“…that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” George Eliot, Middlemarch

“In historical events great men – so called – are but labels serving to give a name to the event, and like labels they have the least possible connection with the event itself.” Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

It is worth saying from the outset that no-one is perfect and there is no point in spending time casting blame.

In that spirit of humility, let’s consider this.  In the early decades of the twenty-first century, it has become apparent that, on the basis of current trends, human beings have a limited future.  This is not to say we have no future – but rather that our Western way of life cannot continue.

The reasons are straightforward.  In 2016, humanity consumes around 10 times as much energy, and there are 5 times as many people, as in 1916.  Exponential growth is time limited on a finite planet.  Each year, global energy consumption experiences a double boost in growth rate: from the ‘developed’ world as it aspires to higher levels of per capita wealth; and from the ‘developing’ world as it strives to catch up.  Not many of those living in the latter share the serene disregard for the former allegedly displayed by Gandhi who, when asked by a journalist what he thought of Western civilisation, quipped that he thought it would be a good idea.  Rather, they want what we have, the same material lifestyle and ‘high’ standard of living.

Then there is destruction of the natural world.  Without being (or needing to be) an expert, the fact that over 90% of the total mass (i.e. combined weight) of land vertebrates is now comprised of humans and farm animals should alarm each of us.  One can argue with Professor Drummond from the University of Auckland if one is partial to pedantry about the exact percentage – but not about the main point being made.  We can estimate the numbers, and hence mass, of humans, cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens and so forth; and also the mass of lions, tigers, elephants, wildebeest and so forth.  Maybe the figure of 90% is wrong by 1% but it will not be wrong by enough to invalidate the key message being made.  That we have largely usurped the world’s dry land for ourselves and our livestock is hard to dispute.

Likewise, it is pretty straightforward to measure carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from burning fossil fuels – this is much easier than, say, trying to understand the human mind or human physiology, or whether or not medical science will be able to keep pace with the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  Global warming to date, and the loss of wilderness, are relatively easy to measure; and when science is relatively easy, it makes particular sense to trust its findings.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published a report entitled Limits to Growth, which warned, rather as Thomas Malthus had done in the 19th century but this time on the basis of more systematic and comprehensive research, of the impending exhaustion of global resources due to unrestrained economic growth.  Whilst right in principle, Limits to Growth is thought to have underestimated global reserves of most resources, and hence also understated the time we have left to enjoy making ourselves richer.  In the 44 years since its publication, climate change and biodiversity, rather than depletion of mineral resources, have emerged as much more urgent causes of concern than people, including the authors of Limits to Growth, imagined at the time.

Nearly all of the world’s climate scientists now accept, albeit reluctantly because most people including scientists do not want to accept bad news, that global warming is due to human activity; that we are at least halfway towards the 2 degree increase above pre-industrial temperature levels that is broadly accepted as the maximum we can allow to prevent global catastrophe; that no climate agreements yet reached – not even the COP21 United Nations agreement hammered out in Paris in December 2015 – are sufficient to prevent such a rise; and that all the major climate trends suggest this limit will be breached in the lifetimes of some of those born today.

A scientific consensus has been wrong before, and may be wrong in this instance, but it is foolhardy to bet on it.

Ten, sixteen or two?

The British government, the Committee on Climate Change, and leading academics, tend to subscribe to the view that at least the British are making progress in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; and that the challenge is getting the rest of the world to take the issue as seriously.  In a recent debate about climate change chaired by Brian Cox (University of Reading, 8th October), the eminent meteorologist Brian Hoskins reminded the audience that while the average Briton has an annual carbon footprint of around 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), we are replacing our fossil fuel power stations with renewables.  But, he said, we only account for a few percent of the global problem, so it is difficult for us to have much direct influence.

Government environmental statistics measure the greenhouse gas emissions that are produced in the UK.  They do not account for the greenhouse gas emissions incurred in producing the goods that we buy from overseas.  Nor do they account for the emissions associated with international aviation.  These emissions are not produced in the UK – but if we are largely responsible for them, why would we not attribute them to our own account?  If they are, rightly, taken into consideration, the average per capita footprint of UK citizens is more like 16 tCO2e.  On this “consumption basis”, the footprint of the average UK citizen has been rising since the early 1990s.  The Committee on Climate Change admit as much on their own website – whilst simultaneously showing their disingenuous graph of falling “production basis” emissions.  It is unsavoury for a largely white collar workforce in one country to blame a largely blue collar workforce in another country for the damage wrought by its own lifestyle.  The anger of Asian politicians and business leaders at the hypocrisy of the West is understandable.

And yet, even if one accepts the figure of 10 tCO2e, that is still 5 times the average per capita level that the same Committee on Climate Change says we need to reach globally by the year 2050, i.e. 2 tCO2e per annum, if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.  Whether we need to reduce our footprint by a factor of 5 or a factor of 8 is to some extent moot: either implies a radical change in lifestyle.

But no-one, not even academics who frankly should know better, seems willing to accept this.  (No doubt there are a few; this is just what it feels like!)  Rather the emphasis is on technology and the de-carbonisation of the electricity generation sector.  Let’s see how this stacks up.  In the UK, total CO2 emissions from domestic power generation now amount to around 120-150 million tCO2e, with some variation year by year depending on the weather and competing fuel prices.    This is very easy to verify from, e.g., the UK Digest of Energy Statistics – and unlike some statistics, pretty trustworthy given the relative simplicity of measuring fuel burn.  [To be precise, DECC’s final statistics for 2014 – there is always a lag in publication – state that total greenhouse gas emissions from power stations in the UK were 147.9 million tCO2e in that year.  In the last couple of years, coal use has fallen so the emissions will also have fallen.]

Let’s say there are 65 million Britons and power sector emissions are 130 million tCO2e, to keep the maths easy.  That means that if we de-carbonise our electricity completely – zero emissions from power – we will reduce our footprint by approximately 2 tCO2e per capita.  That leaves a footprint of 8-14 tCO2e per capita, depending how honest you want to be about imported goods and flying.

Conclusion?  Decarbonising electricity is a useful first step, much as breakfast is a useful first meal of the day.  Neither fulfills our needs.  And time is short.

The psychology of evasion

In order to make progress, perhaps we need to consider psychological barriers and how to overcome them.  After all, it is relatively recent in the history of humanity that our species has had to confront global problems of its own making – even the so-called “world wars” of the twentieth century were largely confined to Europe and did not threaten the people and animals of, say, central Africa.  We are relative novices when it comes to the emotional response to global warming, a bit like first-time parents trying to adjust to the life-changing addition to their remit of responsibility.

Without being an expert, it is possible to observe a range of unhelpful pyschological responses, of which five are as follows:

Denial

This is the mindset that says in effect: global warming does not exist or doesn’t matter.  It is a hoax created by the Chinese (Donald Trump).  It is a conspiracy created by NASA (Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts).  It does exist but is by no means our main environmental problem and “not the end of the world” (Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg).

Optimism

Global warming exists but we will be OK: we just need to get the scientists and engineers to sort it out.  Faith in science in the twenty-first century has some of the hallmarks of faith in God in the Middle Ages: in both cases, it is a form of wishful thinking (or at least wishful, thinking does not come into it much).  As Emily Armistead observed of Tony Blair when he was prime minister: hoping for the best is not a policy, it is a delusion.

Optimism can be a form of denial – denial of the difficulties of solving the problem.

Pessimism

Global warming exists but is insoluble.  It’s all too late and we might as well give up.  The world is already doomed.

In my personal experience, this is quite a common attitude amongst young people.  It is just as dangerous as blind optimism and just as likely to impede efforts to save our world.

Vicarious atonement

It is up to our government: that is what they are there for.  We democratically elect ministers to act on our behalf.

Under this mindset, the people abdicate responsibility to the government.  The difficulty is that government simply passes responsibility back to the people by taking actions that appear to be popular and conducive to re-election.

Disavowal

I am insignificant; it makes no difference what I do or don’t do – so I will do what I want, as long as it is within the law.

This is perhaps the most insidious and damaging psychological barrier of them all.  By conflating little influence with no influence, millions of us fail to undertake what action we can.  Disavowal frees us from a nagging sense of responsibility.  It allows us to pursue actions that we think will make us happy (though there is increasing evidence we are not very good at that).  The more we gain, the more we feel entitled to possess, and the more outraged we become if certain goods and services are withdrawn.  Hence the political nightmare that is the “lights going out” even temporarily, the price of meat or petrol rising, train companies or binmen going on strike, or shops running out of stock.

Disavowal can be at a national as well as personal level, as for instance in the mindset that Britain is doing its bit to combat global warming but we’re too small to make much difference.

A new psychology

Contrary to the conventional mantra of the media, politicians and economists, our future is not dependent on ‘economic growth’ or ‘growth in GDP’.  It is dependent on re-inventing our aspirations for a good life, so that we learn how to live within the confines of the natural world.  In practical terms, that means: having fewer children; living more communally or in smaller, better insulated homes; travelling less and being in less of a rush; buying less ‘stuff’; eating a more vegetarian or vegan diet.  It is not possible to substitute adequately for these personal measures by simply relying on renewable sources of electricity.

Before we will be willing to take these seemingly unappealing measures in our own lives, we need to develop the appropriate pyschology of outlook.  All of us can have much greater influence than we are usually prepared to countenance.  That is the first prerequisite: acknowledgement of our individual importance and hence our individual responsibility.

The second prerequisite is an honest acknowledgement of the scale of global crisis in which we live.  We need to accept not only the reality of climate change but also the difficulties of combating it, so that we do not fall into the rut of assuming other people will be able to sort it all out for us.

Thirdly, we need to dispense with judgement and blame.  It is pointless and destructive to point fingers at the old, the rich, the government, the corporate sector, or other nations, and say “it’s your fault”.  We have to do what we can – without casting blame – and trust that others will do the same.

But the most important prerequisite of all may be to learn how to think positively about a different, simpler and gentler way of life.  Can we learn to aspire to a life in which we own and travel less?  To be enriched by life on the basis of the quality of its experiences rather than their quantity?

These are difficult questions to which I want to return in my next post.