Who is actually responsible and where do we go from there? (Estimated 5 minute reading time)

Although it may be obvious, the analogy here suggests that fishing with “big nets” implies the little fish will get through and won’t be caught. This is not a discourse on the problems of by-catch and the loss of ocean biodiversity in the process. Instead, the intention is to start with a relatively contested area of environmental damage and protection: who is responsible and where do we go from there?

Between economists, researchers, and journalists, numerous authors have geared themselves towards these pertinent questions (Hiller, 2011; Sinnot-Armstrong, 2005). If the governments of the world are responsible, they must take a top-down approach with regulations that ensure environmental policies are being met. If the people are responsible, then they should be living lifestyles that are less environmentally degrading. And from there questions arise whether people themselves are equally responsible. For example, how responsible are people from highly “developed” states versus those from “developing states”? From both angles, it is a vehemently debated issue. On the one hand of the debate, it is proclaimed that individuals are obviously responsible for their own actions. On the other, the government acts as a sort of manager, if you will – providing services to their people, maintaining oversight, taking care of administrative duties, budgeting, etc. Therefore, the responsibility appears to rest predominantly with the “managers” (Levermann, 2019, Fibieger-Byskov, 2019).

However, to briefly return to the analogy, this is where the fishing analogy comes into play. Even if the governments are responsible, we still need to account for the proportion of people who don’t believe anything needs to be done, whether they’re unconvinced or fully in denial. Granted, this is a very broad spectrum, yet at the helm of certain misinformation are authors such as Dr. Bjorn Lomborg. For anyone unacquainted, Dr. Lomborg is a political scientist and author of books such as The Skeptical Environmentalist and False alarm: How climate change panic costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet (Lomborg, 2021). He is also not in denial of the impacts of anthropocentric climate change but merely questions how governments aim to fix the problems and that the need for concern isn’t as warranted as suggested. The title of his latest book makes this point evident. And it should still be stated, it would be a mistake to dismiss many of his claims outright because there are certainly areas of focus where he makes valid points. However, the misinformation on climate change ends up being the main rhetoric for many under the aforementioned categories. In this manner, he vastly miscalculates the “optimal” level of global warming while cherry-picking older models of the estimated costs of climate change impacts (Ward, 2020).

After taking these points into account, the answer to the main questions of responsibility might be a little clearer. How could people themselves be held responsible if they are either misinformed or uncertain of the matter? Moreover, why would climate change matter to someone in Dhaka or New Orleans, if they are struggling to make ends meet today and are worried about what happens in a week, a month, or a year from now? Though there is a case to be made there, the problem is we are in unchartered waters with the levels of greenhouse gases, at least nothing as we have seen in the past 800,000 years (Lindsey, 2020). Therefore, world leaders are nonetheless correct to focus on the climate change issue today, while not disregarding the voices of the vulnerable.

So who is ultimately responsible? Well, consider the impacts and information of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Some governments were generally slow and officials questioned the effectiveness of masks before decidedly implementing public mask mandates and in some cases, fines for not adhering to specific rules. On one day in the store last spring, you might have walked around mask-less. Three days later you might have gone back only to find that everyone in the store had a mask on and it was generally required to enter the store. The point to be made here is not about the discourse on pandemics but rather the implementation of top-down approaches, regulations, or otherwise.

Governments by their very nature are meant to be comprised of elected representatives that work towards the protection of the common goods. Whether or not this actually occurs is a matter for another day. The point is merely that the government has the authority to implement the necessary action based on the most current information and broad scientific expertise. This is not to argue people are wholly devoid of responsibility. For those who are aware of the challenges that lay ahead, they can certainly do their part individually. Though as we see now the primary responsibility rests in the hands of governments. While they work towards finding the most effective solutions, they should just keep in mind not to not forget about the small fish. They are a part of this too and their voices are being amplified across social media platforms as quick as those who are providing the latest information.