"Competition between states is holding back decarbonization", in a system where competition is inevitable
Famed economist Carlo Cottarelli, formerly of the IMF, today wrote an article about climate change on Corriere della Sera, the main Italian newspaper. The subtitle reads: "Competition between states is holding back decarbonization".
The problem we must recognize is that, given the current state of a divided humanity, competition between states is inevitable: consequently, the resolution of such colossal problems, which affect the whole of humanity, is not only not aided by the current system, but is actively hindered by it. The current organization of states, which ought to resolve the problems of the human community, is itself a fundamental cause of the problems. As written in The Roman Republic,
>The problem lies in the fact that, sharing an interconnected yet divided world, we live under a system of forced competition. If a state is less wealthy, less influential, or less powerful than its neighbour, it suffers: it will be in a position of weakness not only in any armed conflict, but in any peaceful negotiation [...]. Thus, a state cannot simply seek to prosper as if it were an isolated entity; it must also strive to keep pace with other states; and not infrequently seeks to gain an advantage over them. The mere existence of other states, one might say, constitutes a source of pressure for the state, a drive to excel: it motivates and justifies selfish action. [...]
Thus, humanity struggles to organise itself for its own good, moving in a disorganised, inefficient manner. It takes longer than necessary to achieve less than is required. Grand conferences are held to seek a formula that truly convinces everyone, to be formalised in complicated agreements; and even so, the impression is more of a frayed compromise than of a cohesive whole. There are those who initially sign up and then, failing to meet the targets, pull out to avoid facing the penal-ties provided for, such as Canada, which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Then there are the United States, which simply never ratified the Kyoto Protocol; while they initially joined the subsequent Paris Agreement (2016), then withdrew (2020), re-joined (2021) and withdrew again (2026); all this while being the world’s richest country in absolute terms and the second-largest emitter of CO₂ [...]
Here too we see how the current system has morally questionable aspects: the international legislation intended to bind states does not, however, prevent the existence—and the convenience—of a certain ‘law of the jungle’. In some cases, one might even say that it embraces and formalises this very principle. [...]
If the current system does not facilitate, but rather hinders, the resolution of a problem of this magnitude, we must ask ourselves whether a different and better system is possible. As with the risk of self-destruction through weapons, it seems that the issue of self-destruction (or at least self-harm) through the overexploitation of the environment could also be addressed far more effectively if humanity were united. [...]
State sovereignty is not something abstract and detached from reality, upon whose altar any other principle must be sacrificed: it is a practical principle that must serve humanity, not the other way round. If divided sovereignty proves to be not a positive asset for human beings but an obstacle, it must be rethought. [...]
Let's hope our rulers can see this before it's too late. As citizens, let's make our voices heard.