 |
| Clouds over Mexico (photograph from Wikimedia) |
They are rwo separate things, sayCLIMATE CHANGE campaigners. Weather is temporary, what you experience when you walk out the door. Climate, on the other hand, is more permanent, and affects us all, As Britain is engulfed by one heat wave after another and both France and Spain are experiencing devastating wildfires “‘the worst crisis that France has experienced since the second world war” according to Emmanuel Macron, the French President.
Even allowing for the usual politician’s tendency to exaggerate, it is surely undeniable that there is a relationship between the two. Surely we cannot deny that our climate is changing and we are facing the consequences of human activity in a planet that feels increasingly heated. As a matter of fact, I do not use the words ‘climate crisis’ to describe it. A crisis is something that affects you immediately and urgently. Global warming is more gradual/
That does not mean it is not happening and should be ignored, as conservative leaders seem increasingly to suggest. President Trump, that arch climate-change denier, describes global warming as “the biggest con people have been subjected to in history”. That is not an exact quotation but there s no doubt that Trump does not believe in the idea. Just look at the evidence, I say, and stop turning away from the evidence.
The trouble with global warming is that there is little the individual can do about it on his or her own. I realise that, by joining the tourist business, I have been encouraging people to dig into the ground, find some black stuff – coal or oil, usually – and start burning it to make their travel plans easier to realise. It is too late to change now and I support attempts to move away from petrol, diesel and other forms of fuel that come out of the ground.
The problem is making a living, to put it bluntly. A man and a woman’s primary responsibility is to support his or her family and failure to do so (ie relying on benefits and other hand-outs) does not cut the mustard, a phrase originating in late nineteenth century America, apparently, and popularised by the now-neglected writer of short stories O Henry. How can you support a family and not contribute to global warming is the dilemma facing many of us.
Of course, there is work going on that convinces is that net-zero is the way forward both economically and socially. Making climate friendly progress is all very well, however, but in practice it means deciding, ‘Can we afford an electric car, now?’ In fact, dumping your gas-guzzler and going for a new electric car may not be such a good idea as it uses a lot of carbon dioxide to produce a new car, so changing it frequently may not be a good idea.
What people need is a list of ‘things to do to combat climate change’ instead of a lot of hand-wringing about how awful things are. Short, sharp practical advice on what an ordinary person with a living to earn and a family to support can do to help the situation and try at least to make a difference. First, of course, we have to convince the doubters that something has to be done. Which may be more difficult than we imagine.
You should never underestimate the power of self-delusion. People like the idea that they can see a happy ending at the end of the story. This, incidentally, is why film producers insist on happy endings – they want people to leave the cinema with the feeling that everything will be alright in the end, even if that means a miraculous escape from seemingly fatal wounds. It also explains why bad guys can never shoot straight
People don’t like bad news and will do anything to avoid it, including blocking their ears. They respond to people like Donald Trump, who swamp them with good news, and tell them that jobs in traditional heat-producing industries are safe and they had better be ready to work their socks off because people will always want electricity, right? The message of the need to work hard is actually quite welcome because people like to be employed.
They may buy tickets to the lottery to avoid work but given the choice between working and being unemployed the majority of people will choose work. The problem is ensuring they have jobs but that these jobs do not contribute to global warming. Some hope. The health of the planet is usually well down the list of things that affect the decision of whether to take a job or not. People theoretically think that it is important. In practice, they just want a job.
Is making a living automatically a way of heating the planet some more? Not necessarily but it often is. There is a role for government here, who can bring a more long term view of the situation into play. Capitalism cannot be expected to take a long-term view. It is concerned solely with the bottom line, ie making a profit, and the long-term future is something that others can worry about.
Those ‘others’ are, of course, our politicians. They may be widely despised but they are voted in every five years or so to take a longer-term view than the bottom-liners. We get the politicians we deserve when we vote. Some of them are in politics to look after themselves and some of them are in because of their conscience. All of them hold our long-term future in their hands, however. The question is, can they act fast enough to save us?
Edwin Lerner (My other blog is diaryofatouristguide,blogspot,com)
