What can we do about climate change?
I’ve written extensively about our dire situation in relation to climate change. I’m not optimistic that we have time to turn the juggernaut around, but I believe we must do everything in our power in attempting to do so. I will be expanding on these comments over time. The actions are general in nature.
Become engaged, acknowledge the crisis, and fight for change
Politicians in a democracy seldom lead on difficult issues; they generally react to the demands of the electorate if their hold on power is at stake. We face a potentially overwhelming threat to our way of life and the welfare of future generations and other species. We must demand emergency action from politicians who establish laws and national strategies, in terms of energy generating infrastructure and other essential measures.
Here are some thoughts from former coal, oil and gas industry executive, Ian Dunlop [1]:
“Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions. We face nothing less than a global emergency, which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan . . . This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood . . . In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.”
Someone who has acknowledged the dangers and is taking decisive action is former New York mayor and billionaire businessman and philanthropist,Michael Bloomberg. He is a co-chair of the Risky Business Project, which focuses on quantifying and publicising the economic risks from the impacts of climate change. His fellow co-chairs are: former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush, Henry (Hank) Paulson; and Tom Steyer, philanthropist and founder of Farallon Capital Management.
Those parties engaged on the issue must include media outlets. The Guardian newspaper has decided to place climate change “front and centre“, and others must do the same. [2] Petty political squabbles and celebrity gossip may help to sell media products, but they generally do not pose a threat to the future of the planet.
A critical threshold?
Convincing others of the need to act can play a key role. One person convinces another, two convince two, four convince four, and so on. In that way, the message can spread exponentially until politicians take notice. “People power” has overturned governments and brought about fundamental social change, and it can do so again.
It may not be necessary to overthrow a government, but if they know that their future power relies on them acting urgently and effectively in relation to climate change, then they will do so.
Political scientist Erica Chenoweth has analysed data on the overthrow of governments, and has reported that between 1940 and 2006:
“No single campaign in that period failed after they’d achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population.” [3]
Emission-reduction measures by individuals, although helpful, will not be enough. Social commentator and author, Clive Hamilton has quoted professor of social sciences at Yale-NUC College Singapore, Michael Maniates: [4]
“A privatization and individualization of responsibility for environmental problems shifts blame from state elites and powerful producer groups to more amorphous culprits like ‘human nature’ or ‘all of us’”
Ignore denialists
Skepticism is an essential element of science. However, generally, the more active climate change denialists do not appear to be true skeptics; they seem to oppose meaningful action for ideological reasons and/or to pursue vested interests. My article “Relax, have a cigarette and forget about climate change” outlines sophisticated PR techniques used by the fossil fuel sector, and before them the tobacco industry, to falsely create doubt amongst the general population about valid, crucial scientific findings. [5]
Grasp change
When we advanced from the horse and carriage to the automobile, blacksmiths lost their jobs. However, new jobs were created. In 2008, the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) and the Australian Conservation Foundation estimated that Australia could create around 850,000 new jobs by 2030 by investing in green technologies, including renewable energy. [6] (Many opportunities will have passed by since then, but others will be available now and in the future.)
Keep an open mind
Don’t ignore potential components of the solution, such as expanded use of carbon-free nuclear power generation, the dangers of which appear to have been significantly overstated. I will expand on that issue in the near future.
Other actions
Leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen has advocated the use of the courts by those with the power to do so, to force governments to act. [7] Bill McKibben of 350.org has a strategy of convincing pension funds and other institutional investors to cease investing in fossil fuel interests.
As I have written elsewhere, a general move away from animal agriculture is an essential mitigation measure. [8] Governments must play a key role by creating price signals through carbon pricing mechanisms such as a carbon tax that include the agriculture sector. When its environmental cost is factored into the end price, a product such as beef would be considered a luxury, with a substantial reduction in demand and supply. A similar approach must apply to other products. All proceeds from a carbon tax can be returned to the community through personal income tax reductions and adjustments to welfare payments (as advocated by James Hansen).
Conclusion
In terms of lifestyle threats and challenges, the post-World War 2 “baby boomer” generation, and those who have followed, may have become complacent relative to those who came before them. We may, understandably, fear existential threats to the point of ignoring, rather than facing, them. It is essential that we break free of that complacency, and act to retain a habitable planet.
Author:
Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)
References:
[1] Spratt, D., “As Tony Abbott launches all-out war on climate action, what’s the plan?”, Climate Code Red, 28 January, 2014, http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29
[2] Rusbridger, A., “Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre”, The Guardian, 6th March, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger
[3] Fisher, M., “Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators”, The Washington Post, 5th November, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/
[4] Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 110
[5] Mahony, P., “Relax, have a cigarette and forget about climate change”,Viva la Vegan, 7 Aug, 2012, http://vivalavegan.net/community/articles/358-relax-have-a-cigarette-and-forget-about-climate-change.html
[6] ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation, 2008, “Green Gold Rush: How ambitious environmental policy can make Australia a leader in the global race for green jobs”,http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Green_Gold_Rush.pdf
[7] Hansen, J, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009, p.291
[8] Mahony, P., “Climate Change and Animal Agriculture” (undated page), Terrastendo, https://terrastendo.net/the-issues/climate-change/
Image:
People s Climate March NYC © Erica Schroeder | Dreamstime.com
terrastendo 
Hi Paul. Animal agriculture is a red herring; neither moving away from it nor toward it will have much (or any) impact on climate change. Some of the most stable, sustainable, least environmentally impactful examples of recent and contemporary human footprints on this earth are evidenced in cultures where people are nomadic herders. Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout human history, once large-scale agriculture is introduced to these societies, exponential population growth has ensued. Pesticides are sprayed, fertilizer spread, aquifers pumped dry, forests felled, wetlands drained… Overpopulation is the problem. There is no “technological” or “diet change” solution to that reality. You wrote in excess of 1,000 words on climate change, and didn’t mention the root problem we’re facing. In our view, that’s the problem. Respectfully, Jack & Barbra
Thanks Jack and Barbra for your feedback.
I argue that, due to the gross and inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source, for any given level of human population, we are using far more resources (including land, water, fertiliser and pesticides) than if we relied on the plant-based alternative. In terms of land, the inefficiency is highlighted by findings from the University of Minnesota, who reported:
“The world’s croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption”.
The lead author, Emily Cassidy, has said: “We essentially have uncovered an astoundingly abundant supply of food for a hungry world, hidden in plain sight in the farmlands we already cultivate. Depending on the extent to which farmers and consumers are willing to change current practices, existing croplands could feed millions or even billions more people.”
Less than 1 billion people are officially under-nourished at present, so we wouldn’t need to use all that land for crops. However, we could allow native vegetation to regenerate on the remainder, drawing down significant amounts of atmospheric carbon. Based on the work of Dr James Hansen and colleagues, that would be an essential measure in achieving the required level of 350 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (currently around 400 ppm).
The reduction in livestock numbers would also have a significant impact on emissions of non-CO2 warming agents, including methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon.
Well, we disagree, but thanks for your response. “The world’s croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for human consumption”… That statement embodies one of the problems with the notion that a plant-based diet as somehow a solution – the notion that we have the resources to justify putting even more people on this already overtaxed planet. We believe there is more hope in the enlightened example the people of Japan and a few other countries are now taking – voluntary, educated, thoughtful reduction of fertility rates. Conversely, we are now witnessing the ruin a greater emphasis on agriculture and plant-based diet is bringing to Mongolia – a country that existed in harmony with nature for millennia on mainly meat and animal-based foods.
No, the fact that we would have the capacity to feed another 4 billion people doesn’t imply that we should add that number. As I said, much of the land could be allowed to regenerate to something approaching its original state. I agree that human population growth is a massive problem, but it’s exacerbated by the fact that for every human, many animals will be bred and slaughtered every year. We’re currently doing that to around 60 billion land animals per year, and also destroying oceanic ecosystems for commercial fishing. A much bigger problem than human population growth is the causally related problem of livestock population growth.
I have also referred to a 2009 report from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which stated:
“. . . a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food [was found] to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emissions would be reduced substantially.”
They said a plant-based diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by 80%. A meat-free diet would reduce them by 70%. Their assessment was based on a target of 450 ppm. The issue is even more critical when aiming for 350 ppm, which Hansen says is essential if we want to retain a habitable planet.
Well, as I say, we respectfully disagree, but we’ve enjoyed the exchange. Our perspective is this: “…the fact that we would have the capacity to feed another 4 billion people doesn’t imply that we should add that number.” Of course it doesn’t. But it Always works that way. The more people we “can” feed, the more people we add to the population. Until that mindset changes, agriculture remains part of the problem. If that mindset were to change, the point would be moot. If we were actually at a healthy carrying capacity for humans on this planet, it wouldn’t matter much what any one individual or group of individuals ate. Meat, berries, nuts, eggs, fish, whatever… it would be fine. As it was for Most of humankind’s history, Before agriculture fostered this unsustainable population explosion. The idea that if we all started eating only plants, we could save the world is unsupported by biology, human evolution, human history, or any other science. What proponents of this notion are siting is wishful thinking… and wishful thinking has never anything. If we’re to right this ship, fertility rates must come down, as is happening in a few enlightened countries. When this becomes more widespread, we suspect people will be amazed at how many of humankind’s problems go away… and at the same time, we’ll be able to order whatever toppings on our pizza we wish, including meat, without being nagged. For thousands and thousands and thousands of years, entire cultures subsisted primarily on the animals they herded (Mongolia would be an example), the fish they harvested (the Clatsops and other Pacific Northwest tribes would be examples), the bison they hunted (the Dakota Sioux) and so on and so forth. It’s not just the aquifers were pumping dry and polluting, the forests were leveling and other habitat destruction in the name of agriculture… it’s 7 billion people this system is feeding dumping plastics into the ocean, pollutants into the air, and so forth. For our part, we don’t care what people eat. If we don’t get a grip on overpopulation, everything else – including pizza toppings – is trivial.
In Mongolia, close to a million people lived on essentially a Meat Only diet for millennia with very little impact on the environment. No plant-eating group of humans we are aware of can say the same. When habitat is torn apart to create farms, the animals that lived in those ecosystems don’t simply “go somewhere else.” They die. And the pesticides, the fertilizers, the ground water drained… are “gifts” that keep giving.