III. “Time to act” – Here is what we need to do to reverse #climatechange

This is the third perspective on the #climatedilemma which was developed during a workshop conducted by #TheDive.com in March 2020 in Berlin. Please also look at the other articles posted on LinkedIn so far:

I. “It`s a fact” - The Scientific Perspective on #Climatechange (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/fight-flight-freeze-eight-perspectives-tim-riedel/)

II. “It scares me” – Between #climatefear and #climatehysteria (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/ii-scares-me-between-climatefear-climatehysteria-tim-riedel/)

What do we have to do to reverse #globalwarming and to save the planet, or rather: to save the human species? In order to do that, we looked at the specific agenda for #climateprotection as expressed by organizations like #Greenpeace, the #WWF, #ExtinctionRebellion, #fridaysforfuture, the #sunrisemovement, #worldwarzero, the German #BUND or #GermanZero. In addition, we also reviewed more comprehensive approaches to solving the #climatecrisis by addressing the growth-orientation and the exploitative nature of our economic systems, as expressed e.g. by authors like #KateRaworth, #MajaG?pel or #TimJackson. 

2. What is their claim?

Technically speaking, solving the climate crisis is not all that complicated. We have to do two things:

1. Stop emitting any further #greenhousgases

2. Removing the already emitted greenhousgases from the atmosphere

As we can see from the chart at the beginning of this article, provided by the #energywatchgroup, Aspect 1 (stop emitting) mainly involves replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy, which make up 55% of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (CO2 and methane).

The other 45% of GHG are accounted for primarily through live stock (methane) and related changes in land use (a euphemism for deforestation and other ways of destroying natural habitat, releasing CO2) mainly for the meat and dairy production, making up 21% of all GHG emissions. On top we have methane emissions from waste and sewage treatment (8%), CO2 from producing plastics and cement (5%), methane from rice cultivation (5%), nitrous oxide (mainly from artificial fertilizers and livestock manure) making up 4%, and fluorinated gases (2%).

So if we stop (or at least heavily reduce) burning fossil fuels, eating meat and drinking milk, we should be safe. Improving rice cultivation, building materials, plastics and fertilizers will provide us with the remaining savings in #greenhousegas emissions.

When it comes to Aspect 2 of removing existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, methane is the most difficult to tackle. But there are bacteria (methanotrophs) that can help us solve the problem to some extent. In addition, most of this gas remains in the atmosphere only for about 10 years until it dissolves into Carbon Dioxide, so if we manage to stop emitting it quickly, removal is not that crucial. Retrieving Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, on the other hand, can be achieved through technical applications, but they require a lot of energy and have by no means achieved any relevant dimensions yet to reduce sufficient quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. In contrast, storing CO2 in natural processes (so called Carbon Sequestration) can be achieved quite easily by growing plants (trees, seaweed, baboon, hemp, etc..), which can then possibly be left alone or used as building material. More importantly even, recultivating soils and wetlands can help to capture enormous quantities of Carbon Dioxide, while at the same time reviving the habitats of insects, wildlife and plants which are crucial to human survival in the future.

The organization #ProjectDrawdown (drawdown.org) has described a large number of projects how CO2 can be recaptured organically by nature, counting 379 Gigatons (billion tons) of CO2 (32% of our total global CO2 emissions in the atmosphere ever through fossil fuels) which can be removed from the atmosphere until 2050. The #trilliontrees project envisions to remove up to 205 Gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere. The #4p1000 initiative aims to improve the soil quality throughout the globe by a 4/1000 increase of its carbon content every year, thereby absorbing the equivalent of 13,4 Gt CO2 from the atmosphere annually.

Taking into consideration that currently up to 20 Gt of our anthropogenic CO2 are stored naturally already in our forests, soils, wetlands and oceans every year anyway, it is not impossible to believe that we could theoretically bring our climate back down again some day.

Can we really achieve that? With regard to Aspect 1, if we increased the amount of wind and photovoltaic power generation facilities (which produced 1,787 tw/h of energy in 2018 according to IEA) by 30% each year, we would reach the necessary amount of total net energy consumed by all sources in 2018 (which was the equivalent of 116,000 tw/h) by the year 2035 already. In fact, global photovoltaic power generation did increase capacities by 300% between 2014 and 2018, while the total wind installations grew by 60% in that period. On top of that, if we look at a global manufacturer like Bosch, which plans to save 1,3 tw/h of energy within the next 10 years, just this one large company, then it becomes apparent that we may not even need to install this large amount of renewable energy.

Apart from that, the second largest contributor to #globalheating is the global meat and dairy production, which we can eliminate (or drastically reduce) just by making a choice and switching to a plant based diet. Summing up, reaching climate neutrality on a global scale is perfectly doable.

Of course, some applications like long distance cargo transport, aviation or steel & cement production are more challenging to transform into a carbon neutral technology than others. But by shifting to hydrogen-based power sources (with the hydrogen being produced from renewable energy), these challenges can be overcome, as is true for other problems like grid-stability, power distribution networks, energy storage, alternative building materials, or the like.

In addition, producing renewable energy has in the meantime become as cheap, or even cheaper than fossil based energy, as we can see from the chart of the International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA) below. Without taking any of the external damage to the environment into consideration (which of course would heavily favor renewable energy), the cost-range of all sources in 2020 is between 5 and 18 US-Cent per kw/h, with PV and Onshore Wind getting as low as 3 Cent by now. Hence it will not even be a cost driver to switch to a renewable energy supply. The only reason we will still need to put a substantial tax on CO2 is because we have to finance the installation of the necessary infrastructure within a very short time frame, and we have to drive fossil based energy supplies out of the market a lot more rapidly than it would otherwise happen anyway.

Surely, though, reality looks a little different. In 2018, the complete expansion of global renewable energy capacities according to the International Energy Agency (#IEA) did not even fully cover the growing energy demand of the world; especially gas and oil consumption also rose by 4.6% and 1.3%, respectively. The total CO2 emissions from primary energy demand globally increased by 1.7%. The expected further increase of wind power capacities within the coming 5 years (pre Covid-19) is 4% annually, while the PV industry indeed believes a further growth of 30% each year to be possible.

The UNEP Production Gap Report sees the world planning to produce 50% more fossil fuels by 2030 than would be consistent with a 2oC target and 120% more than would be consistent with a 1.5oC pathway. At the same time, according to a 2019 IMF study, governments across the globe are still subsidizing their fossil industries by not pricing air pollution and other environmental damages with an unbelievable amount of 5.2 trillion US$ every year. The German Environmental Agency UBA calculated the direct subsidies and tax relieves for fossil based technologies in Germany (external environmental damages not included) to be at around 50 bio EUR in 2012, with no significant changes since.

The average meat production has grown by more than 50% within the last 20 years, and there is no evidence in sight that this trend may be considerably reversed in the near future.

The global aviation industry looks forward to double the total passenger kilometers by airplane within the coming 15 years.

From 2001 to 2018, according to #globalforestwatch, there was a total of 361Mha of tree cover loss globally, equivalent to a 9.0% decrease in tree cover since 2000 and 98.7Gt of CO? emissions. This meant 36 football fields’ worth of trees were lost every minute due to deforestation. 2016 – 2018 were the three years with the highest rate of deforestation in history.

Summarizing these findings, theoretically it is still highly possible to reverse #globalwarming. If we decided to direct our economies, our political frameworks and our individual behaviors with more determination towards more sustainability, if we invested our time and energy towards saving the life of our planet instead of further exploiting and destroying it, then we could still do it. In practice, however, it will be difficult.

This discouraging conclusion then points to the second line of thinking in #climateactivism, which is more fundamental and more comprehensive in its analysis of the problem and in its solution. This argumentation, as laid out by writers like #KateRaworth, #MajaG?pel, #TimJackson, #RichardDouthwaite, #ChristianFelber, #NaomiKlein, the #clubofrome, advocators of the #greennewdeal, and many others, claims that there is very little chance of preventing #climatecollapse within the exploitative logic of our current production and consumption systems. In their view, we have to break with the seemingly indisputable capitalistic logic of ongoing quantitative growth.

If we don’t realign our targets towards qualitative growth, so they say, replacing the GNP as the prime indicator for progress and prosperity, and if we don’t strive for a more sustainable way of producing, consuming, caring, and interacting in our societies in general, we will never be able to reverse #climatechange, or any other aspect of the destruction of our planet. It is essentially necessary to turn our economic system back to its feet, so that it serves life on the planet, and not the other way around.

In a very reduced and accentuated manner, their basic argument goes like this: Instead of spending all our time to invent, develop, produce, market and sell things that we don`t need, thereby destroying our planet, so that we can earn more money to buy more of those things that we don`t need, we should rather invest this time in something that makes more sense: Helping others, renaturating the environment, producing healthy food, bringing beauty into our lives and spending time with our loved ones.

Now this article is not the place, and I am not the expert to explain how such a new economic system may be set up precisely, and even less what a transformation towards this system might look like. I have some ideas, like replacing the GNP with more meaningful metrics of wellbeing, disconnecting earnings for a decent living from paid labour through a Universal Basic Income (#UBI), realigning our financial system, taxation and the distribution of wealth according away from just quantitative growth and towards the contribution to the common good, plus strong public investments in public, social and environmental infrastructures. But regardless of how this economic transformation can be designed and achieved in particular, it makes a lot of sense to me that we will ultimately not succeed to prevent the #climatecatastrophe without changing the inherently destructive incentives of our current economic framework.

2. What is their call for action?

Climate Activists basically demand the same as the scientists do, just from a different angle. While scientists claim to have assessed and described the problem, climate activists focus on the solutions. Their call for action: use them.

The main difference to science is therefore, that they are definitely not impartial. They have developed the solution, often they make a living of the solution, they are an interest group in the name of the solution. They are on one side of the table with their claim and their opinion. The fossil industry, the meat & dairy industry, industrial agriculture, aviation and most of tourism, the steel, the petrochemical, the automotive, the cement industry and all the others, they are on the other side.

We are in a negotiation setting. Their goals and interests against ours. Let`s use our money and our connections, our access to public opinion, let`s influence whom we can, and in the end find the best possible compromise – measure by our interest. It`s a power game. So let`s be strong and persuasive.

3. What is their underlying assumption?

The underlying assumptions of #climateaction, like in the other two perspectives analyzed so far, were the most tricky to identify. We came up with the following five:

a. Our solution is fundamental and necessary in order to protect our way of living.

b. This is a battle we have to win. A compromise will not do the trick.

c. There is no time, we have to be fast and determined.

d. We are afraid that people will resist change. We therefore argue – against our better knowledge - that everything can stay the same.

e. This is a defensive fight: We try to avoid something very negative.

4. What is their positive and encouraging impetus?

The stimulating essence of #climateactivism is straightforward: It is possible. It is really possible. We have the means and the solutions to do it, and those solutions are even technically and economically feasible without having to fall back to a standard of living of the 19th century. If we set our minds on it and pull everything together, we can do that.

5. What is their frustration potential, how do they draw from our sources of energy?

However, we are not doing it. The resistance, complacency and timidity of political decision makers is too strong, the lobbyists on the other side are too powerful, mainstream media and citizens are too shortsighted to see that we are not doing enough by far. It`s a fight against windmills. Why don`t the others see that we are heading to disaster, it cannot be more obvious? It is frustrating to fight this ongoing battle every day, and we are tired.

Summary

It was very rewarding to go into this position in such depth, especially including the deeper layers of this perspective. After having reviewed everything, it does not seem such a big surprise anymore that we, the #climateactivists (I consider myself part of them) are not making much progress in our cause. Our messages are not honest, they are separatist, and they are demotivating.

> They are not honest, since we cannot, and we should not want to maintain and preserve our current way of living. If we are successful, we will have less consumer electronics, far less meat and dairy products, less fashion, less travel, probably a bit less comfort, and general less products to choose from. The truth is, we should strive for something better than this. More nature, more social interaction, more time for ourselves and our friends and families, more animals, more sense and more fun.

> They are separatist, since we pretend that there are two sides to the problem. Those causing it, and those with the solution. We are opponents. But in fact we are all part of the problem, just as much as we are part of the solution. Instead of accusing each other of wanting and doing the wrong things, we should focus on the common goal. We should acknowledge that we are all part of the same system and that we are jointly creating and maintaining it every day. Our attention should shift to the values and objectives which we share, and look for ways how we can build on them together.

> They are demotivating, since they are built on our shortcomings and our fears. Whatever we do and however hard we try, it will never be enough. Whatever we try to avoid, we are already in the middle of it. We strive for the absence of something, that nobody knows what it will look like. If we happen to be successful by, let`s say, 40%, nobody will be able to notice, since it cannot be quantified. We cannot win in this fight.

After learning that, it becomes more obvious why the #fridaysforfuture movement has been so successful, and what we can learn from it. It is not because they are our kids and we listen to what our kids say; we don`t normally do that. The main reason is, because they represent our common goal, our common future. There is nothing ambiguous about them, they clearly show us something that is worth striving for: Them. And their message, since they are innocent of the mess we have created, is free from our separatism. They don`t pretend to have the solution. They don`t pretend that they are not part of the problem. They just want all of us to get together and to start acting. Seen that way, #fridaysforfuture should be proud and proactive about the fact, that they do not have a solution. Once they become too much involved in the solution, they will be swallowed by the climateactivist system and immediately lose their distinct power and effect.

What does that mean for our approach to #climateactivism?

1. We should do everything we can to overcome the dualist, separatist approach to the problem. We are causing this together, and we will only get out of this together. We have to be more comprehensive in acknowledging our interdependencies, and more creative in finding ways to change the whole system, not just symptoms.

2. We should more visibly and convincingly focus on the kind of life that we want to lead, the kind of world which we want to create. We need to have and to portray a more positive vision of our lives beyond the #climatecrisis, so that we can measure and celebrate the progress and successes we have on the road.

3. We should learn to listen better and to communicate at a deeper, more relevant level of our actions, our fears and our drivers. As we have learned from #fridaysforfuture: love is probably the only motivator powerful enough to really make us change our habits. We have to access our love a lot better in order to give more meaning and more power to our data and ideas.

All of the other perspectives we reviewed later in the workshop gave us further insights into what this approach could look like more specifically in practice.