As human beings living the “warmest 10-year period on record”, as the World Meteorological Organization crowned it, climate change is as present as ever in our daily lives. Extreme temperatures during summer exceeding 50oC, Arctic storms threatening near-blizzard conditions in North America, and whole Islands being at risk of vanishing in plain sight, are only a few examples of extreme climate change phenomena happening right now. Therefore, in today’s world, fighting global warming is not only a matter of discussing the rights of future generations – as it once was –, but a way to the survival of already existing beings, their societies, cultures, and homes.

However, even though such objectives are well reflected globally in international law, it seems like sustainable initiatives still have a long way to go, especially when it comes to domestic policies and societies. Yes, international action, frameworks, and norms matter, and a lot. They show the world that something is being done to mitigate the effects of climate change, and common efforts to prevent the situation from getting any worse are being taken on a global scale. Still, when we discuss each State and its initiatives locally, the existing scenario appears restricted only to a political agenda. This means that world leaders and politicians in modern democracies decide whether or not they are going to address global warming and promote sustainability, depending on their political allegiance and priorities.
Needless to say, such strategy is not only opposite to the current understanding that fighting the climate emergency is a common responsibility to everyone (be it governments, citizens, or companies), but also extremely prejudicial to the whole conjuncture of global warming combat. Even if there are many actions enforced by international law, and the world of international relations is essentially political – so reputation matters a lot –, solutions for the current challenge on climate change are made upon States’ initiatives and their will to collaborate. As a consequence, in cases where that intention is not present or is not necessarily expressive, efforts that should be taken to contribute to climate change combat will not happen as they should, nor will happen at all.

Finding evidence for such statements is not a difficult task. An attentive reader only needs a little research to find scenarios where politicians have adopted opposing positions regarding climate change simply as a political instrument. In the USA, for example, during the 2020 elections, climate change was one of the main pillars of Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s electoral proposals. While Trump openly declared himself a climate change skeptic by saying he “doesn’t believe it”, among other things and even leaded the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement during his government, Biden based his campaign on promoting awareness and energetic transition plans, declaring that “climate change is the number one issue facing humanity”.

This scenario, however, is not only restricted to the United States but can also be found in many other countries, like Brazil. In 2006, during the COP-12 in Nairobi, the Brazilian government announced the “Fundo Amazônia” (Amazon Fund), which was created in order to raise donations in efforts to prevent, monitor, and combat deforestation, as well as to promote the preservation and sustainable use in the Brazilian Amazon. However, in 2019, the fund was completely paralyzed by the Brazilian Government, in a context of neglect related to sustainability policies following Jair Bolsonaro’s election, known for his anti-establishment position. A few years later, political parties and environmental researchers who were dissatisfied with the situation submitted a lawsuit to STF (Brazil’s Supreme Court), demanding immediate action. As a consequence, the Brazilian State was sentenced to reactivate the fund in 60 days, as the government was the one responsible for actions to combat climate change and promoting a healthy and balanced environment for its citizens and the world.

Therefore, it is clear that climate change has, unfortunately, become a political matter, being highly influenced by each State’s and world leader’s agendas. Still, examples such as the Brazilian case highlight a possible solution: climate litigation. Once democracies are mobilized through their candid engagement in the political process, institutions and local courts will start taking more effective measures. Such actions present themselves as an effective way to pressure governments and politicians domestically, also resulting in a positive outcome globally. As States start taking initiatives regardless of leaders’ political choices, a common effort to promote a more sustainable, healthy, and balanced environment will be uninterruptedly promoted, furthering our only solution to fighting climate change.