Earth’s security and prosperity relies on an apt response to climate change, the most urgent challenge of our time.
Present day European Union is damaged and requires reform, but in the absence of the EU there will be no victory in climate struggle.
In 2009, the EU was almost lost at Copenhagen, but European nations had the right insight to stay firm and achieve the commitments they placed on the table.
The example of Europe strengthened the hand of the ones in Asia, Africa and the Americas who wanted their nations to do more. European diplomacy played a part in falsify the global coalition that last year in Paris ultimately forced the door to remain partially open to a post-fossil age. And the whole time, European social movements have mobilized around the borders to maintain the honesty of governments.
In such efforts, the UK was at the forefront. Rather than undermining the sovereignty, the UK’s membership of the EU was behind securing the national interest.
Paris was just the end of the beginning. The ones clinging to an energy future relying on coal, oil and gas are now going to fight harder to save the value of their assets. Now, when the efforts need to be doubled, the Brexit would severely weaken the capacity of the Europe to take any action on climate. In the UK, it will have disastrous consequences.
Brexit would make the field all clear for the ones who are against the idea that by interfering in the economy for the betterment of the public, the world should create a clean, efficient, decentralized energy system, driven by the requirements of households and communities, not bossy private corporations.
A report published in Timesunion revealed, “Fortunately, it’s possible do that with carbon pricing (Newsweek). And if we use a revenue-neutral carbon tax, it won’t have to cost consumers or taxpayers anything. The fossil fuel corporations that created this problem will pay us, not the government. Asking the public to pay higher taxes or energy bills to fix climate change is like asking the residents of Flint, Mich., to pay for the damage their poisoned water system has inflicted on them.”
British Columbia has used a revenue-neutral carbon tax for eight years, and its economy has thrived. Such a tax is projected to create more than 2.8 million U.S. jobs in 20 years and increase GDP over $75 billion annually (citizensclimatelobby.org). And those clean-energy jobs will be permanent careers, 40-year jobs that will be created locally, just as the solar and wind power will be (Stanford University’s thesolutionsproject.org).
“Our security and prosperity depend on a successful response to climate change, the most urgent challenge of our time. So does any prospect of a transition to a way of living together that is just and sustainable. And if we fail on climate, we lose the very capacity to shape our destiny that makes sovereignty worth having,” according to a news report published by The Guardian.
Paris was merely the end of the beginning. Those who cling to an energy future based on coal, oil and gas will now fight all the harder to protect the value of their assets. Just when we need a redoubling of effort, Brexit would gravely weaken Europe’s capacity to act on climate. And its consequences in the UK would be calamitous.
Brexit would leave the field clear for those on the right who always hated the idea that by intervening in the economy for the public good we should build an energy system that is clean, efficient, decentralised and driven by the needs of households and communities, not overbearing private corporations.
According to a story published on the topic by Sanluisobispo, “When growing up, I was always aware of global warming, but it wasn’t until recently that I fully realized its extent and consequences. During an assignment in my freshman English class, I came to the alarming conclusion that it is too late for us to stop the extinction of the human species.”
My first step was to analyze the extent of current global warming and the scientific forecasts for greenhouse gas emissions. According to a recent peer-reviewed journal by Harvard research students, in the past 12 years methane emissions in the U.S. have risen by a staggering 30 percent, contributing to the 60 percent increase of methane in the atmosphere (Turner).
The increase in greenhouse gas is alarming, but what makes it worse are our current presidential candidates. It doesn’t matter whom you vote for this November; it isn’t looking good. Hillary Clinton presents a weak plan, and is backed by big oil and gas money. As bad as that sounds, Donald Trump is even worse; he fails to even acknowledge that global warming exists. The sad truth is that the next president will be the most crucial in the race to stop global warming, but both candidates lack potential.