In the world we live in today, the consequences of climate change are very real. The oceans have grown thirty percent more acidic than they were during the industrial revolution. Sea levels are rising at an average rate of 3.4 mm annually. The nineteen warmest years ever recorded all occurred in the last twenty years, with 2016 being the warmest. Average global temperatures could rise from anywhere between 2.8 °C to 5.4 °C by the end of the twenty-first century, making life on earth, as we know it, extremely inhabitable
However, it is only when one looks at the chemistry of this looming threat that its roots causes become apparent. In short, it stems from the phenomenon of global warming, which is a result of excess absorption and trapping of heat in the atmosphere, forming something akin to a “greenhouse”. Various substances contribute to this ‘greenhouse effect’, with their overall contribution being based on their ability to absorb infra-red radiation as well as their abundance in the atmosphere. The spike in global warming is attributed to a rapid increase in the release of these very chemicals.
The origin of these emissions is diverse. Some substances occur naturally, with examples including the methane generated by living organisms (particularly in the oceans). In more recent cases, however, they are mainly associated with human activities. The main contributor today is Carbon Dioxide, and its emissions are mainly associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. Since 1990, the emissions have increased by a factor of 10, according to the US Department of energy. Major causes of carbon dioxide emissions include energy generation, transport, industries, and then finally agriculture. Much like how greenhouses trap heat for the plants within, carbon dioxide too absorbs infrared radiation from the Sun and re-emits it into the atmosphere. Other gases that contribute to global warming include solvents like chlorofluorocarbons, certain volatile organic compounds, and oxides of Sulfur and Nitrogen. Some of these can have a more intense greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, but their relatively low amount makes their contribution insignificant.
Needless to say, global warming and, by extension, climate change are very real threats. It’s hard for scientists, academics, policymakers and world leaders to ignore the kind of threats we are faced with - threats that are not localized or limited in the magnitude of harm that they can possibly entail. Yet, some three percent of scientists and academics have outright rejected the phenomenon of climate change itself, labelling it a hoax, a fraud, and, even in some instances, a conspiracy theory. ​
While three percent may seem like a very small percentage compared to the number of scientists and academics that have pledged support to either the cause of mitigating the consequences of or adapting to the changes brought by the climate, the power that this significant minority holds is immense. It is this very “minority” that has, in the past, deterred efforts made to plan responsibly for the future that lies ahead.
It’s important for us to understand what exactly allows this minority to have such a significant bearing on matters pertaining to climate change. The reasons for their power are twofold: firstly, the many corporations that have not only funneled large sums of money into not just lobbying politicians, but also hiring scientists to further their own agenda (or manipulating original, pro-climate change research in what these corporations call their ‘internal review’ systems for research), and secondly, the political and socio-religious rhetoric that surrounds the issue of climate change in today’s world. ExxonMobil alone has funded research and politicians worth 2.9 million dollars to further claims supporting climate change denial or scepticism and has actively been able to misinform several individuals about the reality regarding our environment and our climate. The research conducted is often based entirely on small samples of records, highly selective use of data obtained, and the manipulation of data, according to a review in the Theoretical and Applied Climatology, which not only examined but also replicated 38 studies that claimed to disprove climate change. This is the same research many groups in positions of influence have used to justify their denial of climate change after having been lobbied by the same corporations that are responsible for funding the research to begin with.
Lobbied politicians and fervent believers have had serious impacts on the status of climate change mitigation efforts on both the global and regional level. Let us look at the regional implications of climate change denial first. In North Carolina, USA, the shores are predicted to rise by 39 inches over the course of the next century owing to climate change. Yet, the Republican Pat McElraft, a member of the disaster relief committee, banned all preventative developments based on this prediction. It was later found that the reason she did so was that had developments been made based on this prediction, they would cause real estate prices to plummet drastically; she had already been lobbied by the real estate agencies that were responsible for dealing in housing on the shores of North Carolina. While she easily turned a blind eye towards these threats and barely gave them any thought, it is important to realize how her denial of climate change can give way to very real events of disaster, something local citizens would not be able to avoid. On the global level, the issue is even more relevant. With U.S. President Donald Trump pulling out of the landmark Paris Accords, we can only imagine the consequences of a country producing nearly five million kilotons of carbon dioxide annually no longer remaining committed to the cause of climate change mitigation. He decided to call climate change a ‘Chinese conspiracy’ in what was a politicized remark with very little factual backing. The USA’s withdrawal from the accords means that it not only poses a threat to the USA itself but the entire world.
The effects of climate change are never localized. It’s a global problem and requires a global solution – an answer that isn’t delayed by divisions of opinion, especially when potential lives may be at risk.
It is here that we are supposed to ask ourselves a question. Should it be fair to criminalize climate change denial? Many would be against this on grounds that it violates one’s freedom of speech – except, is that right not usually curtailed in the case of a potential harm caused because of one’s speech? Indeed, that is the case. The same principle applies here. Someone’s denial of climate change has the ability to harm others, and that is enough of a reason for us to criminalize it. The debate on climate change and its existence is one that is very polarized, with very little elements of actual discourse in it. Instead, it has essentially been reduced to two extreme sides, with both of them adamant on their own positions, as many threads on social media, debates on TV channels and public policies indicate. With there being very little room for hardline climate change deniers to change their views, it’s essential that we try to use criminalization to not only block out this narrative for the sake of the greater good. The tradeoff is in front of us, given the potential consequences climate change denial may entail for the entire global population. Not only this, but criminalizing climate change also means that governments are able to propagate a pro-climate change mitigation narrative. Criminalization means that something has to be stopped by law, and that’s the kind of narrative people need to be exposed to in order to contribute further to the cause of mitigating climate change. A similar case may be made for the so-called ‘research’ that tends to negate climate change. When something may be used as an instrument for causing harm, even if it is unseen at the time, governments need to maintain their paternalistic role and foresee the consequences of such hypotheses being introduced to the public, especially given their reputation of presenting results with very little academic and factual validity.
Climate change deniers may also be liable for criminal negligence on another front. The criteria for criminal negligence is as such: if the probability of loss and the gravity of loss are both greater than the burden of precautions that befalls on someone, he or she is legible for being held accountable for criminal negligence. Given the gravity of the consequences of climate change, as well as the likelihood of those consequences being seen in the near future, and the very clear burden that lies on policy-makers, legislators, and people with the ability to shape and influence opinions to help prevent climate change or at least help adapt to it, it’s very fitting for someone that denies climate change to be eligible for negligence.
Given the status quo and the times we live in, it’s essential for us to come up with solutions to contest the threats posed to humankind as a whole. But along with those efforts comes the responsibility for us to avoid any hindrances that we may find in between, for that is what will make us able to cater to climate change for the greater good.
​
​