“The number of environmental laws has increased 38-fold globally since the Stockholm declaration on the human environment in 1972 – but there has been a lack of political will to implement these laws due to the potential impact on livelihoods, lands, properties, and profits . . .” this is a statement contained in The United Nations Environment Program Report. Not only does the government play a role in controlling the use of non-renewable energy, but consumers also take an important role in it. People often blame the government for global warming, but when examined further, consumers play an important role in their consumption patterns in the energy sector. For example, the use of oil-fueled vehicles is still the cause of ozone depletion. In other words, the government and society need to work together to realize a serious political will in dealing with global climate issues.
According to the journal “Energy Transitions as Political Struggles: Delegitimizing Fossil Fuels”, researchers at the IMF estimated that global energy subsidies, including the social and environmental costs associated with heavily subsidized fossil fuels, are costing the world’s governments approximately $5.3 trillion per year, or 6.5% of global GDP. Logically, from this huge amount of global energy subsidies, the thing to do would be to look for renewable energy or start reducing the use of fossil fuels. However, what happens instead is to realize the interests of the oligarchy in terms of profit. Political struggle against fossil fuel interests – from corporations to fossil fuel cultures such as consumerism, orthodox economic growth. The sustainable energy transition is therefore one of decarbonization, divestment, politically motivated transition/destabilization of the incumbent energy and economic system (Barry, 2015).
Orthodox Economics is also known as Public Choice Theory. This theory explains that actors, such as politicians, voters, bureaucrats, and also economic actors, such as companies and consumers are agents in utility maximization. Public choice theory also explains that there are people who think that the climate problem is a classic problem faced by all and this theory has a solution. This theory states that the origin of the climate problem is external. Therefore, it is necessary to solve this problem internally, for example by taxation or community control of resources. Thus, the problem solving of the climate problem comes from the logic of collective action. Another case is with Critical Political Economy theory. This theory is closely related to capitalism and comes from Marxist thinking. If climate change is the result of the accelerated burning of coal, oil and gas from the late 18th century onwards, then it can be seen as the cause and consequence of the emergence of capitalism from the 17th century onwards. Fossil energy has been at the center of capitalism for a long time.
There are two metaphors that will further explain how important it is to reduce environmental impacts. First, the tragedy of the commons, this metaphor explains how people who own resources or property should be responsible for the things they own. If not, what will happen is suffering. A farmer will not just stand by if other livestock eat in his pasture. Meanwhile, the pasture has been prepared for his own livestock. If left unchecked, erosion, weeds will grow, and the pasture will be gone in no time.
Similar to the tragedy of the commons, the lifeboat metaphor explains the same point, namely the importance of controlling one’s resources so as not to cause destruction. The difference is that the lifeboat metaphor uses the analogy of a ship. A ship is filled with 50 people. Then, there are 100 people who also want to get on the ship because they are assumed to be rich countries. Meanwhile, the ship’s capacity is only 60 people. Garrett Hardin, as the originator of this metaphor, gave three options, namely unlimited sharing, selective sharing, or no sharing and Hardin chose the third option. It can be understood that the reason Hardin chose for no sharing in the lifeboat metaphor is because he did not want what had been built so far to be destroyed. This is a rational choice. However, we all share life on this planet. We all deserve equal access to natural resources. In terms of rich and poor countries, two-thirds of the world is poor and one-third is relatively rich. As such, it would be unwise to choose the no sharing option.
In his article entitled “Environment in Political-Economic Perspective”, Mochtar Masoed provides two case studies. One of the causes of drastic climate change is the depletion of the ozone layer. The main cause of ozone depletion is CFCs. CFCs contain chlorine atoms that damage the ozone and act as air conditioning materials, aerosol propellants, cleaning agents, and spraying in the manufacture of foam plastics. So far, efforts to slow greenhouse gas production have usually clashed with issues of industrialization and economic growth (Mochtar Masoed, 1995). In many cases, government officials must make a “trade-off” between the consequences of pollution and the benefits of an activity. If the benefits outweigh the harm caused by the pollution, then the activity will go ahead. The point to be made here is that reducing greenhouse gas production requires major changes in the lifestyles of the population of the Advanced Industrialized Countries (NIMs), including food consumption.
Given these conflicting interests, it is easy to understand why policies to solve atmospheric problems at the national and local government levels are piecemeal. For many Developing Countries (NSBs), solving environmental problems must yield to the achievement of more important goals, namely economic development. Therefore, NIMs often blame NSBs for not taking environmental issues seriously. In fact, NIMs themselves are the biggest contributor to the emergence of global environmental problems. Some NSBs support the perspective developed in the Bruntland Report that development problems are interrelated with environmental problems. On the other hand, environmental degradation worsens local economic conditions and thwarts economic growth strategies.
Another case is deforestation, which threatens the physical conditions of soil, water and air, making environmental problems global. Clearing forests by burning causes the generation of greenhouse gases, which in turn leads to global warming. The remaining conflict is between the government, which proposes a political solution, and business, which proposes an economic solution through market mechanisms. In many NIMs, environmental conservation has long had political support in the form of national legislation. However, economic pressure to cut timber continues in many NIMs. In some cases, environmentalists have successfully used legal tactics to inhibit or even stop logging.
Logging is still a major public policy issue in many countries where the economics of forestry confront conservation efforts and environmental values and ethics. In general, timber companies have found it economically and politically advantageous to invest in reforestation and to apply new technologies and management techniques to stabilize the relationship between economic and ecological forces. From the NSB perspective, logging is not a mistake, it is a political and economic imperative. Income from logging can be needed to repay foreign debts and provide employment. Many NSBs complain that NIMs and international organizations practice “eco-colonialism” by demanding that NSBs change their development strategies to de-emphasize the exploitation of tropical rainforests and industrial activities.
Economic development is important for economic growth and citizen productivity, but it would be better to consider aspects of the energy trilemma. The energy trilemma summarizes three important aspects, such as energy security, energy affordability, environmental sustainability. If these three aspects can be upheld by both developed and developing countries, it will be easier to create equitable economic development for all. Actually, the problem is when the use of fossil energy for vehicles or the use of air conditioners without considering the above energy trilemma.
Climate problems cannot be separated from the environmental problems that result. The two case studies above want to illustrate how the impact of deforestation and CFCs have an important role in increasing global temperatures. The concern here is that it is sad when developed and developing countries cannot collaborate to create a cleaner and healthier planet for the living beings that live in it. It is agreed that this global climate problem must be solved with a real collective movement as described in Public Choice Theory. Unfortunately, capitalism makes the system worse in Critical Political Economy. They focus more on economic development without considering its sustainability.
