We all encounter cynics when it comes to being green and with the global launch of the 10:10 campaign we thought it would be a great idea to debate whether or not individuals can make enough changes to tackle climate change or whether ultimately we need governments to regulate our way out of this mess. Is the carrot enough or do we need the stick?
Joining us to get the debate started are two great green voices: Simon Perry, Sustainalyst @ Thinking String & Dave Hampton aka The Carbon Coach (his latest newsletter is very relevant).
Of course, most importantly, we want you to add your comments below.
NO there is not time for individuals to fight climate change without government regulation by Simon perry
I’m all for the movie The Age of Stupid. I think it is a clever plot framework for presenting the multi generational challenge that is climate change. I am always mindful that my own children will be fifty-ish by 2055, the year in which the film is set. Note to Franny: can we please have a version that is specifically designed for the ten to sixteen year old audience and their teachers? My aspiring actress daughter volunteers herewith.
I also think that the associated 10:10 campaign has much going for it. Chipping away at the wall of popular ignorance and intransience that has prevented mass awareness of the risks associated with uncontrolled climate change is a task that will require constant and innovative ways of gaining attention and airtime. People love to rally around a cause; and making a pledge, wearing the rubber wristband and joining a Facebook group makes everyone feel involved and even helps encourage some people to take some real action.
The creation of popular rallying foci isn’t however the strategic answer to achieving the necessary changes required to avoid a level of global warming above two degrees Celsius. Like it or not, the pragmatic answer is that we require market intervention in order to deliver the financial incentives and regulatory control that will force individual and corporate change.
Businesses are answerable to their shareholders and private owners and the strictures of legislation, not to moviegoers and the minority of the population that will take a 10:10 pledge. I eat local, organically and avoid all animal products, but my supermarket still sells factory bred chicken swizzles from China, all in the name of “providing a choice to the consumer”. No business will make a strategic or structural change in the way that operate as a result of only popular pressure, where such a change runs the risk of reducing competiveness and material profitability, especially with regard to reducing emissions. Corporate history is awash with examples of profit over purity in areas such as ignoring human rights, general environmental degradation, overfishing, over-extraction of water and production of products that are unhealthy or dangerous.
Meanwhile the long term and multi generational nature of climate change effects, and the necessary duration and scope of our responses requires that the educational curriculum must be updated in order to develop a generation of “emission adepts”. The knowledge of economics, history we teach and the social values we attempt to instil in the citizens of tomorrow must recognise and call out the flaws of reasoning we have thus far applied in our economic systems and commercial approaches – thus bringing us to this brink of catastrophe from which we must retreat. We must teach to every child the skills and knowledge required for them to play an active role in transitioning to a low carbon way of life, starting now. “No child left behind…in a high carbon mindset” ought to be our mantra. School Governors, PTA members, and even the occasional brave teacher may organise a screening of The Age of Stupid, and the school may even pledge to reduce, recycle and reuse the kitchen scraps in the eco garden compost. However the teachers will also follow the set curriculum knowing that OFSTED scores standard tests and attendance records, not CO2 emissions and 10:10 pledges.
It is legislation and governmental leadership that will shape the reality of our future. Given the scope of the necessary changes – wide, systemic, and interwoven; the urgency of the required response; and the need to get this right first time it is almost inevitable that deep market intervention will be required. It is equally likely that the average citizen and business lead won’t like the changes much, given how far they will potentially push us from the status quo. This is of course Catch-22, governments won’t act if doing so has a short term negative electoral effect on popularity while we the governed won’t accept the changes (however grudgingly) unless we are forced to. In this context both the movie and the campaign are helpful – if only everyone who views and pledges remembers their priorities come election day.
Franny Armstrong has demonstrated exceptional vision, tenacity and commitment in making the film and the campaign a reality. How many of our elected leaders will demonstrate the same clarity and courage in order to now make the changes we need a reality? Voluntary and individual action around the edges won’t achieve the necessary emissions reductions – never mind address other pressing environmental issues – in a free choice open market.
YES there is time for individuals to fight climate change without government regulation by Dave Hampton
Before talking about individuals and governments, I’d like to separate out the: “Is there enough time?” part of the question.
Let me be clear. I think we have very little time. But is there enough time? I don’t know 
The late great Dana Meadows had a famous stock answer. When asked if we have enough time to prevent catastrophe, she’d always say that we have exactly enough time, starting now. Ok, you could observe that it’s a while since she gave her answer now. But that would be missing the spirit of her answer. What is crystal clear, like the melting ice, is that we don’t have long.
We don’t have time for the luxury of pessimism any more. Neither despair, which, although sometimes tempting, is illogical, unhelpful, and, some might observe, part of the problem.
Dana treated the future as choice, not fate, and she defined with luminous clarity how to do (as one sometimes must) what is necessary.
I turn now to E.F. Schumacher, in Small is Beautiful: "Can we rely on it that a ‘turning around’ will be accomplished by enough people quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but whatever answer is given to it will mislead. The answer “yes” would lead to complacency; the answer “no” to despair. It is desirable to leave these perplexities behind us and get down to work."
“Down to work” I believe he meant, is taking every single action we can take, now (to fight climate change) within our direct sphere of influence. To act now, and now, as if we believe CO2 to be a toxin. To work to eliminate it from our lives, without delay, without excuses, and without exception. This ‘work’ prepares the foundation for the next stage. To BE the low carbon life.
There is a vital point here. How can we demand that others take action before we have. We can do so, but our words will fall flat. This is obvious, but oft overlooked.
Once we have trimmed our own lifestyle to the level where we are as much a part of the solution as we are the pollution, then we can turn our hand to other work. To being an advocate. To inspiring our peers. To persuading all the powers that be, whether bosses, captains of industry, MPs or PMs. Persuading them by whatever peaceful means are available to us, ethically.
Then, once everyone is awakened, and engaged in ‘the war effort’ – then the process turns to cultivation, reward, acknowledgement, and steady escalation of ambition, raising of game, until the job is done. Until the world can live happily ever after again, without fossil.
I see no point in my logic above where we the people – have to hand over power to them – the government – to make us do something that we have told them we want them to force us to do!
Governments don’t lead, they follow. People lead.
IF we lead well, they will follow well, and one day, when its popular and with the benefit of hindsight, they can legislate for all the things that we’ve done, and proved can be done.
Regulation is necessary, and will follow our collective individual actions, but these must precede it, and with urgency. Waiting for governments to regulate, hoping they will – is a mugs game – a game of mutually assured destruction. It’s the game we have been playing for the last 20 years.
The new game is one of simple example, responsibility and advocacy with high contagiousness.
After all, if all each of us manage to do, is just set our own back yard in order (simples) ..and we all just do that one thing… then the world will take care of itself!
What do you think? Please do vote and give us your comments below.
Categories: lifestyle
A quote from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith:- Every individual by directing his industry in such a manner as it’s produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention ….By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good
Excellent question. I wonder … If we concluded that individual changes at the household level by the (albeit growing) minority will not be enough, or that because of our addiction to over-consumption we need the government to put shackles on us, what can people like us DO to change government regulation? IS there anything that is more persuasive than choosing to live in a sustainable way ourselves? Should we be lobbying / campaigning / demonstrating? Is there any proof that this has any impact? Is it simply that demonstrations / public disobedience have not reached critical levels yet? As I write, I am gripped by a sense that we are doing plenty as individuals, and that we can keep making increasingly radical changes at the household level, and that we are fools to believe that that is where our responsibility has to end, and that our individual responsibilities MUST include radical group action designed to compel governments to change toxic legislation. It seems I believe that there are a lot of good citizens out there who have come a long way now as individuals making personal changes. It is their responsibility to now turn outward. The plank HAS been removed from our own eyes. We are entitled to demand the same change from our so-called leaders.
Its important I think to not confuse the causal relationship that exists between the electorate and elected, and the very real need for the latter to use the power that they uniquely wield to make structural changes to the workings of the society in which we live. We can debate the degree to which the elected are influenced by the actions of the constituency, both on polling day and on all the other days in between. Days the people may choose to spend not in comfortable pursuit of middle-class distractions but rather in a passionate expression of their belief for governmental or corporate action and change. We can debate who wags whom and where the ultimate power to influence the view of reality that both the politicians and the people hold
What it boils down to, to me, is a belief system to live by. If you prefer to give your own magical personal power away, to others, don’t be surprised if that leaves you feeling powerless. I chose to put the YES case – not because I believe it’s right, and the NO case is wrong – far from it! On another day in another place i might easily be found passionately arguing for more regulation! Besides, as with all debates, they are win lose – hence artifical. Simon P and I probably agree much more than we disagree. Not ‘both and’ but ‘either or’ and more! (thanks to my friend Stephen Stretton for that one.) Anyway, the state, the government, the law makers, the civil servants, the public, the campaigners, the police, the sun readers, …the tacos*… – are all one. We are all ONE. Everything is connected. *See one minute wombat video if you haven’t: http://www.global-mindshift.org/memes/wombat.swf (From Pachamama and Change the Dream..) And if we are all ‘one’ then it’s obvious we get a load more ‘bang to the buck’ – from our limited personal energy – from shifting ourselves, and our own (re)actions, and from the wider example we set, than from any amount of hectoring, lecturing, demanding, arguing, and thinking about what OTHERS need to do. Job Vacancy Save the World Apply Within! Instead of asking yourself which view your head agrees with – ask yourself which feels the more empowering belief. i.e. the no brainer.
I am in an odd position here. As a member of Transition Towns I am trying to encourage people to take personal action. As a member of the Labour party I am trying to make sure my MP, who is at the forefront of work on climate change, gets re-elected. The changes that we need are big, complex, expensive and preferrably need to be international. so we cant do it without governments, but governments do come and go. The fact that this one is doing all the right things on climate change is absolutely no guarantee that it can survive polling day in the face of an apathetic public and a hostile press. Individuals need to be out there, banding together and making the case for action. The government needs this support in order to do what we need them to do, and they need us to be actively showing other people what needs to be done and why. There is some fancy name for it, which I can’t remember, but if loads of people are out there having conversations about this in the pub and by the water cooler, it begins to create the conditions which will tip us into taking the action we need to take.
There is never enough time – but we need to focus and prioritize and all work together. Focus on the big stuff first! if we are going to make a difference. INDIVIDUALS – need to take personal action BUSINESSES – need to do what they can with their operations and supply chains. GOVERNMENTS – need to create the right framework to support, investment in low carbon technology and infrastructure and motivate and encourage individuals and businesses. Together! PS taking personal action is possible and it overcomes the feeling of powerlessness. For BIG actions see our ten actions that each save one tonne of carbon find it at carbonfocus dot org dot uk
I was lucky enough to be inspired twice yesterday. First, I came across a blog and was reading a brief review of the book Cheap, when I noticed the blog author had posted mantras on her blog. Two caught my eye. The first