Take Climate Action to a Deeper Level

WHY?

The simple answer is that most action on climate change is not working - especially at governmental and intergovernmental levels where it is most needed.

This has been argued many times in previous issues of Boiling Point, with whole issues given over to ‘Denial, Justification and Deception’ and ‘Getting Governments to Act on Climate Change’. The solutions presented up to now have been: a consideration of ‘What Matters to You Most’, the promotion of the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ international framework, ‘Persistence’ on our part, questioning whether ‘Force, Persuasion or Enlightened Self-interest’ are the keys to surviving climate change (also appearing as a book chapter), Save our World’s own proposed ‘New Movement for Survival’ through Valuing Life Itself Above All Else, and, lastly, ‘Taking a Positive Approach to Climate Change’.

In the last issue of Boiling Point I introduced an additional way of defining the climate crisis: as a necessary process of breakdown of outworn systems, ones that are based upon exclusive self-interest, ahead of their replacement by those that express all-inclusive interest.

It is small comfort that the breakdown part of this definition appears to have been spot on - as the financial and economic crises over the last year have shown. Although I had to admit, in the last Boiling Point ‘On taking a positive approach to climate change’, that taking such action on climate change was harder to sell than The American Dream of material independence [ref. P8], this may now be less true. However, the onset of economic anxieties has begun to take precedence over environmental sustainability generally. The signs of any breakthrough to new processes and systems expressing all-inclusive interests appear just as remote as a year ago - or even going into reverse as people go into self-protection mode. Not an encouraging start to 2009!

WHY TO A DEEPER LEVEL?

Short-sightedness

The first answer is that while, in these Boiling Point issues, I have been presenting the climate crisis as part of a larger breakdown of western civilisation (see, for example, the Introduction to the last issue) almost all published reports still present it as an exclusively scientific and/or  political problem. Much of the general population seems to go along with this.

For those who do not want to take any action at all, whether out of conviction, inertia, discomfort, denial or fear, this provides an excuse to recycle doubts that climate change is happening at all (the deceitful ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ TV programme still coming up in conversations), and the thinking that it is already too late for action and best left entirely to governments to do what is necessary. Governments that warn of the dangers of climate change without acting upon these warnings have served only to exacerbate the problem, as the population then neither takes them seriously nor believes that real consequences follow.

There is another drawback with presenting climate change as an exclusively scientific and political problem: It is myopic. It excludes other important factors both in understanding the environmental crisis and in taking action to limit it. The short-sightedness of this view becomes immediately apparent once the words ‘human induced’ are added, for that strikes to the heart of the problem. ‘Yes, yes, we know that; it’s obvious!’ comes the instant reply. But hang on! ‘Human induced’ immediately implies motivation as a prior cause to the purely rationalistic scientific causes of climate change. Until we can understand the complex world of motives, we cannot expect people or governments to change. The assumption behind the purely scientific case is that governments will respond logically and rationally to it. But they don’t!

Motivation

Once motivation is taken seriously, people can no longer pretend that they are victims of a natural calamity, such as a volcanic eruption or the strike of an asteroid - which can be made the subject of a Hollywood blockbuster, even if efforts to eliminate it are technologically impossible. People seem to find that kind of scenario more comforting, despite one that is outside their powers of control; but then many also take refuge in ‘acting the victim’ in personal situations and relationships, rather than making changes which are possible. Changing motivation is often discounted, bundled in with the belief that ‘you cannot change human nature!’ But is this really true?

How to explain, then, the motivations in other parts of the world, in different cultures and at other times, that are so different from our western obsession with accumulating money and possessions for ourselves without concern for other people, species and nature? Very different motivations are implicit in the concept of self-interest in Eastern cultures (already mentioned in the first section of the Boiling Point issue ‘Why value life itself above all else?’), and also apply in tribal and Native Indian communities. Besides, this obsession in the West has been around for  only 200 years, since the start of the Industrial Revolution - a mere blink in human history, let alone the rest of evolution.

As to motives affecting governments, Save our World still has on its website Archive pages an investigation carried out for a Working Group of the United Nations Environment and Development - UK Committee  (UNED-UK) into raising people’s awareness about climate change, prior to the World Summit in 2002. We concluded that awareness-raising involves considerably more than issuing information and publicity; numerous counter-incentives to awareness-raising also have to be tackled and overcome. On the ‘World Summit 2002’ page in Archive, in an article, which is just as relevant today, we wrote:

“These (counter-incentives) are most obvious in the media because it reflects numerous conflicting interests which confuse the viewing, listening and the reading public. Existing efforts to spell out the need for cutting down on carbon-emitting travel, for example, are countered by assertive marketing of carbon emitting vehicles and air travel as well as the values and culture that elevates their use and lifestyle. The ownership and advertising revenue of much of the media and subsequent direct or indirect control of the published content, furthermore produce disincentives to highlighting climatic dangers and lifestyle changes that are expected to undermine current profitability levels.

“The same or similar interests that control much of the media understandably try to prevail on the government to support their current modes of production, operation and sources of income and profit. In the absence of legal hindrances, these forms of influence can extend to donations to political parties which then oblige the party in government to favour their interests above those of the electorate. Such practices thereby weaken the democratic representation of elected members both generally and at the time of elections, expressed in low turnouts, apathy and cynicism among the electorate.

“The government is particularly hindered from raising awareness about and responding to climate change issues by economic problems arising in fossil fuel-dependent industries, particularly where potential losses of jobs are involved, as happens from time to time in the coal, car manufacturing and airline industries. This conflict of interests extends directly to the public, as most poignantly expressed in reductions in petrol taxes the day after the Prime Minister's last major speech on the environment (in 2000).

“The attendant perception of the economy, on the part of government and most institutions, as being founded on current forms of energy, production and marketing processes, makes it very difficult to conceive of and realise an economy which embraces renewable forms of energy and reduced energy use. This is made doubly difficult on account of obligations which have been entered into through EU and international trade agreements and bodies that favour industries and corporations which are dependent on fossil fuels.

“On a less obvious level, the government cannot help but be compromised to some extent by commercial sponsorships and faculty chairs in universities that favour industries which are presently fossil fuel dependent, together with commercial representation on grants awarding research councils, and bodies that are claimed to be 'Independent'. Furthermore it can lead to government avoidance of responsibility in its use of research 'findings' in claiming objectivity and neutrality in areas where it, or its industrial lobbyists, have hidden agendas.

“All of these pressures are liable to result in misleading messages put out by government (spin), which promise action on 'sustainable' energy and climate change, while falling short of  delivery, and revealing inconsistent and insufficiently enforced legislation, fiscal measures, taxes and levies to reduce carbon emissions, damage to the environment and externalisation of costs. These shortcomings inevitably create disbelief and distrust within the electorate, not only on directly related matters but also on issues of democratic representation.”

All these motivational issues need to be taken into account, not only for the purposes of awareness-raising about climate change, but for recommending appropriate action on it. 

Perception

As chairperson of Save our World, one of the most frequent challenges I face in promoting the case for taking climate action to a deeper level is that it is not practical enough. I am told people need practical things to do, to ‘green’ their lifestyles, to make ‘real’ change. By ‘real’ they mean physical change. Yes practical guidance is needed - and we supply it at Save our World, in our publicity material and in the main and supplementary pledges to Value Life Itself Above All Else!!! However, the public is now inundated with practical help with thousands of different ways to Save the Planet - and practically nothing else!

This might be fine for those already motivated to do these things, and it is possible that others will get caught up in the enthusiasm of those who believe that ‘We are what we do’. This is the name of a very positive approach and website that was presented at the latest Schumacher Conference in Bristol in October. However, the founder of ‘We are what we do’ was just as happy with the idea that ‘we do what we are’. The danger is, therefore, that such statements become mere rallying points or memorable catchphrases, lacking the essence of the issue at hand. The need to take action to a deeper level arises when people are not already motivated or they cannot see the need to change attitudes, habits, and thence priorities and values.

How problems are perceived is vitally important. Regarding climate change as a scientific phenomenon that has little to do with the individual and only to do with governments and corporations creates a very different understanding and mindset from seeing it as a human-induced situation, in which exclusive self-interest produces a deadly and possibly terminal outcome for the human race and other species. All ideas for action, including active change, originate in one’s consciousness and mind, and are followed by will or motivation to act. This applies to behavioural change as much as to any other level of change. So why discount other levels of change as ‘too philosophical’ equaling ‘too impractical’?

Crucial to the case for taking climate action to a deeper level is the need for a shift from perceiving the world in terms of exclusive self-interest to that of inclusive one-world shared interests. If you perceive yourself as the same or like others, you will act towards them with empathy and love; if totally different from others, you will act towards them with competition and hostility. This shift in itself, if fully imbibed, could prevent the possible annihilation of western culture - if not our world as we know it, and lead towards an integrated life-sustaining world. This has practical implications! According to Al Gore, the photo of Earthrise from the first manned expedition to the Moon 40 years ago “exploded in the consciousness of humans. It lead to dramatic changes. Within 18 months of this picture the environment movement had begun.” [‘How astronauts went to  the Moon and ended up discovering planet Earth’ Guardian 20/12/08] Even if you take this statement with a large pinch of hype, this one photo has left a big impression.

Urgency

As well as facing challenges that taking climate action to a deeper level is not practical enough, I also hear ‘there’s no time for this’, it is ‘too late’ to consider alternatives to what we are already doing - we have to act NOW. However, this panicked cry has been repeated now for a number of years, and ‘what we are doing already’ is not working. And too late for what, I ask? To avert ‘the point of no return’, or ‘runaway climate change’, is the usual response. Averting these tipping points is extremely urgent, but the reason appeals for action are not heard is because the conflicting motivations and self-interested perceptions of the world, which we have already considered, are too entrenched for those appeals to penetrate. The ‘too late’ argument is not a reason against taking action to a deeper level, but for it.

I am often asked what is Save our World doing to ‘save the planet’. What has to be understood is that the planet will carry on, if necessary without the human race which has done so much to make it uninhabitable for itself and a large number of other species. Save our World is about helping to protect and sustain the world we have come to know, love and intimately depend upon. It is about helping recreate a life-sustaining world. ‘Recreate’ because we have inherited an already exquisite life-sustaining world, which through exclusive self-interest the present western civilisation has been steadily exploiting and destroying. This call is also urgent, but, to quote Andrew Harvey, it is an urgent call for “Being, from which all action will flow”, and not “Doing” alone [Harvey, Andrew (1994) The Way of Passion Frog, California p 203] Recreating a life-sustaining world naturally complements our campaign to Value Life Itself Above All Else !!!

HOW?

This is the hardest part - conveying the importance of taking climate action to a deeper level and then actually doing so. This Boiling Point issue is intended to serve the former to some extent, but what about the latter?

When Save our World started the campaign to Value Life Itself Above All Else !!!, I believed its discussion in previous Boiling Point issues was enough for it to spread organically from those who grasped its principles to an increasing number of others. This has not been the case to date. Further clarification and step-by-step guidelines are needed in order to underline the main points and persuade people of the effectiveness and meaning of ‘recreating a life-sustaining world’ as part of valuing life above all else.

One initiative has been to offer participatory workshops on ‘Taking climate action to a deeper level’, looking at changing behaviour, attitudes, habits, priorities and values - progressively. These have been presented to small adult audiences at a number of conferences and fairs. In most instances, a few of those attending respond enthusiastically, with the rest less so. In invited talks on climate change to sixth formers at local secondary schools, the perspective of changing values has been effectively included at the end of presentations of scientific information.

Another idea has been to undertake training in Joanna Macy’s workshops on ‘The Work that Reconnects’ with a view to offering it to those who have pledged to Value Life Itself Above All Else !!!, and to others. Offering ‘The Work that Reconnects’ has the great advantage of it already being dedicated to the Great Turning from the Industrial Growth Society to a Life-sustaining one.

These are admittedly small-scale directives, which are not commensurate with the urgency of the problem on both a pragmatic and deeper level. Even among our own members, calls are made for more tangible, practical things that people can do, with some believing that changing people's attitudes and values is pointless unless it is translated into a change in behaviour. However, a change in values will always lead to a change in behaviour, and by changing our being we automatically change our doing. Focusing upon practical action alone is an incomplete solution as without a change in the underlying feeling and motive, it is difficult to sustain.

The question still remains, however. How to get people to change their values and not just their behaviour? I am not convinced that ‘getting people to do things’ is the right approach - except under emergency conditions which presupposes a benign and enlightened dictatorship. To inspire people to reflect on their priorities and then change them conveys an alternative paradigm for action, although to be truly effective required on a large scale in order to effect a major cultural shift. How to bring that about is the next question.

This point was debated in a recent Save our World meeting, which suggests that one way might be to mount a series of public debates on taking practical and deeper action.

This is all ‘work in progress’. However, the following are more general responses that can be  made to taking action at a deeper level: