The explosive development of consumer society leads to an increasing risk of various disasters throughout the world by creating a systemic imbalance in the interaction between man and nature in their totality.
Some sociologists believe that the global society has moved from a state of industrial modernisation to a state which they characterise as a “risk society”.
The term was introduced by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck in 1986.
The term was introduced by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck in 1986.
We can say that such a constantly growing, complex society primarily produces not material benefits, but inevitable cataclysms.
The source of risks is no longer nature, but society itself, which at the same time is exerting more and more effort to avoid or at least mitigate the consequences of inevitable disasters.
The source of risks is no longer nature, but society itself, which at the same time is exerting more and more effort to avoid or at least mitigate the consequences of inevitable disasters.
The 21st century has already been marked by a worsening climate situation (link) and a number of epidemics and pandemics.
The former led to the creation of the Paris Agreement in 2015, with aim to keep global warming within acceptable limits.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed both the behaviour of individuals and the functioning of national governments.
These developments bring to the fore the concept of a global risk society, not just as one of the theories, but as a real alternative to existing globalisation.
Global strategic planning must be transformed into global risk management.
If the chains of events leading to natural disasters become the norm, rather than accidents, the concept of sustainable development loses its meaning.
Will the future of humanity only get worse?
Depending on the answer, society will either return to the pessimism of “The Limits to Growth”, or take a proactive position on the global climate.
To effectively respond to global challenges and threats, it is necessary to determine several key circumstances
Climate change issues are the responsibility of states and are based on two principles enshrined in UN conventions and declarations.
One concerns the national interests of states.
The second concerns global environmental challenges.
One concerns the national interests of states.
The second concerns global environmental challenges.
These principles often come into conflict with each other.
Obviously, the first principle is more commonly a priority. In other words, no matter how important the task of solving environmental problems is, the objective cannot contradict the national interests of individual states.
According to experts from the IMF and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the heads of state and government, given the current situation, have a unique opportunity to “reset” their economies, making them more environmentally friendly.
There is such an opportunity, at least, in the energy sector. Most of all, Western countries have succeeded in pursuing this.
A different energy structure is not the only reason for the environmental friendliness of the West.
Many “dirty” and dangerous industries were transferred from the developed world to developing countries, primarily in Asia.
Many “dirty” and dangerous industries were transferred from the developed world to developing countries, primarily in Asia.
Asian countries welcome foreign investments that help solve the problem of employment and poverty, albeit to the detriment of the environment.
One approach that can help change the situation is to account for emissions not according to country of production, but country of consumption.
Developing countries pollute the atmosphere more intensely, not only due to technological lapses and dirty energy carriers, but also due to export-oriented “dirty” industries.
Indeed, now production in the East is primarily aimed at meeting consumer demand in the West.
Indeed, now production in the East is primarily aimed at meeting consumer demand in the West.
If each country, instead of the local level of emissions, takes into account the hydrocarbons expended on making and transporting consumed goods, regardless of their place of production, then the perception of accountability will be revealed as the mirror-opposite of how it is currently perceived.
The countries with the cleanest production will be acknowledged as the dirtiest due to their large share of consumption.
A chicken-egg dilemma arises. Who is responsible for air pollution: producers or consumers?
Climate diplomacy is in many ways “second track diplomacy”, in which the main concepts and ideas are implemented primarily through public organisations and civil activists, and not through traditional state foreign policy channels.
It is no exaggeration to conclude that states follow civil actors in climate diplomacy and not vice versa.
Among the huge number of participants in climate diplomacy, three are the most influential players. They differ substantially in their origins and the methods they use.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a non-governmental organisation dedicated to the conservation and restoration of the environment.
It was founded in 1961 by British biologist Julian Huxley shortly after he visited East Africa as Director-General of UNESCO and was shocked at the rate of destruction of native flora and fauna there.
The WWF is indirectly associated with the UN, since it acts as an official consultant to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
It was founded in 1961 by British biologist Julian Huxley shortly after he visited East Africa as Director-General of UNESCO and was shocked at the rate of destruction of native flora and fauna there.
The WWF is indirectly associated with the UN, since it acts as an official consultant to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
The Greenpeace movement is also an international public organisation. However, it is fundamentally different from the WWF. Greenpeace is an activist community funded by personal donations from supporters as well as independent charities.
Greenpeace’s main tools are direct non-violent protest and scientific research.
Greenpeace’s main tools are direct non-violent protest and scientific research.
There are individuals who influence the environmental agenda even more than huge organisations with established histories.
Greta Thunberg has become the newest big-name eco-activist. Her main tools have been school strikes and social media activity.
A 15-year-old girl showed by example that for the protection of the environment there is no need to go on long journeys or risk your life. Anyone can protect nature. It is enough to come and sit silently on the steps of the parliament.
Greta Thunberg has become the newest big-name eco-activist. Her main tools have been school strikes and social media activity.
A 15-year-old girl showed by example that for the protection of the environment there is no need to go on long journeys or risk your life. Anyone can protect nature. It is enough to come and sit silently on the steps of the parliament.
The now 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl became one of the world’s top newsmakers and a leader of the environmental movement. Time magazine named her Person of the Year 2019. It also included her among the Top-100 most influential people in the world (in the same category as Donald Trump and the Pope).
Her speech, which was addressed directly to world leaders at the 2019 UN summit, was widely discussed around the world.
At the same time, her supporters were able to hold, perhaps, the most massive global environmental campaign, bringing together up to 4 million people around the world.
At the same time, her supporters were able to hold, perhaps, the most massive global environmental campaign, bringing together up to 4 million people around the world.
How can we compare and evaluate the effectiveness of these three climate and green movement strategies, presented by WWF, Greenpeace and Greta Thunberg?
In today’s postmodern world, where everything is measured by likes on social networks, the key indicator (without irony) is the number of followers. And here the 16-year-old schoolgirl has almost more supporters than WWF and Greenpeace combined.
In today’s postmodern world, where everything is measured by likes on social networks, the key indicator (without irony) is the number of followers. And here the 16-year-old schoolgirl has almost more supporters than WWF and Greenpeace combined.
But not only activists seek to influence environmental change. The richest man on the planet, Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, launched The Climate Pledge on September 19, 2019, with the aim of achieving the Paris Agreement goals 10 years earlier than scheduled.
On February 17, 2020, he announced his intention to allocate $10 billion to combat climate change through the activities of the Bezos Earth Fund.
There were calls in the American media not only to spend this money on new projects, but with their help, to create international institutions to promote “climate justice”.
There were calls in the American media not only to spend this money on new projects, but with their help, to create international institutions to promote “climate justice”.
Since climate change is the No. 1 problem facing humanity as a whole, sanctions for related violations should be considered a priority.
The Climate Justice system will be able to competently resolve disputes on environmental issues in specialised courts.
However, in order for it to work effectively, in all contracts related to the environment, a special clause is required on the willingness of the parties to refer the case to such courts.