Max Tallberg
We have addressed climate change in our four previous blog posts. In the first text, we investigated the question of what physio-chemical as well as societal factors constitute the phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change. In the next post, we examined an environmental approach to the issue of global warming. This approach relies on technological innovations as a solution to this crisis and consequentially believes that the current ways of production, consumption and growth can be maintained. Next, we focused on an ecological approach, which pleading strong sustainability recommends the shut-down of industrial production, societal systems based on economic growth, and consumer culture. This would require fundamental changes in economy, politics, and worldviews. Reducing climate actions to these two views does not include all existing approaches to global warming, but it serves the readability and understandability in a genre such as a blog. In the third, text we highlighted a plant-based diet as a way for the individual to influence the current situation. In this final text concerning climate change, I will return to the massive challenge that climate change poses and the actions needed to fight it. Finally, I will reflect on climate change through different notions.
It is evident that the global challenge posed by climate change is greater than any challenge previously faced. Humanity is also in a hurry; if we fail in climate actions, different extremes of weather, drought and rising sea levels will render a significant part of Earth uninhabitable. That is why carbon dioxide emissions must be cut to zero within one generation. If we do not accomplish this, the crisis will only be postponed into the future. Humanity should indeed do everything possible to prevent a climate catastrophe. To succeed, we need new innovations, global cooperation and agreement not previously seen. However, our current societies are built around fossil fuels, the burning of which has led to global warming, and this dependency is difficult to break off. In 2019, approximately 84 % of the global energy production was generated by fossil fuels. Agriculture, the production of goods and transportation are all currently tied to the mechanisms of fossil capitalism that accelerate global warming. Fossil fuels are used currently because they are more energy efficient compared with other energy sources in addition of having been historically easily available. Now they are, however, running out and even the current reserves cannot be used if a climate catastrophe is to be avoided.
The carbon dioxide emission reductions must be done while simultaneously securing a better life for the poorest portion of the global population. For instance, presently 860 million people do not have access to electricity. If cheaper energy was offered to the people in the Global South, this would also lead to cheaper fertilizers. However, the use of fertilizers should not lead to environmental problems, as is now the case with commercial nitrogen fertilizers. Instead, fertilizers which do not weaken the state of the environment should be used. If the farmers in the poorest countries would have access to more fertilizers, their crop yields would also increase. These actions would strengthen the position of those who fare the worst and inaction, in turn, would lead to these people suffering from the effects of global warming even more. Consequentially, we need more energy production, but this should be done without emitting greenhouse gases and should also be decoupled from the natural depletion that the current processes of production and consumption cause. The environmental approach presented earlier would take a more optimistic stance towards these possibilities. An ecological view, however, would propose that all growth in production – including growth in the electricity production in the Global South – would not be possible from the point of view of strong sustainability; if the models of production and consumption in poorer countries are steered towards those of the richer countries, this would lead to a further acceleration in global warming.
Emission reductions are, in any case, central in the fight against climate change, and they are needed on multiple fronts: the production of goods covers 31 % of the emissions, electricity production 27 %, agriculture and farming 19 %, transportation 16 %, and heating and air conditioning 7 %. The emissions in all these areas should be zero in the future. Some activities, such as the production of cement (which counts for the third highest rate of industrial greenhouse gas emissions) and the use of fertilizers are today linked to the use of fossil fuels, and this cannot be altered in the light of current knowledge and with production mechanisms in present-day use. This has led Bill Gates to propose that some amount of emissions will be produced in the future as well, but that carbon dioxide would be removed from them. This should, however, take place on a global level, not just in developed countries. In the future, there will probably be the need to erase some of the greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere as well. This should also, however, be done in an ecologically sustainable way: the challenge here is discovering such solutions.
It would be essential to make clean energy inexpensive enough, so that all nations and agents would opt for it. Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, should be put into operation on a larger scale. Presently, these clean options are more expensive partly due to the fact that the harm done to the planet by current polluting options is not taken into account. This should also change. In any case, renewable energy sources are not the only solution since their energy production is dependent on natural circumstances. However, even the production of clean energy does not resolve all environmental problems, if the current issues of overproduction and overconsumption are not resolved. In the near future, there is no qualitative nor quantitative alternative equivalent to fossil fuels that would not cause an environmental crisis such climate change. The problem regarding renewable energy is also that it is not possible to construct such an amount of renewable energy power plants, that would replace, let alone increase the current energy production.
Green premiums are another central theme concerning emission reductions. They refer to the additional cost of adopting energy sources compared to current solutions that produce more emissions. It is evident, as Bill Gates suggests, that those actions, that involve a low green premium, or no green premium at all, should immediately be introduced. However, innovations are also needed so that the cost of the green premiums can be reduced. Furthermore, more research should be allocated to those fields where the green premiums are still too high. This would be the most efficient way to further a green transition. Nevertheless, new kinds of rules and infrastructure are required also to make the new technology more competitive as well as decisions of the state to enhance the green transition. The function of green premium, according to Bill Gates, is to act as an indicator displaying the cost of climate actions and which measures should be take; lowering the green premiums is the most important action that should be accomplished. By lowering the premiums, companies are encouraged to make greener decisions. Cement and steel, for instance, are bought by large corporations and the individual consumer cannot have a significant influence here. Governments are also of great importance as they can have a great impact on the environment through public investments for instance. At present, governments also buy large amounts of fuel, cement, and steel. Once again it should be emphasized that if changes are not made in current models of production and consumption, then the green premiums will not be able to generate the comprehensive change in the current state of the world that is required. The possibilities and potential of technological innovations should not be overestimated either, and instead it must be highlighted that changes made in the current practices production and consumption are demanded.
When it comes to the production of cheap and green electricity, it must be emphasized once again that changes are required in the current production and consumption models. Despite this notion, the production of green electricity is the most important method of lessening emissions. The green premiums and clean energy both play an important part in this. Emission-free electricity enables many other things, such as green transportation and the emission-free manufacturing of goods. The problems here, nevertheless, is the influence that the changing seasons has on electricity production and the challenges of storing electricity. It would be central to solve these issues as the global consumption of electricity is predicted to triple by the year 2050. This process can already be influenced positively by adopting renewable energy sources as much as possible. Things have thankfully developed considerably in this regard, as the price of solar panels, for instance, in 2020 was just 10 percent of the price level in 2010. The increase in green electricity is not sustainable alternative in itself however, if in addition to this energy conservation and reducing the global energy budget are not emphasized.
In our earlier blog text, we delved deeper into various technological innovations which could have a positive impact on climate change. The planting of trees and forestation have also been presented as a way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. According to current knowledge, 0.9 billion hectares of new trees could be planted on Earth. This would mean a 25 % increase in the number of forest areas. In this way 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere which would mean 25 % of all the currently existing carbon dioxide. The acceleration of climate change, however, decreases the chances of forestation and so these ventures should be initiated as soon as possible. A tree that is planted today reaches its full carbon sink potential in 50-100 years, so forestation does not offer an instant solution to climate change. Another challenge is that if a tree burns down, all the carbon dioxide that was stored in it is emitted back into the atmosphere. In addition, there are other problems related to forestation which we have highlighted in another blog text. For all these reasons the planting of trees cannot be the only solution in fighting climate change, although, it would be beneficial.
*
Climate change is only one consequence of a larger sustainability crisis where we use the resources of our planet and have an unsustainable impact on the environment and climate. The consumption levels of the Western elite are at the center of this. Afterall, the consumption of an individual should be one carbon dioxide ton on a yearly level. Currently, in the USA this level is regrettably 17,1, 9 in Sweden and 6,6 in China. Nevertheless, the consumption levels of most of Earth’s population is so low, that it would need to make only small adjustments to its consumption or no adjustments at all. So far, the consumption of the elites in the West is by far the most important cause for the current alarming situation. The consumption of the wealthiest global decimal covers 50 % of all emissions, while the richest percentile is responsible for twice the number of emissions as compared to the poorer half of the world. Thus, the questions related to global justice and equality are at the center of climate change. It has also been estimated that 90 % of the carbon dioxide quota has now been used which would enable keeping global warming under 1,5 degrees Celsius. Consequentially, quick and radical actions are demanded to prevent the negative, cataclysmic effects of climate change. Greater global cooperation through emissions trading, taxation, and climate quotas as well as the strengthening of carbon sinks are examples of such actions.
The tragedy of the commons is a central concept in all this. It depicts the fact that while the atmosphere and environment are common natural capital, various agents can exploit them recklessly and pollute and weaken their state without inhibitions. Simultaneously, individual agents have the incentive to act as free-riders: everyone else should stop polluting except me. As a solution to this problem, various applications could be introduced which would inform how the climate actions of others compare with the rest of the population. In this way the interest of making of making environmentally friendly decisions would increase as the individual would be part of a larger group of sustainably acting agents. This could also apply to nation states and companies, and the tragedy of the commons could in this way be affected in a positive way. In any case, this should be implemented encouragingly instead of making individuals feel guilty for wrongdoing. When it comes to global corporations, simple encouragement would probably not be enough, but instead their actions should be governed by international agreements for instance. The problem of the tragedy of the commons is also difficult to solve if transnational corporations in the future will own an even larger number of natural resources that are central to the atmosphere and environment. This should also be controlled. If the warming of the atmosphere continues, it has been predicted that 19 % of Earth´s area will be uninhabitable by 2070. This would mean that hundreds of millions of people would need to emigrate as climate refugees. Furthermore, this in turn would likely lead to conflicts, as many people would fight over scarce resources and nation states would build border walls and prevent the arrival of climate refugees. In such situation those who have not primarily caused climate change would suffer from its effects the most.
It is evident that the fight against climate change should have a central position in all human action. New kinds of global politics and actions are also demanded which do not exist at present. The only way of tackling climate change sustainably is to do it in a globally just and equal way. In this way all climate actions – their costs and benefits – would be equally shared among all Earth´s people. In our earlier blog text, as well as in this one, we have highlighted a global carbon tax and emissions trading as well as a personal carbon quota. These would all be equal and just ways of fighting climate change and should be considered. In this way, a price would be set on emissions, which would certainly limit pollution levels and the harm caused to nature. The income generated this way could be used to improve the situation of those who are currently the most vulnerable section of the population. In addition, a global, green basic income could be a way of affecting climate change. If we succeed in avoiding a climate catastrophe, the actions implemented could make a truly just and equal world possible, a world where, for instance, the free movement of people, a global basic income and sustainable development would all be reality. These are all reforms around which our association wants to generate debate. The politicians who would make these decisions possible would for sure live on in history.
Based on all the aforementioned, it is justifiable to claim that we now live during a time, which might in the future be known as a turning point in human history. Historical research identifies a so-called axial age, which took place 800 – 200 BC. During this period various philosophical, religious, and intellectual movements were developed in many parts of the inhabited world, which formed later cultures and societies. In the future, humanity might view the centuries following the present time as a second axial age when humanity responded to the challenge of climate change – its most significant existential threat – and its actions shaped the lives of many generations to come. This time could also be seen as a time when technological development accelerated to the fastest speed in human history. Through this technological leap, we could finally reach a point – perhaps within the span of few centuries – where all central technological advancements have been accomplished, at least when it comes to their potential to improve the lives human beings. Nevertheless, all this requires that we succeed in the climate actions, but also that the use and development of technology is no longer directly linked to the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. If we fail in this, our time will be known as the era when humanity destroyed the conditions of a dignified human life on our planet.
Climate change will probably lead up to a situation where we must choose whether we retain the possibility of a dignified human life only for those who are wealthy enough to afford it, or whether we secure this possibility for everyone. If we would have more time, we could maybe count on the power of different technological innovations in lowering emissions sufficiently, or that we could removing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – a scenario that we will probably face in the future anyway. In practice, this could mean massive forestation projects or extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The problem here, however, are the tipping points of nature. These refer to a threshold that once crossed leads to large and often irreversible changes in ecosystems. Many of these systems such as rainforests are vital to the biosphere. If these tipping points are crossed, any later actions are insignificant since these processes change in such a way that they become a source of additional warming and make the Anthropocene a permanent, self-preserving system. All this means we are in a hurry to secure a dignified human life to all people on Earth.
Despite all these threats, there is still hope. Positive and sustainable changes are possible if we act fast and determined. The 3.5 % rule tells us, that when this percentage of the population has been mobilized for a common cause, positive changes have inevitably taken place. However, this theory refers to historical observations of non-violent mass movements and cannot directly be applied to climate change. The sociologist Damon Centola has anyway proposed that a dedicated minority that comprises 25 % of the people, is the critical mark for comprehensive societal changes to take place. It is likely that this mark will be reached in the future regarding global warming (if it has not been passed already) as the effects of climate change play a part in the everyday life of a growing number of people. It seems already that most of the human population is aware of the threat of climate change and takes it seriously (even though this is always not reflected in their consumption habits strongly enough), but that the politicians have not made the decisions needed. The challenge is also that many politicians are not advocating for climate action in fear of losing their backing. Another challenge is to get the executives of multinational corporations and the wealthiest individuals onboard, which is necessary as we are aware of the massive impact that they have on emissions.
It might also be possible, that in the future humanity will adopt a more positive attitude towards the necessary reduction in consumption and adapt their everyday lives accordingly as people would have grown more accustomed to the idea and it would be accepted on a common level. In such a world, people might also focus on the things that are truly important – interpersonal relationships, a sustainable way of living with the surrounding world, and a life that is true to one´s values – instead of trying to fulfill each irrelevant need that a person might currently have through consumption. Adaption to a new kind of scarcity is also necessary as we are aware of the unsustainability of our current way of life. In any case, this would not mean that the quality of life would decrease for the individual. Instead, we would prioritize those things that are truly important. This means that if we succeed in avoiding a climate catastrophe, humanity can reach even higher levels of achievement and fare even better in the future.
It is possible to avoid a climate catastrophe. This would anyhow require that the wealthier nations reach carbon neutrality by 2050. At present, it seems that we will not reach this by 2030 which has been the earlier objective. The greatest obstacle when it comes to climate action is the difficulties of global cooperation. A global consensus would also be required which we have not reached thus far. Nation states would also need to contribute more to research. This would also require cooperation and global research projects for instance. The private sector could then take over when it becomes known that the project will be successful. In any case, it is also evident that climate change can be fought against in many ways. At the same time, it is also evident that a single solution is not enough, but that we instead need several innovations. Nevertheless, it is also possible that a breakthrough will be made in a single field which would mean that this would not need to take place elsewhere. Every action is simultaneously also linked to uncertainties and challenges. Humanity has in any case reason for hopefulness when it comes to climate change if we act early enough and sufficiently.
Sources:
Bastin, J.-F. et al. (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science). [Online] 365 (6448), 76–79.
Chenoweth, Erica. Folkmakt. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Dixson-Decleve, Sandrine et al. Earth for All. A survival guide for Humanity. New Society Publishers 2022.
Frieden JA Lake DA Schultz KA. World Politics : Interests Interactions Institutions. Fourth ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 2019.
Gates, Bill. Kuinka välttää ilmastokatastrofi. Nykyiset ratkaisut ja läpimurrot joita vielä tarvitsemme. WSOY 2021.
Klein, Naomi. En rättvis omställning. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Lustgarten, Abrahm. Klimatflyktingar. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Lähde, Ville: Niukkuuden maailmassa. niin & näin -kirjat, Tampere. 2013.
Raworth, Kate. Mot 1,5-graderslivstilar. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Rockström, Johan. Tröskelpunkter och återkopplingar. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Thunberg, Greta. För att kunna lösa problemet måste vi först förstå det. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Thunberg, Greta. Världen har feber. Klimatboken. Polaris 2022.
Vince, Gaia. Nomad Century. How to survive the climate upheaval. Penguin Books 2022.
https://www.ekofokus.com/2019/08/onko-metsittaminen-paras-tapa-torjua.html
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues
https://fi.scienceforming.com/10830006-what-is-axial-time
https://www.britannica.com/list/the-axial-age-5-fast-facts
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/cement-manufacturing-enforcement-initiative
