Written by Anirudh Mannattil
Edited by Emil Koch
88% of rainforests across the globe have been completely eradicated over the past decade, whereas air pollution has contributed to an estimated 7 million premature deaths annually. While these statistics may seem too shocking to be true, this is the unfortunate state of Mother Earth today, and these figures act as a constant unpleasant reminder of the ever-increasing need for effective climate action. Among the approaches often employed to combat the climate crisis, two methods are unique: Techno-optimism and state prohibition. Let us explore both approaches to understand better what they mean for our fight against the climate crisis.
To begin, we must understand the first approach, techno-optimism, before delving into the details. The term may sound strange or vague, but techno-optimism is, in fact, the belief that technology plays a vital role in solving the most pressing threats to humanity. The climate crisis does qualify as a pressing threat to humankind, and hence we can better identify techno-optimism in this context as the belief that technology will solve environmental issues. While this can be argued and has been the source of several debates, techno-optimists have a clear stand: Innovation is everlasting, and new technologies will always emerge. Alternatives to fossil fuels (clean energy technology), more efficient food production methods, and environmentally-friendly transportation methods require innovative technology. Techno-optimists believe the possibilities are endless, given the drastic rise in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and renewable energy technology. Other innovative solutions often brought up are quantum computing and synthetic computing. We believe these solutions will continually develop, and technology can solve all our environmental issues. However, critics argue that relying on technology alone is too shallow.
These critics argue that technology has limits, and not everyone will be given the privilege to access these innovative solutions to environmental issues, even if they exist. For instance, South Africa is a developing nation that may need more resources to enhance digital technology. As a result, such nations may lag in combating environmental issues which plague their people. Another often-raised point is that developing such advanced technology is cost-intensive, and whether any benefits will be reaped remains largely unanswered. The ethics of innovation is also brought into question, as not all innovations provide benefits for everyone. Marginalized groups may be left behind to fend for themselves, while affluent individuals can freely partake in such technological solutions. As such, techno-optimism is an approach that has its fair share of supporters and critics, who both bring up valid points in their arguments.
Now, exploring State Prohibitions, a subset of Environmental Law, provides fascinating details. Environmental Law is the set of legal principles that safeguard the environment and considers it necessary and vital to humanity's survival. These laws are crucial in ensuring the environment is protected and that environmental crises are continually mitigated. The main form of environmental law is International Environmental Law, which outlines the legalities all nations worldwide must follow about the environment. State prohibitions revolve around the legal principles implemented by the local government. While International Law applies to all nations and hence is universal, State Prohibitions differ from country to country due to the variety in nature of governance and environmental conditions. An example of a legal principle under International Environmental Law is that countries must willingly cooperate to prevent or mitigate environmental threats under the principles of good neighborliness and international cooperation.
On the other hand, to explore State Prohibitions, we must zoom in on specific nations to understand the legalities surrounding the environment. One country we can focus on is Singapore. Singapore has its own set of laws to safeguard the environment. Two of these principles are quite interesting to analyze. The first is the Carbon Pricing Act, which states that businesses must report and pay tax on greenhouse gas emissions. This principle is necessary to ensure that firms are held accountable for the greenhouse emissions they release, leading to an understanding among all businesses in Singapore on the importance of being environmentally-friendly.
Another crucial legal principle well-outlined in Singapore's environmental law is the Energy Conservation Act, which mandates energy efficiency requirements and management practices to promote energy conservation, improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental impact. This law is vital to ensure that businesses know the importance of energy conservation and that the depletion of natural resources demands a more responsible use of energy. However, considering that Singapore is a small nation with little land area, renewable energy sources hardly exist. This thus points to the limitation of state prohibitions: They can mitigate, but not resolve, environmental issues even at the national level. Hence, this begs the question: Are these laws even practical? On the other hand, these state prohibitions are effective when considering that Singapore's annual energy consumption has declined, indicating greater environmental awareness. Therefore, state prohibitions are critical for any nation to achieve significant leaps in environmental-friendliness.
In sum, we have analyzed the definitions and constituents of two approaches commonly tailored toward climate change: techno-optimism and state prohibitions. While each has its distinct characteristics, benefits, and drawbacks, it is essential to keep in mind that these methods remind us that our world is ever-evolving. Our fight against climate change is strengthening day after day.
References:
Comments