The Politicization of environment - passing trend or a constant pattern? 🍂🌴

We live in an era where everything is political, and politics is everything. Surprisingly, even the air we breathe and the water we drink. The divided humanity has now even divided Mother Earth and taken a claim over it. Environmental degradation and climate change are today treated not as a common problem for all, but subject to differentiated responsibilities, as nations today like to believe.

First stop: to go back to when it all started. The environment and its resources have always been a hot topic of debate and contested over aggressively. Indeed, colonialism was motivated primarily by a desire to capture and control natural resources at the expense of the local population. The same is true for present times, be it nations fighting over oceans or Antarctica or the Cauvery or Mahanadi water disputes in India only. It is a fact that regional politics is increasingly motivated by parties advocating not only for regional aspirations, but also for demands or discontent over local resources and their exploitation, as was the case for Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.

Global Politics: Conflicts at Climate Conventions

In view of the emerging environmental problems like the rise in sea level, ozone layer depletion, the threat of many island nations getting submerged underwater, melting of ice caps, and an increase in global temperature by 1.5 degrees Celsius, global politics has finally become embroiled in this arena since the last few decades. International platforms and conventions like the COP summits and the Paris Agreement make frequent news headlines. An age-old controversy in this regard is between the First World and the Third, while developing nations are firm on their motto: "Let the polluters pay", by citing how the now developed West is responsible for the current climate scenario - having taken full advantage of the erstwhile Industrial Revolution and blaming the load of high carbon emissions on the poor countries. A prominent example is COP26 in Glasgow, where India, alongside other developing nations, pushed back against calls for an outright coal phase-out, advocating instead for a gradual "phase-down." India’s argument rested on its need for affordable energy to power its development trajectory, especially as its historical carbon emissions pale in comparison to those of the West. The Developed north, however, believes in viewing the status quo and sharing equal responsibility for the damage done so far. At the G8 meeting in 2005, India pointed out that the per capita emission rates of the developing countries are a mere, tiny fraction compared to their western counterparts. As a result, the Earth Summit and Kyoto Protocol recognize the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. But the question still arises: Are these conventions and protocols doing enough? Are they really apolitical? For instance, critics have pointed out how such treaties, protocols, and Agenda 21 are biased in favor of the West, favoring economic growth rather than ecological conservation. Sure enough, money and the economy today are higher priorities than the environment and its sustainability. To highlight some statistics, the per capita emissions remain vastly unequal; the United States emits over 14 metric tons of CO2 per person annually, compared to India’s mere 2 metric tons.

Politics and the Role of Media: Polarized Narratives

People and political leaders deliberately avert their gazes from the pressing issues of climate change, and media often amplifies the political narratives in a one-sided manner, using its influence to unite or polarize public opinion, as was evident from the backlash in Greta Thunberg's case. Similarly, events like the 2019 Australian bushfires, which burned over 18 million hectares of land and caused immeasurable biodiversity loss, were reported differently. Some outlets underscored the link to global warming, while others attributed the devastation to local issues such as forest management failures.

While reading Amitav Ghosh's work for my VAC Ecology and Literature last semester, it hit me fair and square how not only common people like us, but our leaders, artists, and authors are equally responsible for somehow downplaying or entirely ignoring the entire issue, which Ghosh termed as the Great Derangement. However, it is their narrative, their political views, and decisions which ultimately not only shape public policy but also impact our daily lives, ecosystems, and marginalized communities. Statistics often reveal the stark reality that rhetoric can’t conceal. Global carbon dioxide emissions reached 36.6 billion metric tons in 2022, marking the highest ever recorded, making the year the hottest one on records since the 19th century. These figures should inspire action but are instead politicized to fit narratives that polarize public opinion.

The Way Forward

In my firm opinion, the 3 P's - politics, people, and policies must converge to resolve the environmental crisis. Leaders need to prioritize sustainability over short-term economic gains. International frameworks must become more enforceable, with clear accountability mechanisms for all parties involved. Equally, media houses should aim to inform, not inflame, public opinion, presenting balanced perspectives rather than amplifying one-sided agendas.

The responsibility doesn’t end with politicians and institutions; common people like us must also hold leaders and corporations accountable while adopting sustainable practices in our everyday lives. Only by combining local actions with global cooperation can we hope to address climate change effectively.

The environment cannot remain a pawn in political games. It is time to recognize that the Earth belongs to no one and everyone. The cost of inaction is too high for future generations to bear, and the urgency of this challenge leaves no room for division. We must rise above political divides and act as a united global community. The question remains—will we?