The world is not serious about climate change

This post marks the first edition of my weekly series, where I'll share insights on selected science-related events, claims, or social media posts from around the world. If you enjoy reading personal and scientifically plausible explanations of daily scientific claims or events, consider following me and turning on notifications. This week, I’ll dive into what the world is (and isn’t) doing about climate change. Let’s explore the topic below.

The World Isn’t Serious About Climate Change

The planet is experiencing unprecedented warmth. Each year, we’re setting new records for average daily temperatures. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the global daily average temperature hit a new high of 17.15°C on July 22, 2024, surpassing the previous record of 17.08°C on July 6, 2023.

Annual global CO₂ emissions, 1940–2023

Anecdotal evidence of warming is also hard to ignore. Here we are in November, and I’m writing this post shirtless due to the heat! Global warming brings with it the broader issue of climate change, which has become a top priority for international bodies. The goal is clear: cut emissions as much as possible and create carbon sinks.

Sounds straightforward, right?

One would expect governments worldwide to lead the charge in cutting emissions through robust policies, even if they fall short in creating carbon sinks. Unfortunately, that’s far from reality. The policies and actions from many governments appear largely performative. They often use media addresses on climate to appear proactive without making meaningful changes.

Why do I say this?

Around the world, especially in developed nations, there are countless instances proving we’re not serious about tackling climate change. Some of you, especially those with a science background, may know what I mean. For those less familiar, I’ll highlight one key example of policy-linked events that worsen climate change instead of addressing it.

Wars

Gone are the days of swords and stones; modern warfare involves jets, missiles, and bunker-busting bombs, all of which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. For a world genuinely invested in combating climate change, one would think modern warfare as we know it would be obsolete. Some of you may challenge this, but I believe a serious approach to climate mitigation would mean halting the production of greenhouse gas-emitting weapons—if we can’t eliminate war entirely.

In January 2024, just four months into the conflict between Israel and Palestine, The Guardian published an article estimating the war’s emissions. Within the first 60 days alone, the conflict generated over 281,000 metric tons of CO₂. Now, almost a year later, the conflict isn’t over, and another front has opened between Israel and Lebanon, not to mention other ongoing conflicts worldwide.

At year’s end, we’ll likely have more data on emissions from these major wars, which will no doubt be significant. Unfortunately, few climate advocates speak out on the impact of warfare emissions, almost as if war emissions don’t affect the total. If the world truly cared about climate change, we’d shut down industries that fuel these conflicts with high-emission weaponry.

The world can and should do without war—or at least, we should learn to conduct conflicts without endangering the planet.

What are your thoughts?

Posted Using InLeo Alpha