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.” They conclude by writing that a circular economy enables the transition to renewable energy. The authors add one possible solution that may bring a country closer to a circular economy. They write, “regional finance institutions such as the African Development Bank and governments, can continue to finance more scalable technologies and adopt ‘intentional’ regulations which are guided by circular principles and a just-transition” (Mutezo and Mulopo). Developing countries should focus their efforts on using renewable energy, and developed countries should continue to make the transition away from fossil fuels.
One way individuals can have an impact is in the form of green bonds. With green bonds, money is pledged toward projects that focus on the environment. In “Green Bonds as a Tool Against Climate Change?,” the authors analyze the impact that green bonds have on climate change. According to the authors, “Green bonds are debt instruments that differ from conventional fixed income securities only in that the issuer pledges to use the proceeds to finance projects that are meant to have positive environmental or climate effects.” In the authors’ conclusion, they state that while their results strongly support their framework’s conclusion that green bond issues point towards a commitment to climate-friendly behavior from companies, the reduction of emissions cannot be exclusively attributed to these bonds as companies have much larger overall financing needs. They state that firms borrowing on the green segment have a reduction in carbon emissions “up to 2 years” after the bonds were issued. Additionally, they find a greater reduction in emissions in green bonds that have external reviews, in addition to those issues after the Paris Agreement (Fatica and Panzica). By prioritizing green bonds over other, traditional bonds, individuals can pledge their money as an investment into a project that brings us closer to a greener future.
Small day-to-day actions may further contribute to the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlines 5 main categories in which individuals can reduce the impact of climate change–energy, waste, transportation, water, and environmental justice. The EPA states that “using cleaner energy sources is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases and help combat climate change.” They recommend looking for ENERGY STAR labels on various products that consume energy. They also recommend practicing the “three R’S: reduce, reuse, and recycle.” Reducing consumption of products prevents landfills from overflowing, where excessive greenhouse gasses are produced. Reusing and recycling products also cuts down on the amount of waste produced by extending the product’s lifespan, leading to a further reduction in greenhouse gasses emitted from landfills. While modern vehicles have optimized their emissions, they still have a substantial impact on the environment. The EPA recommends biking, walking, carpooling, and using public transportation when possible. Additionally, they recommend using energy-efficient vehicles, such as electric vehicles. Not only do these alternative modes of transportation help the environment, but they also tend to be cheaper. The EPA explains that water takes a lot of energy. To be viable, water must be pumped, treated, and heated. Turning off running faucets, using low-flow showerheads, taking shorter showers, and cleaning clothes with cool water are all ways to reduce water consumption, and in turn, greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the EPA recommends getting involved in one’s community. Planting trees, educating others, and voting are all ways to help the environment in one's local community. By informing others of the climate crisis, an increasing number of individuals can take steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
The effects of governments, global institutions, and individuals doing nothing to push for a greener future are horrifying. Temperatures will climb, sea levels will rise, and extreme weather events will become more frequent and more intense. It is still possible to mitigate, prevent, or even reverse some of these issues if governments, global institutions, and individuals do more to push for a greener future.