Government Inaction in Response to Fires
Graphic produced and owned by Davis Political Review’s Graphic Designer Cozette Ellis
Images of the Australian fires in early 2020 were plastered across social media platforms, with Instagram stories and Twitter feeds filled with pictures of the raging fires across the country. As the crisis began to gain global attention, relief efforts were started and frustrations over climate change intensified.
Australia typically has fires during its dry season, but they have become much more fierce in recent years, due to the impending crisis of climate change. The most recent fires in early Dec. 2019 and Jan. 2020 were caused by arsonists as well as dry lightning, but were also exacerbated by climate change; Australia has been going through its hottest and driest season yet. While experiencing its worst drought in decades, Australia also broke its record for highest nationwide average temperature last December, with some areas reaching above 40 degrees Celsius (or 104 degrees Fahrenheit). Thousands of acres have been burnt to ashes, 27 people have died, and an estimated billion wild animals have been killed in the country.
Outcries to save the people, wildlife and the environment have since echoed globally, with several international politicians such as United States House of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raising awareness about the destructive fires and providing relief for the people who are affected. Many users on social media platforms were also calling for more transparency with Australia’s environmental crisis and supporting fundraising efforts.
Fires have unfortunately become rather typical of our planet, and it is imperative for governments to have a prepared protocol so they do not further aggravate the problem. Yet, recent fires have received responses from administrations that are inadequate in fully addressing the needs during a climate crisis.
For example, despite the fires causing obvious harm to the country, the Australian government has been surprisingly inactive during this time of crisis. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has faced serious opposition in his country for his lack of action in response to the fires, with many angered by a trip to Hawaii he took while the country was in flames. This lack of action is likely due to the influence of the powerful coal lobby in Australia; despite the devastating effects of the fires, the government has not budged on its policies, denying the connection between the disaster and climate change. The Australian government was also very unprepared for such a crisis, with the prime minister cutting the fire service budget by $12.9 million AUD, or $8.8 million USD last year.
In response, Australian citizens themselves have protested the government’s response, some gathering outside of the capitol building with the remnants of their homes in their hands. Climate marches have been held in Sydney with thousands of protestors gathering to take a stance against their government’s response to climate change. These types of climate protests are not unusual; recently, many have been occurring globally in response to the increasing threat of climate change and the contrasting inaction of governments. Yet, while most governments tend to at the very least tolerate the protests, the Australian government appears to be attempting to repress the protestors.
However, there have been some attempts made by Australia to introduce some environmental legislation, but whether there has been enforcement of the policies is questionable. As part of the Paris Agreement, Australia is one of 179 countries in a multinational treaty which binds countries to an agreement to reduce carbon emissions, but the lack of response to climate change by the Australian government poses the question of whether they are upholding their agreement to the treaty. This has led to some criticism of the Australian government for not addressing the underlying environmental problem and treating the crisis as a PR issue. It is important to note, however, that the Paris Agreement takes a “soft law” approach for reducing carbon emissions; in other words, while reporting the emissions each country produces is legally binding in the treaty, reducing those emissions is only recommended, and thus the two policies are not held to the same degree of legalization.
Such inadequate responses by the governments about the fires have unfortunately started building a trend. During the Amazon rainforest fire, for example, the Brazilian government initially responded by denying the fires. Then, due to increasing international pressure, the government deployed a task force in charge of addressing the fires, spending over a month putting out the fires at great financial and environmental costs. Admittedly, the Amazon fires were not primarily caused by climate change and were rather attempts at deforestation. A later attempt by the Brazilian government to censor environmental researchers’ findings on climate change raised more upheaval in the country.
In terms of global responses, one can be a little more optimistic. Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations have vocalized their support and taken steps to alleviate the stressors for those affected by the fires in Australia. The United Nations Children's Fund, in particular, has responded to Australia’s fires by taking steps to help children who are affected by the crisis and are working to return them to a normalized routine educational system as soon as possible. They are also encouraging parents of children who are not necessarily in immediate danger to “consider talking to their children about what is happening and to take steps to make their children feel safe,” in order to foster a safe space for children to have a conversation in which they can gain a general understanding of the environmental changes.
Several intergovernmental organizations offer support for governments themselves in order to address environmental concerns. One such organization is the Global Environment Facility, a financial organization that unites 183 countries to support national sustainable developments. Through its many different grant programs, the facility supports large-scale financing of international conventions, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in addition to assisting much smaller, community-based projects, through its Small Grants Programme.
Though they may not be abundant, there remains resources available for country’s governments to fall back on for support during environmental crises. However, the voices of powerful lobbies are influencing the government’s actions and drowning out the voices of those who are directly affected by the fires.
Such responses by the leadership fail to address the long-term consequences of their short-term vision. With the immediate thought of maximizing profits through industrial resource mining and factory production in mind, governments are continuing to increase their carbon footprint and thus impeding upon the growing environmental crisis. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the countries to uphold the spirit of the international agreements they have ratified and protect the futures of the people living in their countries.