Not causing the problem doesn't eliminate the responsibility to solve it
We need to change how we act now to be ready for the future
First of all, Texas. If you haven’t seen the news, here and here is what is going on. Obviously it is a humanitarian disaster and should be treated as such but we can’t ignore the very obvious fact that we are no longer waiting for the climate crisis because it is already here. This week’s newsletter is not about Texas politics or how there aren’t the words to describe how awful Ted Cruz is, but it is about the fact that when we say we don’t have time to waste when trying to solve the climate crisis, there is no better example of the urgency required than what is going on right now. Please stay informed, help out wherever you can and to my favourite Texan: I am thinking of you now and always.
For this week’s newsletter I have decided to tackle one of the bigger conversations about sustainability and the climate crisis - the individual action vs systemic change debate. This argument is based on the idea that because 100 firms are responsible for over 70% of fossil fuel emissions, there is no point in one person taking one action. Some (correctly) say that the burden should not be on huge populations to fix this problem. However, not being responsible for the problem doesn’t absolve you of responsibility to work towards the solution.
A question I've been wrestling with for some time is what a net-zero future will look like. Will our building materials change because of emissions from the cement industry? Will plastics become confined to hospitals? Will our roads be replaced with cycle paths and will our supermarkets shrink, rather than grow in size? Net-zero is the future, because it has to be. We understand net zero in the reports and academic work but there is less clarity about net-zero in reality. Accurate depictions are hard to find, but the best example I have read is a chapter in The Future We Choose: The Stubborn Optimist’s Guide to the Climate Crisis by Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac (also hosts of Outrage + Optimism podcast).
So this is where I think individuals have a part to play. We need to act now (as much as possible) as if we are already living in a net zero world. If we want to reduce car reliance, we need to reimagine fewer roads and use them accordingly. If we want to have fewer planes, we need to actively choose to holiday domestically or by train. We need to start adjusting to the net-zero lifestyle now, so that when it arrives, we are ready. We can’t drive our cars whilst demanding net-zero but then get upset when we have no roads to drive them on because they’ve been replaced with urban gardens. Instead of driver’s licenses, why don’t we glamourise cycling proficiency? It’s clear that we need many more cyclists instead of motorists, but we still hold a prestige about getting a driver's license instead of owning a bike. Living in a low emissions world has to be fundamentally different to how we live now, because living as we currently do is what got us into this crisis.
As individuals and as a collective we need to be demanding net zero, pressuring the government and the private sector to curb emissions now, and simultaneously use our actions to show that we are serious about living in a net zero world. To claim that we have to wait for the private sector means we will have less time to adapt, and it will be a less persuasive case to the companies who need persuading. If we aren’t waiting for replacement technology, we can alter our behaviour tomorrow.
So many of us are already making a change - whether that’s shopping locally, eating less or zero meat, or prioritizing public transport over cars, but we need to ensure that this shift to a net-zero lifestyle is just, and accessible for all. We need local government to invest in safe and high quality cycle paths, fully energy efficient council homes and far more government support for solar energy panels.
Without the government, private sector innovators and the population working together, we won’t reach the vital goal of net-zero and I don’t even want to think about what that would mean. Solving the climate crisis does mean changing how we live, but if we get a headstart now, we will have a much easier transition to a better future for all of us.
This week’s recommendations to read - newsletter edition:
Daily environmental and corporate sustainability news and updates:
Hope you enjoy this week’s newsletter, the recommendations and your weekend. Don’t forget to share and subscribe (if you haven’t already)!