Most people are not in the position to directly do the things which can solve the problem of global climate change.
Not owning a car, recycling stuff, and composting are good things to do. In fact, they are necessary. But, the main emitters are big oil, big agriculture, and big energy, as this shows. Large-scale monocultural farming (mostly corn) and factory farming (mostly livestock) is a major reason why the human environment is getting screwed up.
Not owning a car, recycling stuff, and composting are good things to do. In fact, they are necessary. But, the main emitters are big oil, big agriculture, and big energy, as this shows. Large-scale monocultural farming (mostly corn) and factory farming (mostly livestock) is a major reason why the human environment is getting screwed up.
How to change big insutries? One obviously important thing is to support local small-scale farms by buying their products. However, many people do not have that option (and this is the real problem!) They do not have this option because they are either (a) not being offered the choice at all (no locally produced groceries available in their neighborhood), or (b) unable to afford it.
Therefore, there needs to be both (a) a rule that says that every town should have at least one grocery store where buyers can choose to buy locally produced food, and (b) a raise in wages so that buyers can afford to buy this food.
In addition, large-scale farmers should not receive state subsidy, simply because such subsidy makes competition highly unfair. Small-scale farming is more cost-efficient, but the subsidy makes it appear as if large-scale farming produces cheaper food. In reality, it's more expensive.
Big oil and big energy is altogether a different monster. I do not know enough to suggest solutions here. However, it seems quite clear that making people feel guilty for heating their rooms in winter or cooling it during summer would go nowhere.
Green energy does not help much, either. Green energy has become a mantra for climate change activists and government official alike. But solar panels are not sustainable! So are wind turbines and large dams!
The main task is not to replace fossil fuels with green energy while maintaining current levels of energy consumption. Rather, the task should be to simply reduce energy consumption and find the optimal hybrid of fossil fuels and other alternative energy sources at the same time.
So, can average citizens directly bring about the necessary changes? The answer is an obvious "no." Why? Because both big agriculture and big energy can be tackled by someone who has the power to prevent global corporations from doing what they do. This means legal power as well as brute physical force, such as the power to control the military or the police. If you can threaten the CEO of big oil companies and big agricultural companies, then you are in a position to directly solve the issue of global climate change. If you can say "hey, we won't subsidize you, and we will tax you fairly, and we prohibit you to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases beyond a certain level; and if you fail to comply with our orders within a year or two, then we will jail your executives," if you can say this to global corporations, then you are in a position to change things for the better. If not, then you are not in a position to directly make the necessary changes.
And the vast majority of the people are not in such positions!
So we can only act indirectly. We can't issue threats, and we can't just be violent, like Joseph Andrew Stack. That would backfire on us big time. Means are limited.
Here are some suggestions:
- Talk about the issues and solutions publicly.
- Do something through your profession: be sneaky. (This depends on what kind of job you have; for example, if you work in retail, then perhaps you can casually let your customers know what big agriculture is. If you work in education, tell your students about the reality of climate change and how to attack big energy and big agriculture. It really depends.)
- Support and vote for the right politicians and judges. (This is having a major effect globally; despite corporate media propaganda, the right politicians and judges are taking power more and more.)
- And yes, for the time being, we can't but help being consumers, so at least consume wisely! (Bike, don't drive; cut back on processed food, especially with corn and cheap meat in it; etc.)
- Negotiate for pay raises; this actually helps the environment in the long run, because it gives you more options as a consumer to support low-energy products.
- Participate in protests and other political events if you see them happening in your locale.
These suggestions are not terribly radical. They are all indirect, and that is why one might become overwhelmed by the feeling: "But am I really doing the right thing? Is this leading anywhere?"
So I guess the last thing to keep in mind is that things can fail. Yes, it can fail big time. How do you face the prospect of failure, without feeling despair, without becoming cynical and nihilistic? The answer is to have a clear idea of what might happen if the majority of people in this world acted upon the principles which you act upon. If everyone did the kind of things suggested above, then things will move forward. However, this thought should not translate into a sense of moral superiority, because there is nothing particularly heroic about taking action for the prevention of climate change. So what's the right attitude to take here?
Personally, I think that one nice idea is to be lazy. Climate change is a result of human beings being far too productive for their own good. Be lazy! Don't work! Read a good book, or have useless conversations with friends in a cafe or a pub or in your rooms!
Laziness has many virtues. For instance, you don't have to buy Christmas cards and Christmas presents to everyone you know, because you are lazy. You don't have to "enjoy yourself" because enjoyment takes too much of your already depleted energy. You don't want to "fly around the world" and "have a career" because it just seems like too much work. You only ever go to work reluctantly, out of absolute necessity. And even this should feel somewhat unfair and absurd, if you really are a committed lazy person. So you start demanding for free stuff. Not too much stuff, but enough to keep you alive, like food and shelter and clothing and good company. That's it.
Unproductive lazy people are at least more eco-friendly than super-productive overachievers. So why condemn lazy people and praise the money-makers? To positively embrace laziness as a virtue is perhaps one of the best strategies to avoid falling into the pitfalls of despair and nihilism.
