All posts by : IDM Albania

Prolonged heat waves, record-breaking temperatures, longer and more severe droughts and floods, heavy storms, wildfires, sea level rise, environmental degradation… These are only some of the effects brought about by climate change. Devastating weather extremes now drive people out of their homes and with an increasing frequency are directly responsible for deaths.

These new extremes are becoming our everyday situation. It’s for good reason that this “new normal” is more and more being referred to not as climate change but as the climate crisis.

One reason comes down to simple physics, or the physical laws that define Earth’s climate to be more precise. Among other substances, our atmosphere contains the so-called greenhouse gasses. The greenhouse effect traps a portion of the energy received from the sun, keeping Earth’s surface warm. This temperature optimum is one of the basic conditions for life to thrive; without greenhouse gasses, our planet would be 30°C colder.

It’s known for a fact that the growing concentration of greenhouse gasses disrupts this balance, which in turn makes our planet heat up. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, vast amounts of coal, oil and natural gas have been burned to generate power. Fossil fuel combustion produced most of the energy we’ve historically needed — it served as a backbone for society’s constant and accelerated development.

Energy production aside, the burning of fossil fuels releases gasses and particles into Earth’s atmosphere, some of which reduce air quality. Others affect air quality minimally while influencing the greenhouse effect significantly. One of them is carbon dioxide (CO2) — Earth’s second most important greenhouse gas.

Unlike other air-polluting gasses and particles emitted through fossil fuel burning, CO2 has another “snag” to it — once released into the atmosphere, it’s set to stay there almost forever.

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes goes slowly. It begins with plants taking in the gas through photosynthesis and ends with their remains forming fossil fuels.

For example, conversion of dead trees into coal is a process that takes place over geological time scales measured in countless human lifetimes. Simply put, after underground carbon is released into the atmosphere by means of combustion, it’s going to stay there for a long while.

It bears repeating: If the concentration of CO2 in the air increases to the point of increasing global temperatures, Earth will remain hot for thousands of years, regardless of whether you cease to emit in the meantime. In short, there’s no turning back.

Another reason why our planet continues to warm up has to do with the way societies function — with how complex they are as systems where collective decision-making is influenced by things that go beyond the factual data we have in hand.

We’ve known for decades now that our planet keeps getting hotter as well as that global warming only heightens deterioration of the climate and increases the frequency of extreme weather events. We’ve also been very well aware that we should stop releasing CO2 into the air if the process is to be halted. However, despite all this, little effort has been made to effectively curb climate change.

Even the early 19th-century scientists understood that our planet is warm thanks to the greenhouse effect. By the mid-19th century, it was determined which gasses contribute to this phenomenon, which gave rise to speculations that Earth would start to warm up if any one of them — such as CO2 — had a higher concentration in the atmosphere. This guesswork actually made perfect sense as fossil fuels had already come into use.

The first study to show how warm our planet can get if the airborne CO2 concentration doubles was published around the turn of the century. In the first half of the 20th century, scientists first managed to make an estimate of Earth’s average surface temperature, which pointed towards a warming trend. The first news story on the issue was published around the same time.

With the late 1960s and early 1970s came the first scientific papers that demonstrated beyond a doubt that further CO2 emissions would lead to temperature increases. It was expected that the consequences would become clearly visible in the following decades.

Suki Manabe, a Japanese meteorologist, was co-awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for examining this chain of events. In one of his projects, he explains in detail how the process of global warming is to unfold.

By the early 1980s, climate scientists made public announcements that any further increases in temperature would unavoidably destabilize Earth’s climate system. They called for immediate action, given that finding viable energy alternatives to coal, oil and natural gas is an arduous task that might take decades to accomplish.

International consultations on how to tackle these challenges were launched in the late 1980s. Presided over by Angela Merkel, the first international conference where the world’s countries negotiated potential solutions to climate change was held in Berlin in 1995. In 1997, the first international climate treaty was concluded in Kyoto, but it became evident only a few years later that this arrangement would collapse.

A fresh deal that ushered in hope was supposed to be signed in Copenhagen in 2009. However, the Copenhagen Summit anticlimactically failed to produce a written agreement. It was only six years later that the world adopted a treaty that has remained in force to this day — the Paris Agreement. Every country in the world signed the agreement — only three national parliaments are yet to ratify it.

Later this year, we will have in writing the first rundown of how implementation of the Paris Agreement is proceeding. Unfortunately, even though the implementation report is still pending, we know that we’re far from meeting our goals. We also know that not all nations are ready to implement the treaty in line with what was agreed on.

This bleak series of failures and semi-failures in stemming climate change influences the situation as much as the laws of physics I mentioned in the previous section do. This is why we’ve come to witness the devastating effects of global warming.

Going back to the 2015 Paris Agreement, all countries agreed not only to cap the average global temperature rise — which currently sits just above 1°C — at 2°C, but also that extra effort should go into preventing the planet from heating up by more than 1.5°C.

If the planet gets warmer by another 1°C, the 2°C upper limit was set so that Earth’s climate system remains stable enough for society and nature to hopefully adapt to the new conditions.

According to various studies, provided that the climate gets 2°C warmer than in pre-industrial times, the negative impacts of extreme weather will be even more severe and pervasive, but we’ll still be able to cushion them by means of resilience and adaptation. However, if this threshold is exceeded, it will be more difficult to adapt and we’ll also be facing a higher risk of reaching tipping points — junctures where a whole system deteriorates to such an extent that we are no longer likely to achieve desired results through our own action.

To put it simply, if we reach some of the tipping points, climate change will be beyond our control.

This is why the Paris Agreement establishes an even more ambitious upper limit of 1.5°C. In case we stay within this target range, uncertainty and potential challenges will be considerably easier to address. However, in order to curb the temperature rise, we’ll need to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere — we have to move away from coal, oil and natural gas as our primary energy sources within the next three to four decades.

Energy transition takes time because the process itself is very complex — on a global scale, it’s impossible to implement efficient alternatives in a few years. However, even though the majority of people have no faith in it, we should keep in mind that the process is feasible and that cost-effective technological solutions already exist.

Neither of these excuses holds water anymore. It’s become abundantly clear that renewable energy sources have enough potential capacity to meet our needs and that they are now more economical.

Generating power from renewable sources in today’s day and age costs less than doing so from conventional ones. The economic advantages of this are even more readily apparent if we take into account the loss and damage we may incur in the event that the global temperature rises by more than 2°C.

The most optimistic outcome would be a fossil fuel-free world where the global temperature has increased by another 1°C. Even this would represent a compromise resulting from our indolence. In the best-case scenario, the extra temperature increase of 1° would transpire over the next three decades, but there would be no further warming.

A converse outcome would be a world where fossil fuels remain our dominant energy source well into the future.

In the latter scenario, the loss and damage caused by extreme climate and weather events would surpass our adaptive capacity. Human society could therefore spiral into constant band-aiding rather than foster development that would help solve the existing problems such as war, famine, poverty and social inequalities.

Unfortunately, the world has more than enough problems as it is, so it seems completely unnecessary to weigh it down with yet another serious challenge like climate change.

Climate change is oftentimes brought up only after the devastating effects of floods, storms, wildfires and heat waves somehow take us by surprise once again, which is especially the case with the media. These discussions tend to be accompanied by gloomy portrayals of the future, although nothing is set in stone.

The moment we’re in is critical for our decision-making. We have a choice, and it needs to be understood that we’re not condemned — and neither are future generations — to live a life where today’s extremes become the rule rather than the exception. Hence, the choice is ours — the decision we eventually make is going to help turn the climate crisis into an opportunity for the world in front of us to become a better and safer place for all.

Kosovo Glocal: From climate change to climate crisis

It was back in October 2022 that Milorad Dodik, president of the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska, tweeted an instruction for the justice minister to prepare legislation to criminalize defamation and damage to reputation and honor.

The Republika Srpska Justice Ministry responded by drafting amendments to the entity-level Criminal Code in March 2023. The new code treats defamation and infliction of reputational damage as criminal offenses, with offenders liable to fines ranging from 5,000 marks (2,500 euros) in case of insult up to 120,000 marks (60,000 euros) in cases where disclosure of sensitive details from the injured party’s personal or family life could lead or has already led to serious consequences.

On March 23, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska tasked the Justice Ministry with holding public consultations on the draft amendments within the next 60 days. Four related public hearings were organized, each in a different city of Republika Srpska.

During the public hearings, the media warned that, if adopted, the amendments would send Republika Srpska 22 years back to the time when libel was yet to be decriminalized. Local and international media outlets insisted on compliance with the media code of ethics and reliance on self-regulation mechanisms (such as correction notices or retractions). Additionally, they appealed for mediation procedures to precede lawsuits — in line with guidance in the entity-level Law on Protection from Defamation.

Regardless of the fines proposed, journalists explained that the main problem lies with the potentially long duration of criminal trials they could face for allegedly hurting certain people’s subjective opinions and emotions. Media workers voiced their disapproval by walking out of the public hearings. Meanwhile, ahead of the decisive National Assembly session, media professionals and the general population took to the streets of Zvornik and Banja Luka to protest the legislation.

The proposed changes to the Criminal Code would introduce articles that define defamation as a crime with possible fines of up to 2,500 euros, while similar fines are also established for disclosing or transmitting personal or family matters of an individual.

One paragraph in the article states: “The truth or falsity of what is disclosed or transmitted from the personal or family life of an individual is not to be proven.”

Curbing freedom of thought

Apart from the conclusions of the public consultations, the National Assembly received an urgent legal assessment report drawn up by the OSCE.

“It is also essential that the legislation clearly distinguishes value judgments, which are not susceptible of proof, from factual statements the existence of which can be demonstrated. A requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is thus impossible to fulfill and infringes freedom of opinion itself,” the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights noted in the report.

On July 20, without taking into account any of the criticism leveled within the public consultations or in writing, including the OSCE comments, the National Assembly green-lit the draft amendments to the Criminal Code of Republika Srpska.

This caused concern with the Office of the High Representative (OHR), UN special rapporteurs on human rights, the EU Delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as many civil society organizations.

“The recriminalization of defamation in Republika Srpska enables the authorities to suppress and censor media freedoms and civil society, curtail free critical thought, and silence dissenting voices,” the OHR noted in a recent announcement, adding that this type of practice represents an attack on civil liberties characteristic of authoritarian regimes

UN representatives dealing with freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and human rights called for the government to backtrack on the amendments to the Criminal Code and ensure that freedom of thought is fully respected.

A week after the amendments to the Criminal Code were approved by the National Assembly, the Bosniak Caucus of the Republika Srpska Council of Peoples decided to cast a veto and thus prevent the changes from being adopted by a two-third majority.

Five of the eight representatives in the Bosniak Caucus argued that the amendments jeopardize the Bosniak people’s vital national interest — calling on a mechanism put in place to protect each of the three constituent peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Constitutional Court of Republika Srpska overturned the Bosniak Caucus’s veto on August 8.

Media professionals soon announced that they will directly petition Republika Srpska’s Constitutional Court to do a constitutional review of the bill if it receives a go-ahead from the Council of Peoples. In the meantime, President Dodik brought it into force through a decree published in the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, which was done even though the Constitutional Court has yet to decide on the matter.

This initiative of Dodik’s has been part of his broader post-election campaign to shape public discourse and effect a transformation of the political climate.

Agents, enemies and others

In the months after the last election, Dodik set in motion several initiatives that the Justice Ministry of Republika Srpska swiftly took on. One of them was to pass legislation that would designate internationally funded civil society organizations as “agents of foreign influence.” Another proposed provision was to ban non-profit organizations from partaking in political activities and advocacy and prevent them from impacting not only lawmaking, but also legislative and executive government in general.

On the very same day that the Republika Srpska National Assembly passed the amendments to the Criminal Code, Dodik announced that another law will be proposed in order to “provide a legal basis for identifying enemies of Republika Srpska.”

Just days later, a number of media outlets that air or publish their content both in Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were branded enemies of Republika Srpska by Dodik. This was the continuation of a campaign targeting media professionals and outlets, who he previously called “long-standing racketeering abominations.” Dodik’s verbal attacks against journalists have been incessant for years.

How these legal acts will affect the overall freedoms of expression, thought and assembly down the road depends on the independence and impartiality of the Republika Srpska judiciary.

According to Republika Srpska’s recently passed Law on Non-Application of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all state-level decisions related to constitutionality will be unenforceable in Republika Srpska until the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Parliamentary Assembly adopts the Law on the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This is part of Dodik’s efforts to prevent the European Court of Human Rights from appointing judges to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the slots reserved for foreign judges.

These decisions made by the RS’s National Assembly bar residents of Republika Srpska from using legal protection mechanisms offered by the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and guaranteed by its constitution.

Republika Srpska’s self-isolation is a way to create undemocratic mechanisms geared towards total political and social control of judicial, political and social institutions. Limiting the ability to criticize public officials and policies, branding critical assessment of lawmakers as hostile actions and restricting NGOs and nonprofits from working to influence government decision-making reveals a tendency to exclude the public from the political sphere.

This disregard for established procedures is an act of political self-will done by an autocratic leader who manages political institutions with the police. Involving the police in defamation and damage to reputation and honor cases is bound to put pressure on independent and investigative media, which may lead to media shut-downs, confiscation of media property and equipment, police surveillance or obstruction of coverage.

For anyone who ends up being designated as an “enemy of the people and entity” and goes on trial for damaging the reputation and honor of a public official or a company owned by a public official, it would be unimaginably difficult to do their job and go about their everyday lives. And all because they were reporting on corruption and other crimes.

The tactics and tools used by Milorad Dodik and his regime constitute not only a violation of freedom of expression, thought and assembly, but also an act of lustration, a purge.

BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MILLENNIUM