Uncategorized

The role of human-made carbon emissions is central to current discussions and scientific research on climate change. A major goal of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was to reduce the carbon emissions of signatory states.¹ Likewise, its successor, the Paris Agreement is centrally focused on human-made carbon emissions. However, this crucial link between human-made carbon emissions, the greenhouse effect, and climate change, which is now a core component of modern climate science, was the subject of debate in the scientific community from the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century. Indeed, the role of increased carbon dioxide emissions in increasing global temperatures only began to be widely accepted among the scientific community in the last four decades. This article traces the research in this area, which began in the early nineteenth century, and then considers the impact of such findings on state policy and initiatives beginning in the late nineteenth century, and continuing into the present where climate change has become a central (albeit polarizing) issue in international relations.

Beginning in the early nineteenth century, individuals interested in science began to research what we now refer to as the “greenhouse effect.” Today, we define the greenhouse gas effect as the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, “[trapping] heat radiating from Earth toward space.”² The entrapment of heat, in turn, leads to global warming. One of the first individuals to theorize on the greenhouse gas effect was Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, a French scientist.³ In the 1820s, Fourier’s theoretical research led him to tentatively conclude that the atmosphere of the earth retains heat radiation. This, he believed, explained why the Earth was warmer than predicted by the Earth’s size and distance from the Sun.

Later in the century, the Irish physicist John Tyndall made advances on Fourier’s research. Tyndall determined that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs the solar radiation which is given off from the Earth’s surface.^4,5 He further concluded that the different gases in the atmosphere absorb heat at different degrees.⁶ From a modern perspective, Tyndall discovered the difference in radiation between different greenhouse gases. Hence, Tyndall’s experimental research laid the molecular foundation for the greenhouse effect.

Then, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius reached another highly significant conclusion that, arguably, drives the polarized debate on climate change today. Arrhenius claimed that

human-produced carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. through the burning of fossil fuels) had the potential to increase global temperatures.⁷ He understood the implications of increasing production and release of carbon dioxide in the industrials age. However, in the early twentieth century, the conclusion reached by Arrhenius was treated with skepticism in the scientific community. Many scientists pointed to errors in Arrhenius’s calculations and assumptions about the climate system, and therefore many concluded that human activity played little role in producing climate change.

However, this widespread view was largely reversed with the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, as research greatly increased during these tense years. Indeed, the twentieth century yielded much in terms of climate science and related policy. Particularly important in this period was the work of American scientist Charles David Keeling, who established the global record for atmospheric carbon dioxide.⁸ A precise and accurate way to measure atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide remained elusive into the 1950s. Previous calculations lacked rigor, and this stood in the way of establishing a clear connection between human-produced carbon emissions, the greenhouse effect, and climate change. However, Keeling established a revolutionary method with which atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide could be measured. In 1956, the United States Weather Bureau tasked Keeling with establishing a baseline concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And so, in March 1958, at the Weather Bureau’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a carbon dioxide observatory was established. Later that month, the observatory recorded the first measurement for global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, while the initial intent was

to record a baseline level of carbon dioxide concentration, and then conduct another measurement ten years later, the “Keeling Record” at the Mauna Loa Observatory expanded and continued to be recorded. Daily averages continue into the present day.

It was these long-term observations made at Mauna Loa that revealed a definite and indisputable year-by-year increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. With this, the link between the burning of fossil fuels, the greenhouse gas effect, and climate change became clear in the 1960s. An idea that had been developing and circulating throughout the scientific community was finally proven. Indeed, the infamous “Keeling Curve”⁹ reveals the dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations with time.

In the later decades of the twentieth century, the findings of individuals such as Keeling increased public concern and governmental action on climate change caused by human activity. For Keith E. Peterman, a professor of chemistry, the first Earth Day, which was held on April 22, 1960, marked the start of the “modern environmental movement.”¹⁰ It was during this period that the public began to realize that human activity could negatively impact the Earth and climate. In 1979, the First World Climate Conference in Geneva expressed worry about the role of human activity in changing global climate. New research and data continued to reveal the link between global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus adding onto the work of Arrhenius and Keeling, among others. In 1981, researcher James Hansen and scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Spaces published an article in Science which predicted that increased carbon dioxide concentrations would lead to global warming at a rate faster than was previously predicted.

Then, in the 1980s, concern for the greenhouse gas effect and climate change gave rise to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization of scientists has sought to provide an apolitical assessment of global climate trends, and is currently recognized as the authoritative leader in the realm of climate science. Indeed, the findings produced by the IPCC were central for the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was established in 1992. Today, the UNFCCC, which seeks to prevent “…dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,”¹¹ includes approximately two hundred nations. It was also responsible for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Thus, the scientific conclusions that were firmly established in the latter half of the twentieth century increased public concern and governmental efforts to study and prevent climate change.

The study of the greenhouse gas effect began with the research of scientist Fourier in the late eighteenth century. Yet, the notion that human activity could result in global warming was empirically proven only in the second half of the twentieth century by the data collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii with Keeling’s calculations. In the last several decades, this affirmation of the link between human-made carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas effect, and climate change continues to be strengthened by new and alarming research. While public concern and governmental actions has increased since the late twentieth century, the accelerated pace of global carbon emissions and the publication of concerning reports on climate change by scholars and organizations such as the IPCC reveals the urgency with which this matter must be treated.

Despite the current scientific consensus on climate change, polarization on the matter of climate change continues to challenge efforts to reduce carbon emissions and effectively respond to climate change. In the United States, the interests of industry lobbyists represent one barrier toward effective action. President Trump’s claims that climate change research is an exaggeration¹² represent another such hindrance. More broadly, the notion of climate change as a “tragedy of the commons”¹³—because the public or common nature of air and the Earth incentivizes overexploitation—is further suggestive of the challenges which bedevil more widespread acceptance and concern for scientific research on climate. Despite this, with the work of scientists of climate science converging to a consensus that change and action is imperative, it is now crucial for policymakers across the globe to take meaningful action.

1. “The Keeling Curve: Carbon Dioxide Measurements at Mauna Loa,” American Chemical Society, accessed January 6, 2019. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/keeling-curve.html.
2. “A Blanket Around the Earth,” Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, accessed January 6, 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.
3. “The Discovery of Global Warming,” American Institute of Physics, last modified February 2018. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085.
4.  Ibid.
5. Steven Graham, “John Tyndall: (1820-1893),” Earth Observatory, last modified October 8, 1999. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall.
6. Richard Black, “Tyndall’s Climate Message, 150 Year On,” BBC, last modified September 28, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234.
7. “The Discovery of Global Warming,” American Institute of Physics, last modified February 2018. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085.
8. “The Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, accessed January 6, 2019. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png.
9. “The Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, accessed January 6, 2019. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png.
10. Keith E. Peterman et al., Climate Change and Education: The Sciences and Perspectives from the Global Stage, Volume 1 (Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, 2017), 8. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/bk-2017-1247.ch001.
11. Ibid, 9.
12. Emily Holden, “Trump Officials Argue Climate Change Warnings Based on ‘Worst-Case Scenario,’” The Guardian, last modified December 1, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/01/trump-officials-argue-climate-change-warnings-based-on-worst-case-scenario.
13. Roger Highfield, “Climate Change Will Get a Whole Lot Worse Before It Gets Better, According to Game Theory,” Wired, last modified July 6, 2018. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-prediction-game-theory-tragedy-of-commons.

“There is no Planet B.”  In April 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron addressed¹ a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, staked out a hard-line position on climate leadership, and exhorted the United States to reaffirm its commitment to “make our planet great again.” Hopes² were high that Macron would not only overhaul French domestic climate policy, but that he would also fill the void left by America’s apparent abdication of international climate leadership. However, a lack of recent progress in French policy, little international pressure, and dissatisfaction expressed by environmental advocacy organizations suggest that Macron is failing to follow through on both fronts. The Macron administration’s recent and highly public gilet jaune³ embarrassment – a series of mass street protests that garnered international press coverage – holds the answers for France’s sluggish progress on climate policy and serves as a stark warning of the populist pitfalls that can befall climate advocates whose policies may, even unintentionally, reinforce existing inequalities.

Since the Paris Climate Conference in 2017, Macron’s France has made little measurable progress in the fight against global warming. This past August, French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot dramatically resigned⁴ on live television, claiming that Macron’s government was unwilling to push for real change in environmental policy. Hulot claimed that lobbyist influence and political cowardice had hamstrung decision-makers in the French government such that only “mini-steps,” not the sweeping changes Macron promised, had been achieved. Tellingly, the day before Hulot unexpectedly resigned, both he and President Macron met with the National Hunting Association, laying the groundwork for a liberalization of hunting laws despite opposition⁵ from bird conservation groups. Hulot’s resignation, apparently well-justified, was a red flag for environmental advocates.

Additionally, despite the Macron administration’s vocal push to lower carbon emissions, France has so far been unsuccessful⁶. In January 2018, France admitted that it had surpassed its emissions target by 3.6%, an embarrassing result for the French government. Ironically, despite the U.S.’s exit from the Paris Agreements, American GHG emissions declined⁷ more than those of any other country when measured in 2017. This unexpected result was likely caused by America’s increasing reliance on natural gas, which, although a fossil-fuel, produces fewer emissions than coal. The French Environment Ministry, meanwhile, blamed low oil prices for an increase in energy consumption and cited transportation and winter-time heating as the two top culprits.

Seeing the gulf between Macron’s tough talk on global warming and his failures to curb domestic emissions, one might have fairly assumed before November of 2018 that the French president’s words were hollow. This would, however, have been a mistake.

Following the Macron government’s decision to raise the fuel tax, a national sales tax on all gasoline purchases, in the new year, as had been done consistently in prior years, chaos broke out. Mass demonstrations by yellow-vested protesters broke out in major French cities such as Paris, Nice, and Lyon as well as overseas territories like the island Réunion east of Madagascar. The protests were named for the gilets jaunes (yellow safety vests) they wore, which all French motorists are required to keep in their cars and wear in the event of road emergencies. These yellow vests, ubiquitous and associated with emergency situations, became the uniform and symbol of the growing unrest.

The outbreak of violence between demonstrators and police led to thousands of injuries on both sides and the deaths⁸ of 10 civilians. After three weeks of escalating violence, President Macron backed down and suspended⁹ the fuel tax increase for six months.

What went wrong? It is worth examining the complexities of climate politics in the French context to understand why Macron’s fuel tax increase, which would have arguably reduced vehicle-based greenhouse gas emissions, provoked such a popular and violent response.

In effect, Macron’s fuel tax is a regressive policy which would have disproportionately punished an already economically disadvantaged population. Because the fuel tax is calculated on a cents-per-litre basis and does not take into account the socio-economic status of the individual taxed, it taxes a greater percentage of low-income and working-class individuals’ incomes and so disproportionately hurts those who are already struggling in a stagnant economy¹⁰ with a staggering unemployment rate of over 9%. For context, peak unemployment in the U.S. during the Great Recession of 2008 reached 10%¹¹. It is understandable why the French people would react so angrily to a tax increase on those with little to give, especially as the Macron administration commits to lowering¹² corporate tax rates. We can extrapolate an important lesson for other policy makers from Macron’s fuel tax failure.

In American politics and elsewhere, politicians, lobbyists, and climate activists must be careful that their commitment to environmental social engineering is not implemented in such a way that the financial burden of such policies falls on the most vulnerable. Without a doubt, a serious climate policy will force individuals to restructure their lives and consumption habits, but this must be done carefully. If, for instance, the United States were to institute a federal ban on the use of combustion-engine motor vehicles, that policy would no doubt benefit the environment and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, those without the capital to purchase pricier electric cars and unable to use alternative transportation would be well within their rights to oppose such a measure. Instead of writing clumsily-designed laws that financially penalize vulnerable individuals who lack viable climate-friendly alternatives to their behavior, legislators should instead consider a corporate carbon tax or equivalent cap-and-trade system to incentivize industries to self-regulate their emissions and redirect this tax revenue into subsidies for renewable energy and invest in climate-friendly public infrastructure like urban mass transit and bike lanes, protect and expand government-funded nature reserves, and create job-training programs to transition workers away from dying fossil fuel industries like the American coal mines. It is therefore important that climate policies be not only effective but popular; after all, angry voters can always rebel against poorly-designed laws and, in doing so, set back the entire environmentalist movement.

Almost everyone agrees climate change is a real and existential threat to human society, but no one wants to foot the bill themselves. If world leaders are serious about preserving a habitable Earth for future generations, they must tread carefully when designing laws intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Handing the bill to the already-marginalized is just bad policy.

1. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Macron Critiques Trump’s Policies in Speech to Congress,” New York Times, Published April 25, 2018.
2.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/us/politics/macron-congress-speech-trump.html

2. David Livingston, “Macron takes on climate change mantle in address to Congress,” Axios, Published April 26, 2018

https://www.axios.com/as-us-cedes-leadership-on-climate-change-macron-takes-up-the-torch-bb683940-9aef-4edf-87ee-7d79dd4edbbe.html

3. Angelique Chrisafis, “Who are the gilets jaunes and what do they want,” The Guardian, Published December 7, 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/who-are-the-gilets-jaunes-and-what-do-they-want

4. James McAuley, “French environment minister quits with criticism of Macron,” Washington Post, Published August 28, 2018.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/french-environment-minister-quits-with-criticism-of-macron/2018/08/28/2a39e8e0-aaca-11e8-9a7d-cd30504ff902_story.html?utm_term=.6b8f67f8835b

5. Angelique Chrisafis, “French environment minister quits live on radio with anti-Macron broadside,” The Guardian, Published August 28, 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/28/french-environment-minister-quits-live-on-radio-with-anti-macron-broadside

6. “France to revise carbon emissions target after missing 2016 goal,” Reuters, Published January 22, 2018.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-carbon-emissions/france-to-revise-carbon-emissions-target-after-missing-2016-goal-idUSKBN1FB2W0

7. “CO2 Emissions,” BP.com, Published June 13, 2018. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/co2-emissions.html

8. “Driver killed in accident at Yellow Vest roadblock in southern France,” The Telegraph, Published December 22, 2018.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/driver-killed-accident-yellow-vest-roadblock-southern-france/

9. Adam Nossiter, “France Suspends Fuel Tax Increase That Spurred Violent Protests,” New York Times, Published December 4, 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/world/europe/france-fuel-tax-yellow-vests.html

10. Liz Alderman, “These 5 Numbers Explain Why the French Are in the Streets,” New York Times, Published December 4, 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/world/europe/france-economy-protests.html

11. “The Recession of 2007-2009,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Published February 2012.

https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

12. Stacy Meichtry, “France Unveils Billions in Tax Cuts as Support for Macron Ebbs,” Wall Street Journal, Published September 24, 2018.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-unveils-billions-in-tax-cuts-as-support-for-macron-ebbs-1537794588

It is a well-established fact that tourism can be an effective form of poverty alleviation. The tourism and travel industry is currently the world’s fourth largest export sector after fuels, chemicals, and automotive products¹. Both directly and indirectly, through costs of travel and costs that come along with travel, it generates approximately 10% of the world’s GDP². It’s estimated that around one in ten jobs worldwide are either in tourism and travel, or are supported by it³ (eg. jobs in places supported by significant numbers of tourists). And for many developing countries, tourism is a large and important part of their economy. However, as with many things in an increasingly globalized society, the financial benefits of visitors to developing countries has a complicated relationship with the inexorable march of global warming.

According to a report developed by the UN’s World Tourism Organisation, the travel and tourism industry is the top one or two export earning sector for 20 of the world’s 48 least developed countries⁴. In fact, there is evidence to show it is even more effective than international aid as the transfer of resources from richer countries to poorer. An example is how, famously earlier this year, trailers of food, water, and supplies donated by private and non-profit groups for the victims of Hurricane Maria were found a year later, unusable and infested by rats⁵. Though this incident was local to America, it is an example of how the effectiveness of aid through donations can go horribly awry when it passes through middlemen. Charities and organisations, however well-meaning and well-run, can often diminish the impact of charitable contributions. This is due to anything from taking portions of monetary donations for administrative costs, delaying receipt of gifts due to bureaucratic procedure, or (in the worst cases) simple inefficiency or negligence. When we’re talking of overseas aid, the effect is often magnified. There is no shortage of the desire to help developing countries. Most people, however, lack the means to directly do so.

One way to directly contribute to developing countries is through tourism, and thankfully, global trends of international travel have only been increasing. Though only 46% of international arrivals were to developing countries⁶, for many, it makes a world of difference. According to estimates, in some developing countries (especially small island states), tourism contributes to over a quarter of their GDP. For instance, the Bahamas: while tourism and travel alone directly contributes about 20%, it is estimated that a total of about 44.8% of their GDP relies on international visitors⁷. It’s not just flights or hotels; everything tourists do, from eating at a restaurant to paying for a parking spot, has an indirect if not direct contribution to the importance of tourism to that area’s GDP. And while the sector directly employs about 27% of the Bahamas’ population, over half of employment can both directly or indirectly be attributed to the tourism industry⁸. In many instances, tourism is the most viable and sustainable source of economic growth for these smaller states. In other words, for those interested in helping people from developing countries, a terrific way to do so is to directly contribute money towards their local businesses, products, and services when visiting for pleasure.

However, once climate change is factored in, the picture begins to become complicated. Developed nations collectively contribute to most of the world’s carbon emissions – historically speaking, approximately 79% of the total⁹. Yet despite the fact that they have a far greater negative impact on the environment, the harmful effects felt by developed nations are far less overall than for developing ones. A key difference here is wealth. Certain countries are better equipped than others to alleviate the effects of rising temperatures and changing climate. Developed nations tend to have an edge, with advantages from more widespread access to AC units to give comfort or more resources dedicated to natural disaster relief from cyclones or floods. Another important area where developed nations have an advantage is that their economies tend to rely far less on tourism. International travel is on the rise with the advent of ever cheaper air travel, more direct connections between cities¹⁰, and an expanding middle class for many nations¹¹. This means that more and more people can be expected to travel in the next few decades. Globally, but especially for developing countries, tourism is expected to expand and contribute more and more to countries’ economies. However, with climate change, it is unclear whether there will still be destinations to attract those much-needed visitors.

The known effects of climate change include rising sea levels, increases in average temperature resulting in volatile seasonal weather, and more frequent natural disasters. These, unfortunately, directly affect ocean and sea life, forest and lake, mountain and snow, and even city tourism. Places such as Fiji, Maldives, Grenada, or the Bahamas are small islands, so the ecological effects of climate change on their beaches and sea life will decimate their ability to profit off those attractions. Of course elsewhere, developed nations will not be immune; the French Alps, famous as a snowsports destination, will suffer from shortening winter seasons. Italy and Argentina, well-known wine growing regions, will be affected by volatile seasonal temperatures. Revenue generated by national parks such as Yellowstone to Yosemite will decline as their ecological environment degrades – meanwhile, the entire city of Venice sinks into the ocean at an ever-increasing rate. While tourism and travel may not be as essential to the prosperity of these countries, the job prospects in towns or cities catering to sightseers and wanderers will make a huge difference to local economies. Fortunately for countries such as France or America, museums, architecture and other such man-made attractions also play a large part in bringing in tourists. Unfortunately for countries such as the Maldives or Tanzania, their natural landscapes and wildlife might be, for many visitors, their most famous and attractive destinations. When those start to be negatively impacted by the environment, tourism decreases, taking huge sources of revenue with it.

Yet this is not the only problem at hand. That tourism helps developing countries is indisputable. However, the climate impact of tourism is also glaring. Estimates of how much tourism and travel contribute to global carbon emissions range from 5% back in 2008¹² to almost 8% earlier this year¹³. It was projected that this amount would increase up to 130% between 2005 and 2035¹⁴, and it certainly seems that the trend is on track with this estimate. Herein lies the problem: over three quarters of that percentage is generated by transportation¹⁵ – most notably, by air. Since many of the destinations most in need of tourism are only accessible by air, this creates a confounding cycle: developing nations need tourism for economic growth. However, as tourism increases, so does its global environmental impact which, barring drastic action in other sectors, hastens the effects of climate change. As these effects become more apparent, natural features decrease in attractiveness and tourism suffers. The economy suffers, increasing the need for income even as tourism, a huge revenue source, continues to disappear.

The economic benefits of tourism are great. In considering the environmental impact of our travel, we must weigh this against the benefits we can immediately bring to those who rely on the travel and tourism industry for their livelihood. Besides, without factoring in the financial advantages travel brings to developing economies, it also heralds a greater interconnectedness of people worldwide. Raising awareness and fostering bonds across cultures can only be a good thing. For the sake of developing nations, which already bear the brunt of climate change despite not being the greater contributors, we cannot sacrifice international tourism for environmental ideals. Efforts should be made to look beyond a westernised conceptions of environmentalism. No matter what ecologically friendly practices we adopt, we cannot help but leave carbon footprints during our time on Earth. So if we want to be conscientious global citizens, we should carefully weigh our concerns about environmental impact against the good we can do by playing a part in stimulating economic exchange from developed economies to developing ones – if we must leave a carbon footprint, at least let be to have a positive impact elsewhere.

In the end, a holistic environmental awareness must acknowledge that industries and corporations have impacts far larger than that of any of us as individuals. Addressing unsustainable industry practices such as food waste from supermarkets is significantly more meaningful than trying to reduce each person’s carbon footprint one by one. And as far as industries go, the travel industry is certainly much less harmful than others such as the coal and fossil fuel industries. For many around the world, the devastation of global warming is an ever-looming threat that constantly chips away at incomes and livelihoods. It is not their industrial practices which contribute so much to this downward environmental trend. So as developed countries go about improving environmental practices and individuals are increasingly involved in lobbying such issues, we should keep the following well in mind: targeting industrial practices cannot blindly look at the ecological impact of the travel and tourism sector without considering its importance to developing nations.

1. “Tourism and Poverty Alleviation”, UN World Tourism Organization, accessed November 20, 2018. http://step.unwto.org/content/tourism-and-poverty-alleviation-1
2. “World Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2018”, World Travel and Tourism Council, March 2018. www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/regions-2018/world2018.pdf
3. “World Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2018”, ibid.
4. “Tourism and Poverty Alleviation”, ibid.
5. Frances Robles. “Containers of Hurricane Donations Found Rotting in Puerto Rico Parking Lot”, New York Times, August 10, 2018, accessed November 20, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/puerto-rico-aid.html
6. “Tourism and Poverty Alleviation, ibid.
7. “Bahamas Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2017”, World Travel and Tourism Council, March 2017. www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/countries-2017/bahamas2017.pdf
8. “Bahamas Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2017”, ibid.
9. “Developed Countries are Responsible for 79 Percent of Historical Carbon Emissions”, Center for Global Development, August 18, 2015, accessed November 20, 2018. cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically
10. Derek Thompson, “How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% In 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed”, The Atlantic, February 28, 2013, accessed November 20, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/
11. Homi Kharas, “The Emerging Middle Class in Developing Countries”, OECD Development Centre, January 2010. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/the-emerging-middle-class-in-developing-countries_5kmmp8lncrns-en
12. “Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges”, UN World Tourism Organization, July 9, 2008. http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/climate2008.pdf
13. Josh Gabbatiss, “Tourism is Responsible for Nearly One Tenth of the World’s Carbon Emissions”, The Independent, May 7, 2018, accessed November 20, 2018. www.independent.co.uk/environment/tourism-climate-change-carbon-emissions-global-warming-flying-cars-transport-a8338946.html
14. “Climate Change: Implications for Tourism”, European Climate Foundation, accessed November 20, 2018. https://europeanclimate.org/climate-change-implications-for-tourism/
15. “Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges”, ibid.

At a town hall on January 11th, 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stoked controversy by choosing to answer a question about access to mental health services posed in English in French, stating that “since we’re in Quebec, I’ll respond in French.” Immediately, Trudeau was hit with a barrage of criticism and legal complaints from Quebecois organizations who felt that his refusal to answer a question posed in English in the same language was snobbish and disrespectful. Trudeau had committed a faux pas by upsetting the fragile peace between the English and French languages in Quebec.

Colonial History

Foreign observers might not realize that Quebec, now a Canadian province, was originally claimed by French explorer Jacques Cartier in 1534 and labeled Nouvelle-France (New France). Although Cartier’s initial settlement was abandoned by settlers fleeing disease and indigenous resistance, his compatriot Samuel de Champlain, a successive colonizer and fur trader, successfully established a French foothold in North America in 1608, which would develop into the city of Quebec. All of Canada would become a British possession in 1760 at the end of the Seven Years’ War, kicking off a conflict between an Anglophone majority and Francophone minority that would endure for over 200 years. Although the British Crown guaranteed the Catholic Francophone Quebecois freedom of worship in the Treaty of Paris, no such provisions were made for the preservation and use of the French language.

Relatively content with British rule and their guaranteed right to Catholic practice, French Canadians declined to assist their American neighbors to the south during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 even though both were colonial subjects of the same Crown. But a continent apart from Europe and increasingly outnumbered by English settlers, they clung tightly to their Catholic faith and French language. As time went on, however, the Anglophone majority outside of Quebec began to crack down on the linguistic rights of French minority populations. Over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such provinces as New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Ontario instituted regulations suppressing the teaching of French in public schools either by cutting off public funds or, in the case of Ontario’s Regulation 17, limiting “the use of French as the language of instruction and communication to the first two years of elementary school.” As a result, Quebec soon became the only Canadian province in which the French-speaking minority did not face an aggressive campaign of Anglophone assimilationism.

Although both Canadian Anglophones and Francophones supported the Dominion of Canada’s entry into the First World War – the United Kingdom and France were military allies –  the war would greatly exacerbate Anglo-Franco tensions. Specifically, the 1917 Military Service Act, which established forced conscription to make up for casualties at the Battle of the Somme, sparked Canadien resentment, led to mass draft riots, and fanned the flames of Quebecois nationalism. Fearing a revolution like the 1916 Easter Rising, the Canadian federal government used force to suppress the riots, resulting in civilian casualties when soldiers opened fire on demonstrators.  

Nationalism on the rise

In 1960, the so-termed Quiet Revolution in Quebecois politics began. The Parti libéral du Québec (Quebec Liberal Party) swept into power in the Quebec National Assembly, ending a sixteen-year reign of domination by the conservative Union Nationale (National Union). The effective secularization of Quebec’s government, nationalization of certain industries, and creation of the province’s first-ever welfare state led to a dramatic increase in economic development and rekindled the dormant embers of Quebecois nationalism.

A militant Marxist-Leninist organization known as the Front de libération du Québec (Quebec Liberation Front, otherwise known as the FLQ) began a campaign of terror in 1963 aimed at the overthrow of the existing government of Quebec and violent separatism from the Dominion of Canada. Responsible for over 160 acts of violence, the FLQ bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange in 1969 and precipitated the 1970 October Crisis by kidnapping British Trade Commissioner James Cross. During hostage negotiations, an independent FLQ cell subsequently kidnapped and assassinated Quebec Labor Minister Pierre Laporte.

Pierre Trudeau, then Prime Minister of Canada (and father of current Canadian PM Justin Trudeau) invoked the War Measures Act, granting the federal government emergency powers to criminalize FLQ membership, suspend civil liberties, and detain approximately 450 Quebecois without charge.

Although the FLQ was ultimately unsuccessful in its attempts to forge an independent socialist Quebec, increased Quebecois nationalism and Anglo-Franco tension in Canada enabled the more moderate sovereigntist Parti Québécois (Quebec Party) to gain a majority in the Quebec assembly. Under the leadership of René Lévesque, the Parti Québécois advocated for souverainété-association (sovereignty-association), political autonomy for the province of Quebec while maintaining a free-trade zone and close economic ties with the rest of Canada. Central to the electoral success of the Parti Québécois was its promise to hold a referendum on sovereignty-association. The 1980 Quebec Referendum, in which a staggering 80% of provincial voters participated, was voted down by 59.56%. A subsequent referendum in 1995 was defeated by a hair-thin margin of 50.6%.

Official Bilingualism

Since 1969, the year of the Montreal Stock Exchange Bombing, French-English bilingualism has been the official policy of the Canadian national government. Per the 1969 Official Languages Act, all government services must be made equally available in both languages. Moreover, the Act was substantially amended in 1988 to also require that all official government communications and legal proceedings be in both French and English, that both languages be equally protected and taught in public schools, and that the Federal Court must hear complaints regarding violations.

This is why, for example, all of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s posts on Instagram (@justinpjtrudeau) have both English and French captions, why all traffic signs in bilingual regions of Canada are in both languages, and why some complain that the Act has closed off governmental jobs to a “bilingual elite” because fluency in both English and French is now required for many bureaucratic posts even though only 17.9% of Canadians are fluent in both.

So what exactly was so offensive about Justin Trudeau choosing to respond to an English question in French during a town hall in Quebec? For one, the Anglophone minority of the province perceived the language-switch as pandering to the French majority at the cost of excluding English-speakers despite the fact that the two languages are, at least theoretically, equal. Moreover, some Canadians actually filed complaints that Trudeau had violated the 1988 Official Languages Act by refusing to accommodate an English-speaking woman by responding in her own language. Ironically, it was Trudeau’s own father who is considered “the father of official bilingualism in Canada.”

There is evidence that, although restrictive, Canada’s policy of official bilingualism has been an important and popular safeguard for the country’s French-speaking minority. A Nielsen survey in 2016, for instance, found that 92% of Quebecois and over 80% of all Canadians supported the policy of official bilingualism, an increase from ten years prior.

However, with pro-independence political parties continuing to win seats in recent provincial elections, the debate is far from over. A new right-wing nationalist party, the Coalition Avenir Quebec (Coalition for Quebec’s Future) won a majority in the October 2018 election and formed government for the first time in the Quebec National Assembly. Commentators argue that the success of CAQ was the result of populist-nationalist rhetoric, Islamophobia (including opposition to a National Day against Islamophobia in commemoration of the 6 Muslim victims of a 2017 mosque shooting), and xenophobia. This marks a strong rightward shift from the Quebecois nationalism of decades past, which was championed by the recently-defeated Quebec Liberal Party as well as the Marxist FLQ. Ultimately, only time will tell whether the French and English-speaking communities of Canada continue to coexist, or whether this new rightist nationalist majority in Quebec’s provincial government is a harbinger of conflict to come.

In his commencement address to the 2016 graduating class at Howard University in Washington, D.C, then-President Obama declared that, “Democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right.” Few would dispute Obama’s observation, and yet, over the last two months, two of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies—the United States and United Kingdom—appear as if they have forgotten this is the case, and thus may be losing their ability to function effectively like the democratic states they are. The U.S. has been unable to keep its government open for more than a few weeks at a time, while Britain remains mired in a months-long controversy over how—or if—they should leave the European Union. Lawmakers in both Washington and London appear unable to find solutions with their respective oppositions in order to avert political chaos. Yet one individual who never lost sight of the necessity of compromise in democratic politics, and must be reveling in Moscow as the institutions of his adversaries crumble, is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It was precisely this goal of fomenting chaos that Russia sought when it interfered in both British and American politics in 2016 via the Brexit referendum and the American presidential election. Britain’s Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Media, and Sport found Russian meddling in the June 2016 Brexit referendum via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms to be for “the purpose of undermining public confidence and of destabilizing democratic states.” Similarly, Moscow’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was, as former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute Clint Watts described, done with the intention to “undermine democracy, [and] to make Americans lose confidence in democratic institutions and elected officials”. Russia’s means to achieve this was the use of social media ads that highlighted differences in societal makeup such as race, religion, and ethnicity. According to Watts, Russia’s tactic, both in the U.S. and abroad, was to turn “every crack…into a chasm and [to pit] different race, ethnic groups [and] socioeconomic groups” against each other. When political disagreements turn to ideological chasms, compromise becomes impossible, and, as Obama warned, democracy begins to fail.

The fight between a Democratic House and Republican president to keep the U.S. federal government running and the disagreements between hardline Brexiteers and pro-European Union internationalists over the future of Britain are increasingly illustrative of exactly what Russia intended for its democratic adversaries, and are already showing their threatening impact on both national harmony and even national security. On December 22, 2018, the U.S. Federal Government shutdown when President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress were unable to reach a deal to fund the government. The shutdown stemmed from a standoff over Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to fund a border wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, which the newly sworn in Democratic majority in the House of Representatives refused. This resulted in the the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Roughly 380,000 federal employees were furloughed, while an additional 420,000 were expected to work without pay until the shutdown ended. Many of these workers held essential positions as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspectors, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, Coast Guard members, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air-traffic controllers.

The effects have been chaotic. Tom O’Connor, a special agent with the FBI told The Atlantic in early-January that the financial insecurities that faced the FBI, “equate[d] to a national-security issue.” With close to 5,000 agents furloughed, investigations and undercover operations were threatened, while the labs at the FBI headquarters in Quantico, which provide forensic-analysis to support those investigations, face a mounting backlog as those who operate them were forbidden from showing up for work. Additionally, FBI agents have lost access to undercover sources due to a lack of funds. One anonymous agent said that his unit had “lost several sources who have worked for months, and years, to penetrate groups and target subjects” because the Bureau cannot currently pay them.

Members of the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with patrolling American waters and protecting U.S. ports of entry, were forced to work without pay. FAA employees, who ensure safety in the sky, began handing out leaflets describing their inability “mandate safety fixes in aircrafts” and the delay of the “implementations of new safety procedures”. The FDA halted food inspections. A superpower like the United States can’t be expected to compete with Russia on the world stage, let alone guard against international threats like Moscow when the very institutions that do so, the FBI and military, have to slow their operations, if not halt them entirely. Putin would love a weakened FBI and American military, and Washington is handing it to him.

It has not just been U.S. safety and security services affected by the shutdown. After the government reopened, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion. Formerly bipartisan traditions, such as the State of the Union address and governmental support for American troops abroad, were stunted after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi requested President Trump postpone the address during the shutdown. The President retaliated by cancelling Pelosi’s trip to visit troops in Afghanistan.

Even before these current crises, a December 2016 poll found only 30 percent of American millennials find it “essential” to live in a democracy, showing the calamity the U.S. faces. With the government’s current inability to compromise in pursuit of safety within its borders, along its coasts, or in its food, the latest shutdown is unlikely to improve an already bleak faith in American democracy and its institutions.

Across the Atlantic, democracy faces similar paralysis. The deadline for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union looms on March 29th. Prime Minister May has been working to negotiate a deal for the U.K.’s departure with both EU representatives and the British Parliament. Although the EU approved May’s plan for withdrawal in early December, May chose shortly after to delay the parliamentary vote on the deal for fear that it would be rejected.

The result was a rebellion within her Conservative Party, with hardline Brexit supporters seeking to oust her via a party-wide no-confidence vote, a rare move in British politics. May was able to survive the vote and brought her Brexit deal to a parliamentary vote a month later on January 15. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly rejected by a margin of 432 to 202, the largest defeat handed to a Prime Minister in modern British history. Shortly after, with no deal in sight, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn brought a Parliament-wide no-confidence vote against May, and yet she again skirted to victory by a slim 19-vote margin.

The Brexit deadline is less than nine weeks away with no deal in sight and no apparent change in government imminent. May announced her plan last week to return to Brussels to seek further concessions for a deal, but the EU is unlikely to budge. Other options include seeking a delay for Britain’s exit date or holding a second referendum, but both ventures seem unlikely to prosper.

If a deal is not reached before the March 29th deadline, it is very likely that Britain will be forced into a “no-deal Brexit”. Rather than maintaining certain economic and trading ties with the EU, as May has been trying to do, London’s relationship with Brussels will be severely damaged and the results potentially devastating. Economically it could be catastrophic. Many economists have said that a “no-deal Brexit” would be a “doomsday” scenario with Britain having to erect World Trade Organization trade rules at its borders. An International Monetary Fund projection said close to eight percent of Britain’s gross domestic product could be lost. British companies, with a variety of products ranging from wine to bicycles, have been stockpiling goods over fear that they may not be able to import them as quickly or as cheaply in the case of a “no-deal Brexit”. Britain’s National Health Service has stockpiled refrigerators as part of its contingency planning to ensure that imported drugs from Europe don’t go bad before they can reach their patients. Britain has even rehearsed a “traffic jam” scenario with trucks at some of its ports, to see how to handle the flow of goods coming into the country in the event of a British border closure. May appears now to have no good options. Like the country itself, her party is hopelessly divided between those who want out of the EU entirely and those who want to remain. No compromise or concessions appear imminent.

The current state of the U.S. and Britain, two of the world’s most powerful countries, is not what first-world democracy should look like. FBI agents unable to conduct their operations properly, planes unable to takeoff or land safely, ports and coastlines not protected adequately, and food not subject to the necessary scrutiny. Britons facing an economic “doomsday,” companies having to stockpile goods, and the NHS having to buy thousands of fridges in the event that they cannot import drugs fast enough. Meanwhile, citizens of two of the world’s wealthiest and powerful democracies must be looking on in disbelief.

The question now for the U.S. and Britain however is not if these two great nations are on a path headed towards disarray, but rather how far down it they are. While Brexit and the shutdown may seem to be unique and hence will go away soon enough, the root of the cause is that at present the right and the left in the West remain utterly and irreconcilably divided, and unlike Trump or Brexit, this situation is not going anywhere.

This is exactly what Russia wants: Americans and Britons exasperated at their governments’ sheer ineptitude. When Putin directed his intelligence operatives to intervene before the Brexit vote in the U.K and the 2016 Presidential election in the U.S, his goal was to undermine democratic institutions by stoking fierce division amongst their respective populaces. In a democracy, when people are sharply divided, the institutions of government cease to problem-solve effectively. The ideological gap becomes too distant to bridge through compromise, and passing legislation that the people want—the fundamental underpinning of a democratic country—becomes impossible. That said, Putin did not create this ideological divide, he simply exploited it. While it is worthwhile for the U.S. and U.K. to respond forcefully to Russian aggression, the real demons at fault for the chaos now engulfing Western democracy are internal, not external. Washington and London should deter Moscow to help quell their respective problems. But in the long run, it may require that they look inside their borders, not outside, to truly solve them.