Reframing climate action: from sacrifice to liberation

 

Picture source: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday-and-the-new-york-times/story-18615.html

By Harald Desing

Most people still perceive climate action as sacrifice: Giving up owning a car, reducing meat consumption or not being able to operate devices whenever it pleases. Therefore, we call for technological innovations to fix the climate. If only technology would be available to reduce energy demand while increasing comfort, convenience and fun: change would be easy. The world is waiting for self-driving, electric cars to replace individual fossil car ownership, artificial meat or substitutes to provide the same "meat experience" while avoiding animal farming, or "smart" devices optimizing energy use while anticipating our desires. Increasing convenience while saving the world – sounds good, at least as a marketing strategy.

The promise of progress, convenience and physical abundance has led to the emergence of technology and their wide spread adoption, which brought us precisely into the multiple environmental crises we are trying to solve now. Considering that more of it, just "greener", would solve this problem is simply naive. Any more growth in energy demand on a global scale will make it more difficult to transition. The top one percent of the world's population is responsible for 175 times the carbon emissions (and thus energy demand) of the poorest 10% – raising the energy demand of the remaining 99% to this level is simply impossible on our finite planet. Keeping up this staggering inequality is morally unjustifiable. It is thus inevitable to reduce consumption of the rich and affluent; those having a car, large homes, high meat consumption and many gadgets. At the same time, they are also those who are most hesitant to sacrifice their acquired luxury for the common good.

As long as a climate action is perceived a sacrifice, it is unlikely to happen. Therefore, I think we need to reframe climate action as a liberation of the stress and pressure of modern society. Consider the advantages of giving up your own car: it frees time you spend driving, searching for parking, maintaining, and working to afford it. Mobility will have to be reduced and wisely chosen, both of which comes naturally when switching to public transport. When necessary, nothing speaks against renting a car for those few occasions. Going by car is about 1000 times more dangerous than taking a train, thus public transit is not only less energy intensive, but also much safer. Traveling without aircraft for longer distances is necessarily slower and thus richer in experience, so travels will be less frequent but more consciously chosen and more memorable. Eating vegetarian or vegan actually enriches the menu and it is healthier. Deficiencies are not a problem when eating consciously, which has the additional benefits of valuing food more, paying more attention to local and organic sourcing and avoiding food waste. Living in a small space reduces not only the energy and material demand for heating, lighting and construction, but also the time you need to spend maintaining and tidying up. It furthermore prevents overconsumption, because little space cannot hold unnecessary and useless stuff. Would we make rational decisions and maintain a long-term focus, all of this would come naturally with minimizing costs and maximizing utility.

But we don't. Marketing has genius tools to manipulate human desires making one buy what one does not need or can't even afford. Individual decisions are more based on feelings and social dynamics, maximizing reward rather than wellbeing.

Just imagine we could use marketing tools for the opposite purpose: making it attractive to give up what we actually do not need and simplify and reduce energy demand and material consumption, while freeing up time and space for collaboration and community. Reverse marketing could become an essential ingredient for achieving an equitable and sustainable world.

The Miracle of Renewables

 

This is the translation (slightly retouched) of an article that I published in the Italian Newspaper "Il Fatto Quotidiano." Apart from a few insults from the usual people, it was a remarkable success. I had many favorable comments, personal contacts, and question on how to move on, in practice, to install renewable plants and produce energy. 

From "Il Fatto Quotidiano" Oct, 8, 2022 

By Ugo Bardi 

We all know that miracles are not so common and, if you have a major health problem, it is not likely that a little swim in the pool at Lourdes will be enough to solve it. However, it is also true that sometimes things change quickly, opening up new possibilities. That is what is happening with renewable energy. To speak of a "miracle" is too much, I know, but recent developments in technology have made available to us a tool that until a few years ago we did not even dream of having. And this may solve problems that once seemed unsolvable.

For years, I went around lecturing about climate change and other troubles ahead, pollution, oil depletion and the like. Usually, those who attended the lectures were people who were prepared for a not-so-optimistic message, but the problem was what to do about it. At the end of the lecture, a debate would follow in which the same things were said over and over again: riding a bicycle, lowering the thermostat in the house, putting double-paned glasses on the windows, using energy-efficient light bulbs, things like that.  

It was a small reassuring ritual but, in practice, everyone knew that these were not real solutions. It's not that these things don't do any good, but they are mostly the spraying of a little green paint on a system that continues to depend on fossil fuels to function. Thus, we have been talking about double glazing and bicycles for at least 20 years, but CO2 emissions continue to rise as before, in fact, faster. Unless we get to the heart of the problem, eliminating fossil fuels, we aren't going anywhere. But how to do it? Until a few years ago, it seemed that there was no way except to go back to tilling the fields as our ancestors did during the Middle Ages. 

But today things have changed dramatically. You probably haven't noticed, caught up in the election debate. But whether the right or the left wins, it changes little: change, the real kind, is coming with renewable technologies. Wind and photovoltaic plants have been optimized, and factors of scale have generated massive production cost savings. Today, a kilowatt-hour produced by a photovoltaic panel costs perhaps a factor of ten less than the kilowatt-hour from natural gas (and also a fifth of the nuclear kilowatt-hour). We used to call renewable energy "alternative," but today it is all the others that are "alternative." Moreover, producing energy with renewable plants does not pollute, does not require non-recyclable materials, does not generate greenhouse gases, is not susceptible to penalties, and no one can bomb the sun to leave us without power. 

Now, don't make me say that renewables have automatically solved all the problems. It is true that they are cheap today, but it is also true that they are not free. Then, it takes investment to adapt the energy infrastructure across the country, create energy storage systems, and much more.  These are not things that can be done in a month, or even in a few years. We are talking about a decade, at a minimum, to get to an energy system based primarily on renewables. But it is also true that every journey begins with the first step. And now we see before us a road ahead. A road that leads us to a cleaner, more prosperous, and hopefully less violent world. 

I haven't stopped going around lecturing but, now, I can propose real solutions. And it is not just me who has realized the change. In the debate, today you can hear the enthusiasm that we can do something concrete. Many people ask if they can install photovoltaic panels at home. Others tell of having already done so. Some are mad (rightly so) at the bureaucracy that prevents them from installing PV panels on their roof or in their backyard. You also see the change in the discussions on social media. There is always someone who speaks against renewables by reasoning like the medieval flagellants who went around shouting "rememberthe  you must die." But there are also those who respond to them in kind, like, "so go ahead and live happily in your grotto with the other cavemen." 

If you have a south-facing balcony (and if your municipality doesn't get in your way), you can already install photovoltaic panels hanging from the railing that will help reduce your electricity bill. One little piece at a time, we will succeed!

Hating Renewable Energy: Something Went Wrong with People's Heads

 

I recently published a post on the current troubles with the supply of energy to Europe on my blog "The Seneca Effect." The post went viral, a little, and had more than 10,000 visualizations according to "Google Analytics." Most commenters agreed with my interpretation of the current political and strategic situation, but I also received a side stream of insults by people who, for some reason, objected to my statement that renewables are "much cheaper than fossil fuels and capable of replacing them." 

The commenter above said that I am a "complete clueless moron," another one said that I suffer of ignorant bias & agenda, others that I am in the payroll of the WEF, and another one asked "did they accept your application? How many virgins do you get?"

You can take these insults in stride, in a sense they are funny. But the Web is a garden of poisoned mushrooms and it takes little to become the target of a coordinated mobbing action, just like it happened recently to Prof. Desmet, in part with the same accusation, that is of belonging to the WEF.

Now, I understand that some subjects are politically charged, such as Covid vaccines, especially if they are supposed to be mandatory. And I understand that people feel hurt at what they see as an unacceptable intrusion of the state in their private sphere, and because of that, they will react strongly. Without going to the extreme of saying that vaccines are bioweapons designed to kill us, I agree with the idea that they should NOT be mandatory.

But, in this case, come on! All I said is that at present renewables are considerably less expensive than fossil fuels (and of nuclear energy, too). And I base this statement on the available data. You don't believe the data? Fine, then produce different data, but don't just react with insults. And don't react by linking to data that are, by now, obsolete. Most of the criticism against renewable energy is based on data that are decades old, often going back to the last century. 

On the basis of this, I think it IS possible to rebuild a functioning society based on renewables producing energy flows of the same order of magnitude as the present production (I recently coauthored a paper on this subject). I may be wrong, sure, and obviously it is not something we can do in a short time. It will take decades, at least. But I don't see why people should get mad at the idea that renewables can help us a lot in this difficult moment. Looks like you try to save someone who's drowning, and he refuses to touch your extended hand because you didn't disinfect it against viruses. 

So, what goes wrong inside people's heads? I think I should ask to my friend Chuck Pezeshky, an expert on empathy and how people deal with each other. Maybe he could write a post on his blog on this subject -- and I think he should. But, no matter what we say or do, I am afraid that plenty of people will keep insulting those who promote renewable energy. As long as they limit themselves to written insults, it is fine, but..............