Snigdha Jha, Jindal Global Law School
INTRODUCTION
It was in 1896 when global warming was predicted for the first time theoretically, when a Swedish Scientist anticipated that the greenhouse effect could have a significant impact on the global surface temperature of the earth1. This man is known as the father of climate change, Svante Arrhenius. Fast forward to the present day and age, as per the Global Climate Report 2022, we are above the average temperature as of 20th century by 0.89 degrees Celsius2. This is said to be the 5th warmest summer period in the month of June-August in almost 143 years. It is much too obvious at this point that the predictions so made in the 19th century are correct and goes on to display that much hasn’t been done since to curtail it. It is true that a global surface temperature increase is in fact inevitable owing to necessary developmental activities essential to human survival and the anthropocentric age we live in, however, the selfish industrial approach and meeting the needs of an ever-growing human population has bypassed its healthy limits of dependence on the nature.
The impacts of the same will be borne by the underprivileged and then next in line of the social order. The main “culprits” (even though there is no such thing in the environmental jurisprudence as it is a collective impact but, in this context, the major contributors of pollutants) would be able to escape these effects due to the mere presence of resources in their fortune and being able to make the best use of mitigating strategies the nations will adopt. Even though these are the most expected outcomes of the catastrophe that we are headed towards, countries cannot fold their hands and await the disaster and simultaneously continue making profits. Laws exist on an international as well as municipal scale to allow regulation of these “profit making” activities as well as the human survival centric ones.
Comments