Or is it just a case of making us feel
like we're doing something to help? (A second big question inspired by school
sixth form students.)
“Use your voice, use your vote, use your
choice.” (Al Gore)
The
first point to make is that any early action on reducing CO2
emissions should be considered as having a high per unit premium value for the
emissions saved. Early reduction is more
valuable than future savings in terms of postponing key climate milestones.[1]
This delay provides more time to develop options both in finding better
means to reduce emissions, and in coping with the consequences of climate
change as it develops. Individual
actions have the particular advantage that they can have some effect quickly
and immediately, whereas government policies and international agreements tend
to take much longer to come into effect.
The more
difficult question is what kinds of changes people will make, including changes
in lifestyles, are plausible, how large they are, and how many people are going
to engage with them. This is in large measure a question about how significant
changes come about, both in the very general terms of culture and lifestyle,
and in social and behavioural norms.
A few years ago a BBC reporter was persuaded to try the experiment of becoming Ethical Man[2], to determine what savings
he, with his family, could make, but these were to be within the bounds of
credible change and broadly keeping to his familiar lifestyle. He almost
certainly went further than most people will be prepared to (giving up his car
for example), but it was estimated that they had cut their carbon footprint by
about 20%, and up to 50% in terms of directly controlled energy use for normal
household purposes and travel. So it is fairly easy to show that some
significant reductions are possible without fundamental and systemic change.
But will sufficient numbers of people be persuaded?
Many
say we should drive less, fly less, eat less meat. But others argue that
personal actions like this are a pointless drop in the ocean when set against
the huge systemic changes that are required … a single person’s contribution is
basically irrelevant (much like a single vote in an election). But my research
… has found that doing something bold like giving up flying can have a wider
knock-on effect by influencing others and shifting what’s viewed as “normal”. [Steve
Westlake in The Conversation.] [3]
Communication is
critical. If one individual starts
cycling to work, or eating less meat, or taking a shower instead of a bath, then
the impact is minimal. But social interactions with friends, relatives and
colleagues can over time change behaviour much more widely. The Westlake article
suggests the effects can be dramatic.
In a survey I conducted, half
of the respondents who knew someone who has given up flying because of climate
change said they fly less because of this example. That alone seemed pretty
impressive to me. Furthermore, around three quarters said it had changed their
attitudes towards flying and climate change in some way. These effects were
increased if a high-profile person had given up flying, such as an academic or
someone in the public eye. In this case, around two thirds said they fly less
because of this person, and only 7% said it has not affected their attitudes.
I wondered if these
impressionable people were already behaving like squeaky-clean
environmentalists, but the figures suggested not. The survey respondents fly
considerably more than average, meaning they have plenty of potential to fly
less because of someone else’s example.
Some social psychology
research suggests that strongly held positions held by sufficiently large
minorities can lead quite quickly to a change in what is seen as the consensus
position or as normal behaviour. It is quite possible that we are currently in
the process of reaching that critical mass in popular appreciation of the
threats of climate change. Scientists have been warning about climate change in
no uncertain terms for at least the last 30 years, but the shift to a position
where a majority in developed countries see it as the greatest threat to
themselves and their children has been comparatively recent. However it is
difficult to say how much of that shift is attributable to dramatic climate or
weather related events (such as the Australian bush fires), how much to
awareness promoted by wildlife programmes (David Attenborough) and the media
attention attracted by activists such as Greta Thunberg, and how much to the
gradually increasing willingness of people to talk about the subject with their
friends.
If people are seeking to
influence others then avoiding the charge of hypocrisy is important. Very few
things are less impressive than some celebrity taking a private jet to a
conference to argue for everyone else to change their lifestyles. So that
provides another strand to the case for individual action, at least if you want
to have an influence on others.
Overall it is clear that
individual actions can make a difference. But of course they are by no means
sufficient to meet what is needed. That will only come about through much more
far reaching and systemic changes which depend not just on personal initiatives
but on major infrastructure investment and innovation. The other effective
actions that individuals can take is to “use their vote”, demand that their
elected representatives support effective action, and use their influence as
consumers to put similar pressure on business – much of which is already
starting to get the message.
[1]
The arguments are presented more fully on another page, Cumulative Carbon
(button on bar at top of page): http://co2economics.blogspot.com/p/reference.html
No comments:
Post a Comment