Regularly, I find myself on Twitter or online fora debating with people who, for a variety of reasons, are deeply protective of the oil industry, particularly that of the Alberta tar sands. Almost invariably, they will start to attack my lifestyle, claiming that I use oil to drive my car or heat my house. When I point out that I drive very little and cycle to work, they tell me my cycling clothing and helmet are made of oil. One even called out the use of oil in my bicycle tires.
So, I'm here to come clean. I do use oil. Although I drive little (~5,000 kilometers annually for a family of 3), my minivan burns gas. Although my house is heated with hydroelectricity, the water heater is natural gas; because that's what was there when we bought the house. There is certainly oil in the synthetic materials used in my bicycle clothing and my shoes. Although I make an effort to buy locally, lots of things I use have been brought to my home by oil burning ships, trucks and trains. I've become aware they add plastics to t-shirts. I understand that some corporate sociopath decided to add microplastics to the liquid soap we use but it has since mercifully been banned. So, that's it. A full confession. I must be a raving hypocrite, right?
Well, not exactly. I try to live my life in a way that minimizes my usage of oil because I understand that scientists say that burning fossil fuels is the leading cause of climate change; and climate change will threaten civilization itself. So, I choose to cycle when I'd rather drive. And I take vacations close to home when airfare is so cheap it can literally be cheaper to fly across the planet. My next car will be smaller, possibly electric if I can afford it. And when my water heater dies, it will be replaced by an electric model, perhaps tankless. I would love to have solar panels, if I could afford them. And a heat pump.
However, any amount of personal choice and sacrifice is insignificant in a world of rampant oil use. That's why the most important choice I make has nothing to do with my lifestyle. I vote for the Green Party, the only Canadian political party that would make any meaningful moves to correct climate change. I support carbon taxes and higher individual taxes, if that's what it takes to save the planet. I even advocate online, debating with people who seem to be afraid of a world without oil.
Transition will be difficult but it can be done if the right changes are made and everyone participates. And it won't cost near as much as opponents fear. It isn't necessary to eliminate all oil but it is necessary to stop burning hydrocarbons for fuel.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Is Utopia Possible?
Recently, a Twitter acquaintance posted a link to a blog post with a rather nihilistic take on responses to climate change. It essentially claimed that solutions from capitalists, socialists, communists, liberals, individualists, radicals, and Malthusians were all useless; implying we have to throw away all preexisting ideologies and start from scratch.
For such a pessimistic view on the world, the reference to Malthus was particularly ironic. Of course, Thomas Malthus was the British economist who, in the period 1798-1830, proposed that expanding populations would quickly exhaust food supply. Malthus wasn't wrong, exactly, he just couldn't predict technological changes that would increase food supply or reduced population growth as the middle class emerged and children stopped being economic assets. No one can predict the future and the lesson we should take from Malthus is that no matter how bad things look now, they can turn around. There is nothing to be gained from panicking in a fit of apocalyptic despair.
All of the different world views in the first paragraph have strengths as well as weaknesses. It would be much more practical to accentuate the positive than to throw away everything.
Capitalism certainly has many sins to answer for but you can't deny the efficacy of small groups of independent entrepreneurs when it comes to generating ideas and launching concepts.
Socialism provides economic justice and ensures that all receive an opportunity to develop and grow as people wish.
Liberals bring a pragmatism and a passion for social justice.
Individuals can't change the world by themselves but nor will global solutions work unless individuals participate and make the necessary sacrifices.
Radicals are needed for their fresh thinking and fearlessness when it comes to challenging established norms.
As for Malthusians, Malthus was right. Population can't grow forever. The good news is that history shows most people choose to have smaller families; assuming children aren't economic assets and they have access to birth control.
Humans have evolved to the point where we are our own enemy. Most of the pressing problems we face, from climate change to wars, were created by us. As Einstein once said, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them". If we are going to survive as a species (at least while we have only one planet), we're going to need to change the relationships with our world and with each other.
We need to stop viewing the planet as simply a resource, vast and relatively impervious to our actions. We need to instead view it as a fragile web of interconnected systems. There needs to be a system of global caps on the resources we consume, the emissions we give off and the damage we inflict. An evidence-based scientific consensus should be developed and enforced. Increases in average standard of living are only provided through technological advances that reduce the impact of goods and activities. And the population needs to be stabilized. GDP becomes a quaint, obsolete concept.
At the same time, we have to stop seeing each other as enemies, competitors, and rivals. Instead, we are fellow travelers with a shared interest in peaceful coexistence. Resources are shared equitably among the world's people and the products of research are freely available to all. Quality healthcare and education are freely available to all.
How do we get there? Honestly, I don't know. I only know that we must find a way. Or today's Malthus might be proven right.
For such a pessimistic view on the world, the reference to Malthus was particularly ironic. Of course, Thomas Malthus was the British economist who, in the period 1798-1830, proposed that expanding populations would quickly exhaust food supply. Malthus wasn't wrong, exactly, he just couldn't predict technological changes that would increase food supply or reduced population growth as the middle class emerged and children stopped being economic assets. No one can predict the future and the lesson we should take from Malthus is that no matter how bad things look now, they can turn around. There is nothing to be gained from panicking in a fit of apocalyptic despair.
All of the different world views in the first paragraph have strengths as well as weaknesses. It would be much more practical to accentuate the positive than to throw away everything.
Capitalism certainly has many sins to answer for but you can't deny the efficacy of small groups of independent entrepreneurs when it comes to generating ideas and launching concepts.
Socialism provides economic justice and ensures that all receive an opportunity to develop and grow as people wish.
Liberals bring a pragmatism and a passion for social justice.
Individuals can't change the world by themselves but nor will global solutions work unless individuals participate and make the necessary sacrifices.
Radicals are needed for their fresh thinking and fearlessness when it comes to challenging established norms.
As for Malthusians, Malthus was right. Population can't grow forever. The good news is that history shows most people choose to have smaller families; assuming children aren't economic assets and they have access to birth control.
Humans have evolved to the point where we are our own enemy. Most of the pressing problems we face, from climate change to wars, were created by us. As Einstein once said, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them". If we are going to survive as a species (at least while we have only one planet), we're going to need to change the relationships with our world and with each other.
We need to stop viewing the planet as simply a resource, vast and relatively impervious to our actions. We need to instead view it as a fragile web of interconnected systems. There needs to be a system of global caps on the resources we consume, the emissions we give off and the damage we inflict. An evidence-based scientific consensus should be developed and enforced. Increases in average standard of living are only provided through technological advances that reduce the impact of goods and activities. And the population needs to be stabilized. GDP becomes a quaint, obsolete concept.
At the same time, we have to stop seeing each other as enemies, competitors, and rivals. Instead, we are fellow travelers with a shared interest in peaceful coexistence. Resources are shared equitably among the world's people and the products of research are freely available to all. Quality healthcare and education are freely available to all.
How do we get there? Honestly, I don't know. I only know that we must find a way. Or today's Malthus might be proven right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
