Environmental Issues

Australia has ranked 56th out of 61 nations in the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). Not to mention that we were ranked last out of more than 170 UN members on the ‘Climate Action in the UN Report’. That is appalling. We are among the most developed nations in the world, equipped with adequate resources to implement climate effective strategies, yet we fail to do so. Our nation’s current emissions-reduction target is to provide a 26-28% cut by 2030, an absolutely pathetic goal which is broadly viewed as “woefully inadequate”, with the UN reporting at the end of 2019 that we are not even on track to achieve this goal. You would expect that we would join the over 100 other countries pledging to reach an emissions goal of ‘net-zero’ by 2050, but of course, we have been once again let down. Our current emissions trajectory has us on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2167. Only 117 years behind everyone else! What so many leaders fail to understand is that our life on earth will be well and truly over by then, if we don’t act immediately. I guess ‘who really cares’ right? Hopefully it won’t be in our lifetime, so problem solved.

No.

Problem not solved. World leaders might not care about what happens tomorrow, but WE DO.

For ages people have said to our generation; “You’re the ones who are going to save the world.” But the fact is, we don’t want to have to clean up a mess that we haven’t made. It’s all very well that our government has invested in ‘Technology Investment Roadmap’, including A$20 billion to bring down the cost of clean hydrogen, green steel, energy storage and carbon capture, but that is simply not enough. Currently, technology is not going to save us; there isn’t enough time. What we need to do now, is join the hundreds of other countries before us and tackle this crisis together – with good old human effort.

However, of course, to actually tackle the climate crisis, we have to recognise that we’re currently living through one, and I know, for some reason that is completely beyond me, that that can be very challenging. Homes are being washed away on the Pacific Islands, people with them. Rain has become so scarce and unpredictable in Northern Africa, that whole communities are struggling to survive. Intensified weather events, such as the horrific flooding occurring right now all over Europe and the devastating fires eating up Greece, are running rampant. Permafrost is melting at a rapid pace, releasing more and more of the CO2 and other harmful greenhouse gases that it stores. Rising sea temperatures are shifting species’ feeding grounds by hundreds of kilometres, such as the Antarctic Shelf, which shifts 130km south from just a 1-degree increase. The earth is screaming at us. Begging us to repair the destruction we’ve caused.

2020 was the hottest year on record. 2021 will be soon. Then 2022, and so on. Our response to such an urgent matter makes me furious, but more than that, it makes me sad. So unbelievably sad that we have treated the only known planet to support life with such disrespect. Of course, that is not just due to Australia – it’s obviously a very large scale issue – but every single country’s commitment counts. And right now, we are not counting. Japan is cutting their emissions 46-50% by 2030. India reiterated its target of 450 GW of renewable energy by 2030. Brazil committed to achieving net-zero by 2050, end illegal deforestation by 2030 and double the funding for deforestation enforcement. The list goes on.

The most recent IPCC states that Australia has already warmed a whopping 1.4 degrees since 1910 – which is almost equivalent to the global warming average.

Australia deserves better. And quite frankly, so does the world.

Smoking has generally been deemed by society as medically and socially unsustainable with 13 percent of all adult deaths being directly caused by tobacco use and 70 percent of these deaths occurring in low-income countries. However, the narrative of its environmental unsustainability is underappreciated by the media and the education system. At best, the public is aware of the risks of littering cigarette butts, with cigarettes being the world’s most common type of litter. The unsustainability of the tobacco manufacturing sector, the rise of e-cigarettes, and the impact of smoking on wildlife has made it clearer than ever that there is no Planet B. Although tobacco companies would argue that the environmental impacts of smoking are not exclusive to the industry, that the onus is on government messaging and resources, and the impact on individuals’ rights and choices would be unconscionable.

The tobacco manufacturing industry is grossly unsustainable, threatening our planet’s longevity. Approximately 600 million trees are chopped down every year by the tobacco industry, allowing them to contribute to deforestation, especially in the developing world.

But, even further the manufacturing of tobacco sabotages the capacity of the land to support the growth of other crops or vegetation through its contribution to soil degradation and ‘failing yields.’ Similarly, tobacco farmers typically burn land to clear it, but as the land is usually agriculturally marginal, it is abandoned after only a few seasons, leaving the land subject to desertification. Additionally, this burning increases greenhouse gas levels whilst generating water and air pollutants. The simultaneous decreasing of forest cover limits any chance of mitigating the tobacco industry’s pollution, subsequently destroying the only planet we have. Furthermore, tobacco production requires excessive water, wood, and pesticides, contaminating water supplies and soil. Clearly, the detriments of the production of tobacco is a vastly unsustainable practice, yet it is only the first step in smoking’s destruction of our environment. In fact, shutting down the tobacco industry would equate to taking 16 million cars off the streets every year. Evidently, this would significantly benefit the international community, particularly assisting developing nations and the disproportionate harms of climate change they face. On the other hand, tobacco industries argue that these environmental impacts are not inherent to tobacco farming but are common to any industrial agriculture process like palm oil or avocado farming. These can be mitigated by appropriate regulation and offset by conservation elsewhere, rather than shutting down an entire industry many rely on.

Many people assume that cigarettes are only made out of paper, and thus littering them would not be particularly harmful. However, cigarettes are not as biodegradable as they seem. Under optimal conditions, it can take at least nine months for a cigarette butt to degrade as the cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate, a plastic that only degrades under severe biological circumstances. Thus, in practice, cigarette butts littered on beaches and streets do not break down. In this modern era, the main concern has shifted to e-cigarettes. Unlike cigarette butts, e-cigarettes cannot biodegrade even under the severest of conditions. Eventually, they break down into microplastic and chemicals that flow into storm drains, polluting waterways. Even worse, e-cigarettes contain lead and mercury, a particularly dangerous threat to the natural landscape and waterways. Manufacturers point out that it is an individual’s responsibility to dispose of their cigarettes and e-cigarettes correctly, and government should provide appropriate waste management infrastructure, especially given that smokers litter as many as 65 percent of their cigarette butts. Environmental activity suggests that government bans are the only way to mitigate the environmental harms of smoking. At the very least, government messaging and greater research by the international academic community are needed to counter the misinformation, especially given the rapid rise of e-cigarettes in an under-regulated environment.

Wildlife has been severely underrepresented when discussing the harms of smoking. Once in water ecosystems, cigarette butts can be a source of heavy metal contamination, which poses a threat to local organisms. The chemicals that leached from a single cigarette butt released enough toxins to kill half of the fish exposed to it for 96 hours. Further, patterns of hydrocarbon levels in the roadside soil were similar to those of littered cigarette butts, indicating the chemicals from cigarette butts, some of which are carcinogenic, had seeped into the soil, threatening the wildlife that eat the plants grown by the poisoned earth. To an extent, this can be managed by cleanup initiatives by national parks and local governments, similar to how we deal with any other form of litter, though this strategy has practical limitations when applied to cleaning up oceans and waterways.

The only feasible solution is for governments all over the world to engage in stricter regulations against smoking to reduce global demand. This needs to be a global effort to minimise the chance of international tensions. For example, when Australia introduced its plain packaging regulations, Philip Morris used free trade agreements to sue the Australian government. Similarly, alongside British American Tobacco, Phillip Morris sued the British government in 2015 for their plain packaging laws. Between 2010 and 2016, Philip Morris, once again, sued Uruguay, complaining that the country’s anti-smoking legislation devalued its cigarette trademarks and investments. Acting as a serial litigator, Philip Morris has sued at least 13 countries in 23 trials. Thus, banning smoking is a collective action problem where international free trade agreements allow big tobacco companies to sue multiple countries. If, when making international agreements, countries exclude the tobacco industry from trademark protection, the costs of smoking regulations and bans can be significantly mitigated. It is interesting to note that some countries like Brazil and the United States have, in turn, sued big tobacco companies for the health impacts of smoking. To further this purpose, broader action is needed. The international community could follow in New Zealand’s footsteps by banning smoking though, as the industry points out, this would be a draconian choice that removes the autonomy of millions of people, and likely create a black market.

It would be naive to not acknowledge the difficulties present in banning smoking; such difficulties would most likely impact vulnerable and poorer communities given that the rate of smoking is exponentially higher in people who live below the poverty line. However, these harms can be limited to the short term with the appropriate level of accessible rehabilitation and healthcare facilities mitigating the impacts of addiction and preventing the chances of a cigarette ‘black market.’ Although, it is important to acknowledge that these measures will come at a significant cost. Additionally to practical measures, the international community needs to reframe its understanding of smoking from one that is individualistic to one that recognises its threat to the entire planet. This mentality illuminates the limitations of the bodily autonomy argument as it puts the entire planet in jeopardy.

While smoking is traditionally viewed as a health risk, the environmental harms are real and underappreciated, especially amidst the rise of e-cigarettes and the manipulation of international trade agreements. Whether it occurs through government bans, amendments to international treaties, or merely improved sustainability and recycling action, the environmental impacts must be urgently addressed as there is no Planet B.