Why are governments pretending global warming isn’t happening?

Governments will do all they can to tackle climate change – providing it doesn’t cripple the economy, cost jobs or hurt long-term growth. This is expected: no country would risk the financial stability of the realm to ensure CO2 emissions are slightly reduced and waters are kept cleaner. Yet few in the highest echelons of power will admit to moving backwards on environmental policy, and would rather people just forget about global warming. Paradoxically, not doing anything to tackle climate change is the surest way of all to destroy jobs and impede long-term economic growth.

It’s unlikely governments will forsake the economy for the environment; the short-term fix is favoured over the complex – but crucial – long-term remedy. And the truth is people value their standard of living more than the environment. So governments can’t really be blamed for cooling efforts to boost renewable energy sources. But the economy versus the environment will continue to be a huge conflict of interest as 65 percent of annual CO2 growth is down to economic activity, according to the New Economics Foundation.

The truth is people value their standard of living more than the environment

The G20 Summit heads to Australia in November and eyes are fixed on the country. Many hope environmental issues will be prominent on the agenda, but the chances of that happening are as likely as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot choosing to become a monk… again. Abbot is easy to single out as an environmental tyrant, but he is only one of a host of leaders who are growingly increasingly apathetic to climate change. Here, we highlight some of the most prominent governments that have gone cold on global warming.

Australia: environmental vandal
Air pollution is killing more Australians than road accidents, according to an investigation by The Sydney Morning Herald. Despite this, Australia’s right-wing government is clear on climate change: it will never be as important as economic growth. In July, we reported Tony Abbot was on a destructive mission to reverse Australia’s commitment to the environment with a string of deeply worrying polices. Since assuming office in 2013, Abbot and his Environment Minister Greg Hunt have been at the forefront of a worrying number of policy reversals. They have pushed hard for the delisting of a rare Tasmanian forest as a World Heritage Site, exempted Western Australia from laws protecting its endangered sharks and approved offshore infrastructure that will dredge 35 million tonnes of the seabed.

The Galilee Basin is at the root of the problem. With a combined area of 96,000sq mi, it is one of the biggest thermal coal reserves in the world. Due to its close proximity to the Great Barrier Reef, environmentalists are concerned mining will lead to an extra 4,800 ships travelling across the highly sensitive area. Abbot’s unabashed move to ditch environmental responsibility in favour of big business was described by one disgruntled citizen as “environmental vandalism”.

Canada: global warming censor
Meteorologists have been banned from discussing climate change in public by the Canadian Government. The shocking move to gag weather experts highlights Canada’s wavering commitment to environmental issues. In June, the government joined forces with Australia by publicly forsaking climate change in favour of financial growth. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said environmental sustainability was “not the only or even the most important” problem the world faced, at a joint conference with Tony Abbot in Ottawa. The pair played down the possibility of coordinated global action on climate change, despite President Obama’s ambitious package for united action on curbing emissions. Harper and Abbott said they felt no extra pressure to make a concerted effort to combat climate change.

Canada’s CO2 emissions were 14.68 metric tonnes per capita in 2010 and they are predicted to soar 38 percent by 2030. The country had agreed to reduce greenhouse gases by cutting emissions to five percent of 1990s levels by 2012, but the government pulled out in 2011. It has also rejected the Kyoto Protocol – an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions – by continuing to exploit oil sands. Greenhouse gas emissions for oil sand extraction are three times higher than a barrel of conventional crude oil. Stephen Devlin, an economist at the New Economics Foundation says: “With increasingly ambitious domestic policies coming from China and the US… Steven Harper is at a real risk of marginalising himself in the international community.”

UK: crazy Pickles
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles was described as “crazy” for his apparent opposition to offshore wind farms by Tom Burke, Chairman of the sustainable energy advocacy group E3G. The former government advisor criticised Pickles for his interference in environmental issues and claimed his stance on renewable energy was “scaring away investors”. Since Pickles has been in office, he has authorised just two of 12 onshore wind farm applications. But the problem is more deep-rooted than one dogmatic politician who opposes renewable energy. Burke says environmental policy is “ideologically against the core values of the right”.

In January, the UK Government came under fire for discreetly pushing through new changes to fracking regulation so companies no longer have to inform nearby residents of their plans to drill in the area. Prime Minister David Cameron is also alleged to have told junior ministers to “cut the green crap” from energy bills, according to The Sun newspaper. The UK Government has tried to look pro-green by hugging huskies and announcing plans to build a wind turbine at the PM’s home in Oxfordshire (which mysteriously never happened): behind closed doors, however, a tacit agenda against climate change may be in the making. To be truly active, the UK has to set the pace for climate change in Europe. “If Britain led the pack in aggressive measures to reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent, Europe could cut its gas imports from Russia by 80 percent,” says Burke, citing E3G research. Despite calls for the government to do more on environmental policy, the coalition is still on target to half emissions by 2025.

Germany: coal hearted
Coal was once a doomed source of electricity in Europe, but it’s been on the ascendancy since Germany decided to shutter its 17 nuclear power stations. The closures will be completed by 2022, and come in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and as consumers bemoan rising electricity costs in Germany (three times higher than US prices). It’s a massive step backwards for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has helped Germany become one of the top renewable energy producers in the world.

Around 32,411 MW of renewable energy is produced in Germany annually: nearly 30 percent of the country’s electricity needs. This commitment to renewable energy is keeping electricity prices high and has forced Germany to reopen its coal plants – much to the dissatisfaction of environmentalists. Coal-generated electricity is at its highest rate in Germany since 2007. And this is not any old coal; it’s lignite, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel. Germany is seeking to rebalance green ambition with the reality of sustaining a healthy economy, but Burke believes the two can coexist: “Climate change policy will enhance economic growth – it will stimulate investment in infrastructure and generate value whilst improving energy productivity.”

India: Greenpeace antagonist
India is haemorrhaging $80bn a year by failing to turn around environmental degradation, according to a World Bank report. Growth has brought opportunity and optimism to India – as well as air pollution and water contamination. This is a “big threat to the livelihood of millions of Indians,” said Greenpeace India’s Nandikesh Sivalingam. Relatively little has been done to tackle climate change as CO2 emissions rose 7.7 percent last year and India appears to be on course to exacerbate the issue.

In August, the Indian Government announced plans to tighten control over the funding of Greenpeace India, sparking fears of a wider crackdown on environmental groups. The Ministry of Home Affairs told India’s Central Bank that any transfer of funds from Greenpeace International or ClimateWorks Foundation to Greenpeace India will need special approval. The ruling, coincidently, came several weeks after India’s Intelligence Bureau claimed foreign funded NGOs were “stalling development projects” and hurting growth. Pro-business Prime Minister Narendra Modi believes this has set India’s economy back three percent annually. Greenpeace India described the move as an attempt to “crush and stifle opposing voices in the civil society”. Sivalingam added the NGO continues to face challenges over the “destruction of biodiversity” thanks to forest mining and the “unsafe” use of nuclear energy.