Role Of Individual In Society Essays On Global Warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Making various personal choices has been advocated as a means of fighting climate change.[1]

  • The IPCCFifth Assessment Report emphasises that behaviour, lifestyle and cultural change have a high mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.[2]:20 In general, higher consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact. Several scientific studies have shown that when people, especially those living in developed countries but more generally including all countries, wish to reduce their carbon footprint, there are four key "high-impact" actions they can take:[3][4][5]
1. Not having an additional child (58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent emission reductions per year)
2. Living car-free (2.4 tonnes CO2)
3. Avoiding one round-trip transatlantic flight (1.6 tonnes)
4. Eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tonnes)
These appear to differ significantly from the popular advice for “greening” one’s lifestyle, which seem to fall mostly into the “low-impact” category: Replacing a typical car with a hybrid (0.52 tonnes); Washing clothes in cold water (0.25 tonnes); Recycling (0.21 tonnes); Upgrading light bulbs (0.10 tonnes); etc. The researchers found that public discourse on reducing one’s carbon footprint overwhelmingly focuses on low-impact behaviors, and that mention of the high-impact behaviors is almost non-existent in the mainstream media, government publications, K-12 school textbooks, etc.[3][4][5] The researchers added that “Our recommended high-impact actions are more effective than many more commonly discussed options (e.g. eating a plant-based diet saves eight times more emissions than upgrading light bulbs). More significantly, a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives.”[3][4][5]
  • A carbon diet is an effective way to understand the amount of impact on the environment and how to make meaningful changes.
  • A low carbon diet is a way of reducing impact by choosing food that causes much less pollution.
  • Trees: Protecting forests and planting new trees contributes to the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. There are many opportunities to plant trees in the yard, along roads, in parks, and in public gardens. In addition, some charities plant fast-growing trees—for as little as $US0.10 per tree—to help people in tropical developing countries restore the productivity of their lands.[1] Conversely, clearing old-growth forests adds to the carbon in the atmosphere, so buying non-old-growth paper is good for the climate as well as the forest.[citation needed]
  • Labels: The Energy Star label can be seen on many household appliances, home electronics, office equipment, heating and cooling equipment, windows, residential light fixtures, and other products. Energy Star products use less energy.
  • Travel:
  • Many energy suppliers in various countries worldwide have options to purchase part or pure "green energy." The wind energy produced in Denmark, for example, provides about 20 percent of the country's total electricity needs.[7] These methods of energy production emit no greenhouse gases once they are up and running.
  • Carbon offsets: The principle of carbon offset is thus: one decides that they don't want to be responsible for accelerating climate change, and they've already made efforts to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, so they decide to pay someone else to further reduce their net emissions by planting trees or by taking up low-carbon technologies. Every unit of carbon that is absorbed by trees—or not emitted due to your funding of renewable energy deployment—offsets the emissions from their fossil fuel use. In many cases, funding of renewable energy, energy efficiency, or tree planting — particularly in developing nations—can be a relatively cheap way of making an individual "carbon neutral". Carbon offset providers—some as inexpensive as US$0.11 per metric ton (USD 0.10 per US ton) of carbon dioxide—are referenced below under Lifestyle Action.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

  1. ^Heede, Richard (2002-04-09). "Household Solutions"(PDF). Rocky Mountain Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-07.  
  2. ^Edenhofer, Ottmar; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; et al. (2014). "Summary for Policymakers". In IPCC. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(PDF). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-65481-5. Retrieved 2016-06-21. 
  3. ^ abcWynes, Seth; Nicholas, Kimberly A (12 July 2017). "The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions". Environmental Research Letters. 
  4. ^ abcCeballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul P; Dirzo, Rodolfo (23 May 2017). "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.  
  5. ^ abcPimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection"(PDF). Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501. Retrieved 15 December 2016.  
  6. ^Is 'green' the new black?
  7. ^"Wind energy". Risø National Laboratory. Retrieved 2007-07-07. 

Scientists and climate policy wonks usually say global warming is caused by “human activities.” This shorthand obscures an important point: while we humans are certainly responsible for climate change on some level, just a few of us – particularly in industry and government – are a lot more responsible than the rest of us.

After all, I like humans. I like activities, too. And it’s industry practices and government policies that largely determine how much heat-trapping emissions our human activities produce.

The author (middle) and two other humans engaging in activities, including attending a wedding, having some beer, and goofing around. Not pictured: climate change. Source: David Everly.

Industrial-scale carbon burning is causing climate change; humans are just doing activities

From a scientific perspective, recent climate change is caused by an excess of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. The gases happen to be coming from extracting and then burning massive amounts of coal and oil, as well as destroying tropical forests.

Because scientists have invested so much effort in successfully differentiating between natural and “human-caused” warming – and because a loud minority of fossil fuel companies, ideological groups, and politicians have insisted for decades that scientists are wrong – the terms of the broader debate about climate change are often stuck on this point, at least in the United States.

When we focus on the “human activities” that are causing climate change, we sound like we’re laying climate blame on things like using a washer and dryer, driving, flipping a light switch and other day-to-day things many humans in the developed world take for granted and that many humans in the developing world would very much like to do, too.

Natural vs. human factors affecting planetary temperature. Source: National Climate Assessment

In an ideal world,these human activities would continue. They simply wouldn’t produce the heat-trapping gases that are rapidly altering the climate on which we depend.

As it stands, our best individual attempts at limiting the carbon footprint of our human activities can only go so far – and many steps are much harder than they should be, even in the developed world:

  • I can buy the most fuel-efficient car, but if the gas I’m using to fill it up was extracted from tar sands, that means my carbon footprint will be larger than it would be otherwise.
  • If my utility company buys a lot of coal because government policies subsidize it, LED lightbulbs, an electric car, and turning the light switch off when I leave a room can only get me so far.
  • I can put solar panels on my roof – if my state and local government don’t throw up unnecessary barriers at the behest of energy companies.
  • I can studiously make deforestation-free purchases, but only if companies tell me how they make their products.

Given these constraints, we need to be clearer about what is really causing climate change. “Human activities” are great. Climate change is caused by industrial activities. And those activities are incentivized by government policy, which industry goes out of its way to influence.

A few of us are way more responsible for climate change than all of us

I got to thinking about this because of Rick Heede. He’s a geographer who has done the careful work of figuring out how much of the carbon in our atmosphere can be traced back to the coal and oil that companies have extracted from the earth.

The numbers are head-turning: two-thirds of all industrial carbon emissions come from just 90 institutions. Several of those institutions, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and Conoco Phillips, have extracted more carbon from the earth than most countries.

As Heede put it, the heads of these institutions could fit comfortably in a Greyhound bus. And if you’ve been paying attention to the climate debate, you know that many of these same companies have spent decades deceiving the public and policymakers about science – practices that disturbingly continue to this day, despite the scientific risks of climate change becoming ever starker.

CEO of @Shell says “climate change is real.” http://t.co/ymVChbZvWL So why is @Shell still funding #ALEC? pic.twitter.com/BFN1dyM1Zs

— Concerned Scientists (@UCSUSA) March 19, 2015

So while we all share in the “blame” for climate change, only a few of the 7 billion humans on this planet truly have the power to determine how much more coal and oil comes out of the earth and how much stays in the ground. The Onion explained this better than I ever could. After Heede’s research was published the satirical news site went with this headline: “New Report Finds Climate Change Caused by 7 Billion Key Individuals.” Seems silly, right? But that’s effectively what we’re saying when we reduce the cause of climate change to “human activities.”

Corporate and government policies constrain our ability to make free choices

As the climate debate evolves, it may start to look like more like debates we’ve had – and are still having – on public health issues. Too often, those debates have involved conservatives and liberals talking past one another, with conservatives standing up for individual rights and liberals looking to hold corporations that cause public health problems accountable.

I’m a pragmatist, so those broken debates frustrate me to no end. We can’t ignore individual choice and responsibility; at the same time, we also have to recognize that our individual choices are constrained by corporate practices and government laws and regulations. It’s wrong for individuals to neglect their personal responsibility; it’s also wrong for corporations to stand in the way of government policies that would reduce the harm we face from their products.

Take obesity, for instance. It can be thought of as an individual problem – overeating and a lack of exercise. But it is also arguably a societal problem caused, in large part, by misguided public policies such as agricultural subsidies that make 100 calories of Doritos substantially cheaper than 100 calories of bell peppers, and a junk food lobby that is fighting to keep kids hooked on their unhealthy products.

Who’s responsible for obesity? This kid with a cheap bag of Doritos (and his parents), or policymakers who continue to subsidize refined grains at the expense of whole foods, usually at the behest of agricultural companies? (Sources: Virallands.com, Rep. Chellie Pingree Twitter feed.)

Or take smoking. Individuals bear some responsibility for choosing to smoke; tobacco companies also bear responsibility for spending billions marketing an addictive substance and trying to cover up the science linking their products to lung disease.

Where do we assign responsibility for the harm caused by smoking? To these teenagers, or to the companies that operate machines capable of churning out millions of cheap, inhalable nicotine delivery devices? (Sources: Myloreyes on DeviantArt. Youtube: Robert Proctor: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.)

So, who is responsible for climate change?

This energy-conscious kid?

A company digging coal out of the ground in Wyoming?

Exxon CEO Rick Tillerson?

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee?

(Sources: CleanEnergy.org. Wikipedia entry for coal mining, Wikipedia entry for Rex Tillerson, SmartGrowthAmerica.org)

The answer is “yes.” It should be obvious, though, that the company extracting coal, the CEO planning for a future of more and more oil extraction and the senators we’ve elected to serve the public interest bear far more responsibility than our young superhero at the light switch.

The future is about better choices, not feeling guilty about the past

We were all born into a world that was heavily reliant on coal and oil. Our grandparents didn’t know that that these products were causing climate change, any more than they knew that smoking was causing lung cancer or that a corn-chip-based diet was unhealthy.

Now we know. That’s a gift science has given us.

The author and his grandparents, who were born into a world where corn chips were a treat, smoking calmed your nerves and climate change was what happened when you moved to California.

Solving a problem as big as climate change isn’t an activity individual humans can decide to do on their own. We need government to create better ground rules for energy production that account for the climate risks we face. That means we need companies to stop misrepresenting the science. They also need to stop trying to tilt the rules in favor of business models that neglect scientific realities.

We’re making progress. And we need to do more. Our grandchildren can be born into a world where “human activities” don’t cause climate change because we’ve figured out how to make clean energy as ubiquitous as fossil fuels are today.

What a gift that could be.

Posted in: Global Warming, Science and Democracy, Science Communication, Vehicles Tags: Attribution, BP, Carbon Majors, Chevron, climate-change, Conoco Phillips, Exxon, ExxonMobil, Global warming, human activities, responsibility, Rex Tillerson, Rick Heede, Shell

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *