Sustainability Corner: There’s “two years left to save the planet,” what can we do? Nathaniel D’Amato
On Wednesday, Apr. 10, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Simon Stiell, issued a harrowing warning that there are “two years left to save the planet” during a “Chatham House think tank in London.” This claim was not backed by definitive proof but was used by Stiell as the basis for an immediate call to action.
During this assembly, Stiell pushed for climate-affirming regulations while chastising the actions of the top 20 leading global powers, as they are the cause of over 80% of the Earth’s emissions. He suggested constructing new programs with increased pressure on climate-related issues and expressed the urgency of coinciding with upcoming global elections. Afterward, he continued saying, “Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future. And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit.”
This speech directly addressed several wealthy and influential individuals, as Stiell attempted to make it clear to the audience that there is a plausible way to increase the climate change response. Yet, if more funds are put into the climate reform process, it seems that everyone's intent on reducing their carbon footprint is only achievable if people are willing to adapt to the changes it may cause. The most crucial note during this address was the call for a reallocation of funds, targeted directly at the top one percent, which has the means and capabilities to change the current dysfunction.
Simon Stiell’s agenda going forward is based solely on petitioning for these wealthy individuals to reconsider their current allegiances and consolidate a portion of their income for the betterment of the future. He made it clear, repetitively, that the citizens are not the ones to blame in this situation, as they’re calling for reform. He said, “More and more people want climate action right across societies and political spectrums...because they are feeling the impacts of the climate crisis in their everyday lives and their household budgets.” Shortly after that, the assembly adjourned and people began to debate the validity of Stiell's remarks, calling them either hyperbolic or entirely accurate. This has led to a situation where, two weeks later, no one side can come out of this debate with a reformed plan.
This leaves the general public to come to terms with this revelation and try to craft a plan for the future. As it stands, any individual action, like composting, recycling, upcycling, and anything eco-friendly, could lessen a person's ecological footprint, but this minute fraction of work won’t be enough to reduce this impact on a global level. The action that may be necessary comes down to the manufacturers, not the consumers. Due to this, people may need to urge action from those in power—those who have a vested interest in the well-being of the planet—and those who have the means to combat this issue head-on.
From this assembly, seemingly the only way forward is to cooperate and reallocate the wealthy’s finances. Steps need to be taken to ensure that environmentally harmful machinery is replaced with more sustainable counterparts and that waste isn’t being disposed of carelessly.
Continuing forward, it will be important to keep informed and educated about climate change. Stiell’s work is being continually documented, so it may be educational and helpful personally and environmentally to research and view the progress of his work.