The Fatal Climate: Radical Problems require Radical Solutions
On the 3rd of
June this year, at Roland Garros, one of the most prestigious tennis
tournaments in the world, a climate activist entered the court during a widely
televised match and chained herself to net. She turned towards the cameras so
they could capture exactly what the words on her shirt said: “WE HAVE 1028 DAYS
LEFT”. Her efforts, although radical, were valiant. It takes courage to make a
vehement statement when the world around us seems to go about daily life with a
distinct placidity. Her actions exuded the enormous fear inside of her and were
reflective of the fatalistic attitude that large numbers of climate activists
propound, that we are close to a point of no return. Radical acts of climate
fatalism, like this, emphasize the urgency of taking action. It’s now or never. Although, how true is this notion? Are we almost too far down the cliff to climb back
up?
Susan Joy Hassol, the director of
the non-profit Climate Communication and Michael E. Mann, professor of
atmospheric science at Penn State, released the article “Now Is Not the Time To
Give in to Climate Fatalism” earlier this year on Time magazine. While they
acknowledge the urgency of acting against climate change, they stress the fact
that “there is agency too”, a refreshingly optimistic message! We are
constantly bombarded with updates on increasing atmospheric temperatures,
higher sea levels and CO2 emissions that we forget that there is something we can
do about it. Oil companies can use their enormous resources to push the
progress of renewable energy. Hassol and Mann state that “their experience in
geology can be turned to geothermal energy…(and) offshore oil can be turned to
offshore wind.” The extensive lands that these companies own can also be used
for solar farms. Clearly, we have the resources to make a strong push towards
positive climate trends.
However, most of us are
aware that a lack of resources isn’t holding us back. The true foe is avarice. It
drives wealthy businessmen and politicians with the largest capacity for
positive influence to make a quick buck instead. Hassol and Mann point out that
the fossil fuel industry continues to draw out monumental investments, the
largest of which come from American banks including JPMorgan Chase and Citi. Unfortunately,
the decisions of those with large sums of money impact the rest of the world
and often, their decisions are rooted in making more money. What a surprise! Climate fatalism
may well be an effective method to combat the greed of the affluent. If
morality has no value, instilling fear might be the most potent way to get them
to take necessary action.
Despite this, it is still
an ambitious goal to be able to meet the energy demands of the world with
solely clean energy, especially if the technological push towards cleaner
energy is in constant conflict with the monetary aims of the rich. I find
myself thinking that we must come to the paradoxical yet insightful realization
that less is more. A more effective solution than just investing in renewable
energy to match our ever-increasing demands is to disillusion ourselves from
the capitalist ideas of constant expansion. By taking less from the Earth, we
may become more primitive and experience technological regression, but this may
be necessary and not entirely bad.
The value in certain
aspects of ‘primitive’ life is becoming more blatant. Organic farming, for
example, is becoming increasingly valued not only for health benefits but for environmental
benefits as well. It sequesters more carbon in the soil, eliminates the fossil
fuels required to produce pesticides and yet it is partially a technological
regression of farming practices to that of centuries ago when there were no known
inorganic practices! Similarly, we may be able to synthesize our scientific
understanding of the environment to realize the value in more conservative and
regenerative habits of our ancestors.
The creeping fate of climate change is a necessary consequence of our collective disregard for the Earth. However, we still have the capacity to learn a great deal from the past and live less industrialized and more self-sufficient lives. Or maybe, the climate fatalists will succeed and force a tremendous revolution! Rather than my unorthodox proposal of technological regression, a technological progression may actually bear fruit and clean energy can effectively run the whole world. Great! Regardless of what solution we discover (or don’t), I am extremely curious to witness the course of humanity over the century. We may persevere, we may not. I will do my part to protect the Earth and as for the rest, I intend on accepting our fate with peace.
Aashutosh Kulakarni
Comments
Post a Comment