I've been struck by the amount of people joking about how terrible this year has been, i.e.:
However, if we continue on the course we've charted, I'd posit that this year is a reflection of the new norm. Longer, more aggressive hurricane seasons, rising temperatures, and rampant wildfires are all repercussions of a rapidly destabilized climate directly resulting from our overconsumption of natural resources and carbon emissions.
In the last chapter of our reading, the author posits multiple solutions to this issue, including the enforcing of a "global carbon budget". In this budget, carbon emissions would be set according to a country's population, and, given a country's need for CO2 consumption is greater than its allotment, remaining entitlements of ostensibly poorer nations could be bought by richer nations. This is a great idea (granted this budget included the stipulations to: 1. place a carbon cap to accommodate larger populations and 2. the 55% consumption of the carbon budget already consumed by developed nations be considered), in theory. However, the author then goes on to say that is unlikely to happen due to lack of consensus among our nations' leaders and if by some miracle there was a galvanizing to spur our leaders into taking these initiatives, it is likely they would not be enough to prevent a 2 degree Celsius increase. So, basically, our hands are tied.
In order to actually tackle the issues put forth by climate change, there needs to be a massive restructuring of how our global economy functions. The economic concept of 'Degrowth' calls for the abolition of economic growth as a primary objective. Advocates of this school of thought point out that the richest nations are the primary consumers of carbon and this consumption often disproportionately affects poorer nations. By shifting our focus on energy reduction and redistribution of resources, degrowth would serve the function of reducing carbon consumption and emissions while simultaneously allowing developing nations access to the resources they need (which are conveniently often stripped from their own countries in our current economy).
This model, while currently unprecedented, is very achievable. It demands no massive shifts in technology (like many sustainable models do, often relying on future, unknown or undeveloped systems), it merely requires the political will. So, let us Deep Ecologists, ecofeminists, Greens, Christians, Atheists, Jews, etc. unite in collectively bullying our nations' leaders into having an environmental conscience and reversing our trajectory away from the dystopian nightmare we are currently hurtling towards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HckWP75yk9g
Weekly activity:
-wrote this post (3 pts.)
Prior activity:
~10 pts.
Total:
~13pts.
There are so many great ideas and proposals from thoughtful people out there. There are so many things we need to do and can do. What if the United States, China, and India together took a strong position of leadership is actually addressing climate change? That leadership would get it done. For the United States, it would require sacrifice. To accept less as a goal, rather than always more.
ReplyDeleteI was in the Master of Laws in International Law program at Georgetown University in the early 80s. My classmates came from around the world; Spain, Nigeria, Germany, Guatemala, etc. Everyone brought a different experience from a different culture. The one thing that most shared was an understanding that we were part of a global community and a belief in international cooperation. If my classmates ruled the world, it would be a much more rational world. Just like we all see that we need global cooperation to effectively address climate change.
But what we see is that many people, especially the ethnocentric Americans, don’t really believe in international cooperation if it interferes with their interests, as they see them. The International Criminal Court was established to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The seven countries that voted against the treaty establishing the Court were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. The basic reason the U.S. is not part of the treaty is that we don’t want to have American’s subject to criminal sanctions from some “world government.” The International Commission of Jurists held that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war crime. We don’t want to subject Americans to international judgment; we retain the right to judge ourselves.
I am skeptical that a majority of Americans, apart from those rational people like you and me and all those making proposals to save the world from catastrophe, would willing accept limitations on their “right” to consume as much as they can pay for, especially if they were part of some international plan with internationally imposed sanctions, however good and rational the scheme. We can only hope.
Hope, and vote-even in a red state like this one. In times of duress, lightning change does sometimes strike, and campaign upsets do occur. But I'm increasingly persuaded by those who've lost confidence in modestly-paced reform. As we were saying today, structural obstacles like the 2-party system (and the electoral college, and the absence of restrictions on the influence of big money in our politics) stand in the way of the change we need. The biggest obstacle of all on the immediate horizon, though, is the Trump-enabling GOP.
DeleteI have always felt that part of the problem is that we are not culturally accustomed, as Americans, to care for the community. We tend to see ourselves as separate from our community, and in competition with others for money, prestige, power, etc. I think that it is a big reason why Americans may have a tendency to overlook the climate crisis because it would require a collective effort and some individual sacrifice for the greater good. Hopefully we can find a way to maybe adjust our overarching culture a bit to begin viewing our community's success as our own.
DeleteI think the idea of de-growth is a great one and probably the most logical answer to our global problem, but its going to be tough to implement here in the US. Part of the problem is that suburban america is so spread out due to high land values and unneccessary out of control development, that people almost have to drive everywhere. Also if I remember correctly, Air travel is a large part of our carbon footprint. Maybe this new widespread use of Zoom and other teleconferincing apps can encourage people to fly less at least.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the longer this year continues, the more I think that we just might look back on this year and think about how we thought 2020 was the worst when it reality what was to come was much worse. I also like the mindset you have when approaching this topic. You acknowledge what needs to happen and how things need to be torn down and re-built, but still carry a sense of hope which I think is inspiring.
ReplyDelete