Over the past couple of years, i have become familiarised with climate change progress and stagnation.
The very essence of progress and hope in this arena, is unfortunately crushed by the realistic nature of the world. In some areas of the world, there is a focus to rigorously transform cities into recycling intensity towns, whilst in others the sheer levels of inequality and rule of the rich over the poor almost cancel out the efforts made by others.
I guess one of the obvious issues is surrounding the nature of the environment- as both a systemic model and a cumulative. Are we able to view the environment as one big system which is related? or are localised concerns and areas the source of trouble?
Around the world, we have various approaches to climate change- some are more relaxed, some are market-oriented and some have little to no existence. In general, the international efforts to combat climate change and to resolve concerns are effortless prizes; allowing Heads of Member States to brag about their sponsorships of certain treaties. But in reality, these non-threatening. non-binding treaties lack clarity on the real objectives which must be met and articulate the feelings of countries, resonating their political wills, with no real direction of how the goals will be approached.
Whilst the existence of treaties on the environment are to some extent a sign of success, what good are they when they are simply used to increase the power of already powerful states?
*just a little thought*