The environment – Page 37 – a sibilant intake of breath

Climate change messaging

A paper by Pearce, Brown, Nerlich, Koteyko (“Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus“, 2015) contains some interesting ideas about effective communication about climate change. They cite one “best practice guide” which explains that:

in order for climate science information to be fully absorbed by audiences, it must be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor, and analogy; combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid through visual imagery and experiential scenarios; balanced with scientific information; and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings.

It also notes that: “Messages focusing on fear and predictions of adverse events can increase skepticism, perhaps because they disrupt underlying ‘just world’ beliefs and can reduce people’s intentions to perform mitigating actions”.

This kind of research is important. Motivation may be the trickiest part of the climate challenge: getting people to care about the welfare of people impacted all over the world by climate change, and well into future generations. Then making people willing to demand political and economic change to prevent the worst potential impacts of excessive fossil fuel use.

Fossil fuel subsidies

When discussing policy options for countering climate change, ending fossil fuel subsidies is often presented as an obviously desirable option: why should we be providing public money to fossil fuel companies or fossil fuel users when both are damaging the planet so rapidly and profoundly?

Of course, subsidies are always likely to be defended by the people who enjoy them, sometimes on the basis of social justice claims. You see this particularly with arguments that low-income people need to heat their homes, travel to work, etc. I was once on a radio show where the host asked me to justify fossil fuel subsidies and went on to claim that nobody had ever been able to explain to him why they still exist. I told him that I didn’t think it was difficult to explain at all: anything which has a welcome material impact on the lives of politically influential groups ranging from farmers to refinery operators will lead to lobbying and political pressure, just like all the inefficient exemptions in the tax codes of the world which are vigorously championed by those who benefit.

Recent developments in Mexico, reported by The Economist, highlight the political and social risks associated with reducing fossil fuel subsidies:

In Mexico, rioting sparked by the government’s withdrawal of petrol subsidies as part of its liberalisation of the energy industry left at least six people dead. Petrol prices increased by up to 20% at the start of the year, leading to many knock- on price rises in goods and services. Roads have been blocked and shops looted.

So many personal and economic activities have come to be deeply fossil fuel dependent that any change to the regime governing them risks creating huge controversy and governmental unpopularity. In the long run, we need governments to set up the conditions where people essentially have to live low-carbon lives, but achieving the transition will involve many ethical and political challenges.

Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape

My family in Vermont sent me Bill McKibben’s 2005 book (updated in 2014) as a Christmas gift. In it, he recounts a meandering trek through the Lake Champlain region of the Adirondacks. It’s part nature writing, partly an account of the history of the region and the ways his neighbours are tying to earn a living, and partly a meditation on the nature of wilderness and how it relates to human life.

McKibben talks about small-scale farmers and winemakers trying to compete against giant agribusiness corporations by securing premium prices for local food; students keen to establish major vegetable gardens at local colleges; debates about what to think and do about invasive species; strategies for social change; park rangers burning down the illegal cabins of hunters; and the ruin and ruckus caused by all-terrain vehicles and Jet Skis.

The book fits into a theme of environmentally-minded people finding ways to undertake major wilderness excursions, which I also saw among friends before leaving Facebook. I can see the plausibility in how time invested this way can help control the adverse emotions which accompany environmental activism in the face of a public wedded to consumerism and corporations and politicians vigorous in their defence of the status quo. At the same time, it’s hard to undertake when I am always behind on PhD requirements and never really financially secure enough for vacations.

In any event, the book is another good demonstration of McKibben’s eloquence and constant focus on the big questions facing humanity. I hope one day I will get to visit some of the landscape he describes.

Obama’s climate legacy

The New York Times reports this as a section from President Obama’s farewell address:

Take the challenge of climate change. In just eight years we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, we’ve doubled our renewable energy, we’ve led the world to an agreement that (at) the promise to save this planet.

(APPLAUSE)

But without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change. They’ll be busy dealing with its effects. More environmental disasters, more economic disruptions, waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary. Now we can and should argue about the best approach to solve the problem. But to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations, it betrays the essential spirit of this country, the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our founders.

Going right from “the challenge of climate change” to “halved our dependence on foreign oil” draws our attention to the weird dynamics of climate change politics.

U.S. oil and gas production has exploded because of fracking during the Obama years, but it’s dubious to claim that this is good from a climate change perspective. Huge new fossil fuel production is not good news.

Wilderness and non-violence

The battle for the future is precisely between those who are willing to engineer every organism for our convenience , who will countenance the radical change of our climate rather than risk any damage to our cosseted and swaddled Economy, and those who are willing to say there is something other than us that counts. Wilderness and Gandhian nonviolence were the two most potentially revolutionary ideas of the twentieth century, precisely because they were the most humble: they imagine a whole different possibility for people.

McKibben, Bill. Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. St. Martin’s Press; New York. 2005, 2014. p. 103 (paperback)

LED bulbs

LED bulbs are dramatically more efficient than incandescent or halogen lamps, and beat out compact fluorescent bulbs in terms of how quickly they turn on and avoiding toxic contents.

These bulbs, which are now widely available in large hardware stores, plug directly into a socket that would previously have taken an incandescent bulb and include all the electronics necessary to run the LEDs.

Two things to watch for: if you have any dimmer switches or if you’re wiring or electricity supply are a bit unreliable, make sure to get bulbs that are advertised as dimmable. Others will buzz at you and may die rapidly, whereas ordinarily LED lamps should last for five years or more.

In addition to how much light they put out (expressed as lumens or watt equivalents) and the colour temperature (roughly how yellow or blue the light looks), make sure to check the color rendering index for the bulbs. I just replaced some buzzy old 100-watt equivalent LEDs with four of FEIT Electric’s 800 lumen / 60W equivalent “enhance” series bulbs. Perhaps on account of their 90+ CRI rating, they give the room a more natural look.

One other thing: I would really avoid ‘smart’ lightbulbs that connect to the internet. These are multiple serious indications that they are desperately insecure and may compromise your home network.

“We won’t stop using fossil fuels tomorrow”

Sometimes paired with the fallacious argument that only people who use no fossil fuels can legitimately oppose fossil fuel development is the statement: “We won’t stop using fossil fuels tomorrow”.

The logical error associated with using this statement to defend new fossil fuel infrastructure like fracking wells and bitumen sands pipelines (as well as new fossil fuel vehicles or power plants) is so obvious that it may seem unnecessary to state, but the quip is so popular among those trying to delay adequate action on climate change that it requires a quick rebuttal.

It’s true that human society is dependent on fossil fuels, and not only for discretionary activities that people can legitimately be asked to give up. That said, it’s now entirely evident that climate change threatens human civilization if unchecked, to say nothing of the profound damage it’s already doing to non-human nature. Preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, and that is fundamentally incompatible with building new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Under contraction and convergence, it is plausible that some poor places can legitimately build a modest amount of additional fossil fuel infrastructure. This is most defensible in places that have low per capita emissions, low historical emissions, and where new fossil fuel use will address basic human needs instead of luxuries. None of these conditions apply in Canada or the United States, where per capita and historical emissions are both unconscionably high, and where most citizens routinely make heavy use of fossil fuels for trivial purposes.

The line about not giving up fossil fuels tomorrow is rhetorically appealing because it makes the speaker seem like a level-headed pragmatist and suggests that anyone who disagrees is out of touch with reality. In actual fact, our existing dependence on fossil fuels is an argument against new fossil fuel infrastructure, not for it. The media, members of the public, and decision-makers need to accept this.

Christian-indigenous alliances against pipelines

The Economist has published an interesting article about Christian churches supporting the water defenders at Standing Rock: Standing Rock is a new turn in Christian ties with native Americans.

Climate leaders don’t build pipelines

Tonight Toronto350.org organized a vigil to resist the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, which took place along with 44 others across Canada.

Justin Trudeau is going to find that his promises about indigenous reconciliation and restoring Canada’s environmental reputation require him to stop further bitumen sands extraction and export. If not, he will end up as confounded as the Harper government.

Piketty on inequality and Trump

In a piece for The Guardian, Thomas Piketty argues that inequality in the U.S. and the failure of governments to address it are the primary cause of Trump’s victory. He argues that:

The main lesson for Europe and the world is clear: as a matter of urgency, globalization must be fundamentally re-oriented. The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming. We must therefore implement international treaties enabling us to respond to these challenges and to promote a model for fair and sustainable development.

Piketty’s claim about inequality seems plausible in part because of how mental distortions seem to be central to the social and political consequences of inequality.

I am increasingly open to the view that the two ideas are related, including through the sense of entitlement that accompanies privilege. The terrifying willingness to impose suffering and death on innocent people around the world and on nature in order to maintain a preferred lifestyle is at the heart of the climate crisis.