Undoubtedly, the appeal of the Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres to the international community to declare a "state of emergency" on the frontline of climate change is undoubtedly necessary and probably in vain. It is not in doubt whether we disrupted the climate and caused enormous damage (and drove migrants from parched Africa under the Balkan degenek), but whether we have reached the point of no return.
Guterres spoke at a virtual summit meeting of more than 70 world leaders on the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Paris Agreement. With that agreement, the signatories undertook to keep the average temperature no more than two degrees Celsius above the average temperature of the pre-industrial era, striving to lower it to 1,5 degrees in the foreseeable future.
So far, 38 signatories have internally adopted the "state of emergency". At the meeting, the Pope committed himself on behalf of the Vatican that his mini-state will reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050. Which is nice but of little use, especially with Rome's city traffic.
Xi Jinping has promised that China will achieve that goal by 2060, Ursula von der Leyen has recommitted to the EU, Narendra Modi has promised that India will "exceed expectations" on the centenary of independence in 2047 - but we have heard little or nothing about how things will improve until 2025, when the current one will more or less still be in power. Of the big polluters, Erdogan's Turkey and Khamenei's Iran did not even sign the Agreement. Trump withdrew the USA.
What is the use of Guterres' dramatic appeal? The position of the Secretary General of the United Nations is somewhat comparable to that of the head of the Catholic Church: both make appeals every week, sometimes more often. These appeals have no influence on the people who decide, because these people are led by their short-term and selfish interests, sometimes refined vile, and sometimes eyeless to the point of caricature, as shown by the example of Trump, who even last month, in a paroxysm of feigned or original paranoia, claimed that "the Paris Agreement was designed not to save the environment, but to kill the American economy".
The Secretary General of the UN, and often the Pope of the KC, almost take the burden of the "scapegoat" upon themselves, not by admitting personal guilt - which they don't have - but by making assessments, condemnations or appeals on behalf of all their people that we would have had to formulate, pronounce and - what is "worst" - act on them. This is how we let one of them say it, on our behalf, enabling us to nod our heads in agreement, without ever thinking of reducing the heating in the winter and cooling in the apartment in the summer, driving the car at the optimal speed, fighting for ecologically and economically tolerable public transport etc.
Such appeals come in handy as an analgesic for our consciences. Because each of us in our own little way, just like the statesmen or capitalists who decide on the big picture, we start the diet from next Monday, as well as responsible behavior, and the general secretary, or the Pope, or the great imam, or some third authority has already said what he has to say. , depriving us of the moral obligation to do something ourselves.
And if we actually do something, Croatian statesmen will complain that we are "activists", something that gets on their nerves, because they have delegated their morality (but not their income) to New York, Brussels, far from their desk, their vehicle and his restaurant.
Bonus video:
