“Climate change” has been a buzzword across all media for as long as the concept has existed. However, “climate crisis” may be a more accurate title. In the status quo, the Earth is rapidly approaching a fiery death caused by the very humans relying on it for survival.

Climate change is conceptually defined as long term shifts in weather patterns across the globe. This can occur in nature. However, it is widely accepted among scientists that since industrialization began, human activity has been the main proponent of climate change. Specifically, this is due to exacerbating a subsection of climate issues, specifically global warming.

The consistent burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, has become extremely deleterious to the environment. Originally, humans began these practices to power the Industrial Revolution, as we knew no other energy alternative. Following the widespread implementation of fossil fuels, by the end of the 1800s, scientists had already begun to predict that the extreme increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels would impact the Earth’s surface temperature. 

Not even 50 years later, researchers had concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was linked to global warming. It would come to be that their predictions are coming to fruition in the rapidly heating crisis we find ourselves in today. 

Over the years of CO2 entering the atmosphere, it has come to a point in which it is imaginable that our planet will not persist over the coming centuries. The greenhouse effect, which has been considered since 1896, is the result of greenhouse gases forming a layer in the atmosphere that does not allow excess heat to escape. Thus, greater heat is redirected towards the Earth, raising the surface temperature of the Earth significantly. 

Objectively, analyzing the situation in which we as a planet are precariously balancing, it is clear that large-scale change is necessary to prevent the estimated losses we will face from continuous temperature increase. However, although the U.S. has symbolically taken action by signing the Paris Agreement, we still remain near the top of the leaderboard for carbon emissions each year. 

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated in their 2023 AR6 Synthesis Report that to stay within the limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures as defined by the Paris Agreement, emissions need to be reduced by at least 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, and at least 60% by 2035. Which puts the U.S. in a particular position to be able to use reduction of their current 6,343 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents to significantly contribute to the efforts. 

The importance of climate change has been proven to the people time and time again, with initiatives led by civilians making greater impacts day by day, like 350.org, and Climate Collaborative, amongst others. The prevalence of climate change has become so widespread, the topic of social and political divide over how to approach the climate crisis has developed its own area of climate justice. 

California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington have already instituted legislation to promote climate literacy in public schools. Besides in-school programs, students across schools are creating organizations of their own across local communities. 

“I have always been passionate about environmentalism. Growing up in a family where sustainable practices, such as recycling and gardening, were implemented into my daily life cultivated my interest in joining a community at Bronx Science where I could create a positive impact on the school, making it greener,” said Suri Wang ’25, the Vice President of Green Team at Bronx Science. 

When asked about the current means of implementation to offset or prevent further carbon emissions, Wang said, “On a global scale, efforts such as the Paris Agreement are great. However, this definitely is not enough to stop climate change. For instance, corporations that partake in practices that harm the Earth, such as heavy use of fossil fuels and deforestation of rainforests, need to be held accountable. Current efforts are a nice stepping stone, but there is still a lot to be done.”

As she mentioned, corporate emissions are an issue. Specifically in the U.S., emissions per capita based on industry and fossil fuels are extremely high compared to every other country in the world, as well as the world ratio.

The U.K. is a great example of taking effective measures to protect the environment, with their last coal-powered plant closing in September of 2024. They have a more centralized approach to reducing their carbon footprint, instituting widespread policies to efficiently turn away from emission-heavy practices. 

Over decades, the U.K. has implemented many programs, with an emphasis on Emissions Trading Systems (ETS). ETS are a form of cap-and-trade permit system applied to carbon emissions. Essentially, the “cap” is a limit on the amount of permitted emissions from the government that each entity is allowed to buy. That means the government controls the total emissions through the number of permits they sell initially, hence putting an upper limit, or a “cap” through the total of circulating permits. The “trade” part of the system allows for the owners of the permits to pass the permits between them, usually making the monetary price of increased emissions greater. Over time, the “cap” is reduced, as to project for a decrease in overall emissions. 

The target of ETS can differ; from being in one specific industry or applying to a whole country’s companies and corporations.

The European Union (EU) and the U.K. have separate ETS, which are both in part supported by the U.K.’s own regulations. The Carbon Price Floor (CPF), introduced in 2013, was meant to support the EU ETS (which has been replaced with the UK ETS) and post-Brexit is still in effect due to its impact on the British price of carbon in the electricity generation market and its jurisdiction over the Climate Change Levy (CCL). The CCL is an environmental tax that applies to businesses based on their consumption of electricity generated by categories of gas, petroleum gas/liqueous hydrocarbons, coal and other solid fossil fuels. 

Overall, the policies of the U.K. being demanding on their industry has not led to failure of their economy, but rather, a standout amongst major countries with exponential cumulative carbon pollution. 

The greatest standout however, is the Climate Change Act of 2008; the first legally binding piece of legislation to be passed regarding climate change. The original goal had been an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, however, it was amended in 2019 to have a goal of net-zero by 2050.

Compared to the policies of the U.S., the commitment to real change is especially notable, and should serve as an example for the near and far future. 

Climate change has been recognized by U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. Since then, we have instituted initiative after initiative, however the outcomes have not been comparable to many other major countries. 

Out of the presidents, those who have been in office during the modern period regarding climate change are Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. Obama was in office when the Paris Agreement was first signed, and was the first to bring the U.S. into the Paris Agreement. With every new president thereafter, the U.S. has had trouble in not only addressing climate change, but committing to the Paris Agreement.

During the Trump administration’s first term, one of the major losses for the U.S. in the climate crisis was the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Although this was greatly overlooked in the period of Trump’s presidency, the inconsistency in attempts to address environmental deterioration is not a menial issue. Trump’s cited “unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement” serves as a U.S.-centric, self-serving point of view. Considering the global effects of a warming Earth, the indecision of one of the largest contributors to climate change in the fight to save our planet, under the guise of being unfair to an extremely environmentally unregulated society, is unreasonable. 

The effect of President Trump’s first term was disastrous on the U.S. effort to reach net zero. The brief period of time held nearly 100 rollbacks of environmental rules, gutting and further dismantling the efforts of those who had come before. 

One of the first acts of President Biden was to rejoin the Paris Agreement, with claims to integrate climate change into all major decisions. However, for any effort to have the projected success we hope for, those decisions must stay.

On January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump took office once more. Only hours after his inauguration, sitting on stage of the Capital One Arena, Trump began signing hundreds of executive orders. One of them included beginning the process of removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement again.

Trump has declared his attitude towards the treaty with statements such as, “I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off.” and “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.”

Putting aside this extremely U.S.-centric idea of fairness that he speaks of, the idea that we value economic competition with the world’s largest source of pollution over the environment they are polluting is problematic on its own. Going so far as to recognize the pollution, stating that China does so “with impunity,” and then seeking to follow their example is blatantly recognizing the issue and seeking to exacerbate it with no regard for the outcome.

Even looking past the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the changes made to the government do not seem to be pointing the U.S. in the right direction. From signing orders that outright promote fossil fuels and cease current environmental policies, to taking initiative to stop carbon reduction plans set in place by his predecessors, the Trump administration does not seem to grasp the magnitude of their consequences.

Looking to the rest of the four-year term, environmentalists are on the edge of their seats, fearing the long-term effects of the new Trump administration on climate change policy. But this time, the wrong decisions may be more costly, since at this very moment, as well as across the past few months, the U.S. has been subject to the tip of the iceberg of natural phenomena undeniably related to climate change.

Fires in California have left a trail of ash and destruction for West-Coast American citizens while residents of the Midwest and East Coast are currently facing blizzard conditions. Nearly 40,000 acres burnt in California and 60 million Americans under weather alert for blizzards. On top of that, nearing the end of 2024, Florida faced back-to-back Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

The human impact of climate change is becoming increasingly apparent. 

In the status quo, 2024 was the first year to be above the 1.5 degree limit that global leaders have sought to achieve moving forward. The Paris Agreement feels less and less plausible as we move forward.

Bill McKibben, an accredited environmentalist, journalist, and author, published in April of 2024, stating: “In other words, we’re going at less than half the pace we need to be going. And the growth in renewables is not evenly spread — outside of China, the developing world is getting a far-too-small share of this growth, lacking the investment necessary to drive rapid change.”

To put it simply, we are not moving fast enough. 

Shortly following that, he presented a statistic, “Over 70% of global CO2 emissions historically can be attributed to just 78 corporate and state producing entities.”

As much as we would like to believe that purely the goodwill of and effort of the people can save our planet, it is apparent that the vast majority of the problem is out of the common people’s hands. In no way does that mean to stop trying on an individual basis, but those with the responsibility of governing and laying guidelines for society need to step up, especially in the U.S. 

To draw back to what individuals can do, as a longtime environmentalist, Suri Wang ’25 shared some suggestions for people unsure of what they can do. “All changes in our everyday lives can contribute to mitigating climate change. Simply turning off the lights when you leave a room, consuming less meat, choosing public transport, and investing in solar panels. As for advocacy, there are many organizations working towards environmental sustainability, such as 350.org, Climate Reality Project, and Project Drawdown. You can also track your carbon footprint through apps such as Oroeco. My personal favorite app, however, is Too Good To Go, where users can pick up extra food from restaurants for a reduced cost at the end of the day so it doesn’t go to waste.” 

Every action matters when addressing a problem that is on a global scale, such as climate change. Although individual actions may seem outweighed by the 8 billion people across the globe, the collective action of all people and leaders is necessary to bring the change we desperately need. 

The past indecision regarding whether or not climate change is real has overstayed its welcome, and from this point forward, decisive action is quintessential to preserving what we have left. 

Every action matters when addressing a problem that is on a global scale, such as climate change. Although individual actions may seem outweighed by the 8 billion people across the globe, the collective action of all people and leaders is necessary to bring the change we desperately need.