[ad_1]
The result possibly came from an unexpected direction. Artist and television profile Peg Parnevik, who grew up in Florida, was invited to SVT’s “Foreign Office” to, along with, among others, former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, give her opinion on the US presidential elections. Which question is the most important in the election? wondered the host. “For my generation, it’s the climate problem,” replied Peg Parnevik. “If we don’t answer the question about the climate, no matter what happens to the economy and everything else, we have to do something about it. not! “
Peg Parnevik may not be representative of young Americans. But what she says is completely true. And today probably also expressions of a state of mind that was reinforced by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, last weekend. Following the reactions of the United States immediately after the news of the death of the respected judge was like looking into an abyss of despair and, indeed, horror. Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, American society for decades to come will be headed in a strongly reactionary direction in almost all areas: abortions, health, human rights, the electoral system.
Even, in fact, in that area as Peg Parnevik and her colleagues point out as the most important. How? someone might be wondering. What does the Supreme Court have to do with the weather?
Everything, can work. In the New Yorker, author Bill McKibben, one of the leading figures in the American climate movement, discusses how the new composition of the Supreme Court may complicate the process of limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. A stable conservative majority on the Supreme Court may further cripple already scant approaches to effective climate policy at the national level, McKibben says.
What does the Supreme Court have to do with the weather? Everything, it can turn out
Much of the climate regulation in the United States today is based on the Clean Air Act and depends on the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA 2007, one of the most important environmental goals in the United States. In the case, the court ruled that greenhouse gases are dangerous to health and ordered, with the smallest majority possible, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect citizens. With a new composition on the court, this can be changed with a pencil stroke. All that representatives of the fossil fuel industry have to do now is appeal the rejection of an application for a new pipeline or a new oil discovery, and the Supreme Court will finally, in the end, give them the right and create a new one. preceding.
Supreme Court He has already tried to put the wheel in the wheel for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reform program The New Deal in the 1930s. Today, even a watered-down version of the modern Green New Deal reform program, which has growing support Within the Democrats, he would have little chance of passing through a Republican-dominated court. It cannot be said otherwise. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death was a disaster, also for the climate.
Photo: Stefani Reynolds
Fear and understanding of seriousness are beginning to spread in the United States, especially after this year’s record fire and hurricane season. Three in four Americans today see the connection between climate change and natural disasters, one in five say they are prepared to move to escape danger in the future. Bill McKibben points to the paradox that the Supreme Court with its new composition will be even more out of date with its time. As popular awareness grows, structural barriers to change are growing. A similar dilemma arises in the case of Preem’s irrational expansion plans for the Lysekil refinery, where conflict between Swedish law and EU emission rights can make it difficult for the government to pursue a progressive climate policy.
A similar dilemma arises in the case of Preem’s irrational expansion plans for the Lysekil refinery.
Both cases show that The law is one of the most important tools to prevent the climate crisis from turning into a large-scale disaster. It is the laws and their application that, ultimately, govern the values of both companies and individuals. The EU is now adjusting its emissions targets, while more and more banks announce that their credit policies must comply with the Paris Agreement in the future. California, the world’s fifth-largest economy, will ban all fossil car sales starting in 2035, which in turn will have far-reaching consequences for the auto industry. One affects the other.
As climate activist Greta Thunberg said during a visit to DN this week, it’s all about time. Time that soon does not exist. All who have eyes to see can see that change is here. The question is how much time we will lose. This week, the Financial Times reported that “big oil” is dying, while The Economist, not known as a body of climate activists, devoted an issue to how renewable energy will reshape the world’s geopolitical conditions. “The most dangerous thing that can happen is that you go too slow,” wrote the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes. Former moderate leader Carl Bildt, who has yet to come forward for his opposition to the fossil fuel industry, expressed his (very justified) doubts about China’s honesty in the UN proposal to become climate neutral by 2060. .
Carl Bildt, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Peg Parnevik… Call me judgmental, but in my world it is not people who five years ago were thought to put the climate crisis high on the agenda.
But what they show is that climate denier Donald Trump and his lackeys in Washington are increasingly isolated. “Drain the swamp,” Trump said. How ironic. The world will keep moving as he and his followers sink deeper and deeper into the swamp. Today, the question is how long they have to drag with them when they sink.
Read more of Björn Wiman’s chronicles on the climate crisis
