Climate Emergency or Political Game Shows?

A stage play under progress in Islamabad. Conflict continues to rage in Ukraine. An event that may have had historical significance has already been overshadowed by the constant barrage of breaking news stories.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a new assessment report that identifies climate change as irreversible and discusses the humanitarian challenges that accompany it. We are at risk of squandering an opportunity to create a sustainable future because climate mitigation and adaptation efforts are moving too slowly, according to the report. In the absence of urgent action, nearly three billion people would live in climate-sensitive situations, where catastrophic climatic events will fuel food and water shortages. An alarming percentage of the world population would be subjected to “life-threatening climatic circumstances” by the year 2100, according to the study’s findings. There was a short public awareness of the results, which were extensively disseminated. However, the conflict in Ukraine overshadowed the IPCC report. With temperatures 7 to 14 degrees Celsius higher than average and major floods and drought predicted by the Met Office, we don’t have time to read the report’s conclusions because we’re caught up in political wrangling in Pakistan.

In the face of a daunting task, journalists, scholars, and climate activists must convey a compelling tale about climate change while also pointing out the climatic ramifications of other significant events. Climate change advocates are having a hard time getting their message through. Ecologists have used the dry, scientific technique of publishing evidence-heavy studies for years to persuade skeptics. Doomsday scenarios and emotive pleadings, portrayals of an impending global disaster to evoke enough fear to spur action became more commonplace as climate change data became more conclusive. However, this method has created a sense of powerlessness and a pessimistic outlook on Earth’s future. The 24-hour news cycle is not a fan of long-term, multidimensional apocalypse scenarios. A generational concern is reduced to a headline that does not influence the future when climate change is discussed in this way.

When it comes to conveying the tale of global warming, fact-based stories fall short. Dystonic landscapes and conflict-ridden communities are imagined as our future in science fiction. This is fascinating, yet the issue is obscured since it is fictionalized.

Observing the emergence of “climate memoir” books and tales in the New Yorker last September, David Wallace described how authors are capturing their feelings about climate change as they see it in their local environments and communities. As a result of the authors’ implicit optimism, the gap between what we know about climate change and how we respond will begin to close. It remains to be seen how many individuals, especially in the most climate-vulnerable regions, will be interested in such climate memoirs.

Our stories must be consistent and comprehensive so that we can bring out the consequences of political and economic events from a viewpoint that considers the impact of climate change. IPCC conclusions have been overshadowed by the Ukraine invasion, but attempts are continuing to better expose the environmental and climatic consequences of this war in the media. Focusing on Western oil conservation programs (e.g., prohibiting private automobiles on Sunday and encouraging public transportation and rail travel), the issue is raised why the danger to the planet can’t lead to comparable actions, which is most clear. Russia’s position as a major supplier of the nickel needed for electric car batteries is also being linked to slowed climate change mitigation efforts. Rising nickel prices will make it more difficult to make the switch to electric vehicles, further postponing the green transition.

What is the effect of Pakistan’s political turmoil on the climate? There is less government ability to execute climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, diplomatic measures to guarantee the transfer of green technology are interrupted, and foreign investment that would improve the private sector’s capacity to reduce and manage climate risks is prohibited. In addition, our hot cities are becoming uninhabitable, and our water supplies are drying up, making food production more difficult. We have to decide what matters to us, climate emergency or political game shows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *