Patriotism and environmental responsibility

I am writing this article on November 11, Independence Day, a holiday that reminds us of the strength of spirit and steadfastness of our nation. However, today I am not just reflecting on the defense of borders. I ask myself whether concern for the homeland should also include our relationship with nature. Doesn’t being a patriot mean being responsible for the natural resources that are part of what we will leave behind?

In the background of the international battles over the green planet, the vested interests – both of individuals and entire countries – fighting for their own vision of the future, so different in different parts of the world, are becoming increasingly clear. Recently, the media has been dominated by a fierce debate about what Donald Trump’s ascension to the office of President of the United States will bring. On par with political predictions, social inequalities are resounding – the challenges we face can no longer be ignored.

The war for a green future – who wins and who loses?

Every day we hear about more climate summits, agreements and treaties to bring solutions to global environmental problems. Currently, the eyes of the world are on COP29, taking place in Baku – an event that once again ignites hopes for a common strategy to save the planet. But how often are vested interests behind these declarations? Great promises often blur under the pressure of politics and economic calculations. Developed countries, seeking to reduce emissions, move their polluting productions to poorer regions of the world, only moving the problem further away from their own borders.

At COP29, these tensions seem clearer than ever. Already the first days of the climate summit reveal deep divergences: according to experts, the global North is to blame for the global South’s $5 trillion a year and climate commitments from COP28 have not been met. This year has been a masterful example of humanity’s destructive actions , the UN secretary-general stressed, warning that the effects of the global climate crisis are beginning to grow dangerously.

The battle for a green future is being waged on every continent, but visions of that future vary drastically. For some, economic survival is key, for others, climate protection remains a priority, and there are those who see it as a profit opportunity. Meetings and negotiations drag on endlessly, and the question that remains unanswered is: is it possible to develop a common global plan when visions of the future are so different?

The climate summits reveal a paradox-filled picture of a world that still does not seem to understand that fighting for the environment is not a choice, but a necessity – and that the ultimate price may be higher than any country is willing to pay.

Billionaires and the climate crisis

Recent years have highlighted inequalities in access to and conservation of natural resources. In a world where billionaires travel in private jets and generate a disproportionately large carbon footprint, ordinary people hear about the need to reduce consumption and pay environmental costs.

We’ve reached the point where we’re not just talking about the impact of the consumption of the richest on climate change in a general way – we’re also starting to count it. The British organization Oxfam revealed shocking data in its report. Between 1990 and 2019, the consumption emissions of the world’s richest have reduced agricultural yields by the equivalent of enough calories to feed 14.5 million people for three decades. At the same time, the carbon footprint from just four years of the billionaires’ lives is enough to cause the deaths of 1.5 million people from climate change by 2120.

The financial elite therefore has a special responsibility. Not only in the form of investing in pro-environmental technologies, but also in setting an example of curbing their own destructive actions. Is change for the better possible if the same elites who have the power of influence are often the least willing to make sacrifices? The environment is a common good, regardless of one’s bank balance, but it is the privileged who can most effectively manage it – or destroy it.

Donald Trump and his vision of the world – going back in time?

Donald Trump’ s return to the White House has caused deep concern among environmentalists and experts around the world. It’s déjà vu for those who remember his first term – a time when the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement and environmental regulations were significantly weakened in the name of economic interest. Now, as the incoming president announces his next actions, the question is whether a retreat to past practices is the answer to future climate challenges – and how much that return may cost us all.

Trump is known for his apparent dislike of climate policy, which he sees as unnecessary ballast for the US economy. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials quoted by The Guardian express grave concerns that his administration will restore pressure to expand the fossil fuel industry and lower environmental standards. His previous actions have included weakening air and water quality regulations, among other things. Such decisions, as the world faces a climate crisis, carry increasingly dire consequences. Does it make sense to return to the past when the planet is crying out for innovation and adaptation?

Trump is not only shifting the U.S. climate compass, but also giving permission to other countries to do the same. In such an arrangement, the risk of a global dilution of responsibility for protecting the planet grows. The question that remains unanswered is: how long will we wait for global leadership that points the way forward instead of going backwards? Will we have time before climate change irreversibly transforms the world as we know it?

A pebble for your own garden. Independence Day lesson

Meanwhile, Independence Day reminds me of sovereignty. Today’s environmental threats show that independence in today’s world has many dimensions. Can a truly independent nation be one that loses access to clean air and water? Our independence should include not only political boundaries, but also concern for the environment that gives us the ability to survive. How we treat our place on Earth is a sign of responsibility and true freedom. Perhaps the patriotism of tomorrow will mean fighting not only for territorial borders, but also for green spaces, clean rivers and air.

Is it too late to reverse the negative effects of human actions against the environment? Fighting for the country that is our home requires solidarity, courage and political will. Change must come from each of us, but even so, the decisions that decision-makers make are crucial. Water, which is particularly close to my heart, knows no borders or needs a passport, and climate change affects everyone. If we continue to choose short-term benefits over the long-term security of our country, we will suffer consequences that no amount of wealth and influence can mitigate.

pic. main: Anna Adamska