A Stranger Knocks On Your Door, Asking For Your Thoughts on The Climate Situation
Do you shut the door, or do you tell them the status quo has to go?
Dear Human of Planet Earth,
Recently, I met a door knocker from Extinction Rebellion at a Zoom meeting - not on my doorstep.
As part of XR’s 3.5 project, he’s been knocking in his local area and asking people what they think and feel about the climate situation - and if they think their government is doing enough.
If you think people shut the door on him you’re wrong. People have a lot to say to him - and many tell him they’re worried.
What would happen if I ask people climate questions, they aren’t expecting? Once I clear some time in my weekly calendar to join XR 3.5 myself, I’ll be doing exactly that.
But in the meantime, I tested the waters.
The next day I popped the question to a beauty therapist in her mid-twenties. We are strangers to each other. Right now I can’t conjure a clear image of her face, nor do I know her name.
Now the beauty therapist was surprised by my question - but once she recovered from her surprise she dived in and got into full flow. I didn’t have to prompt or lead. She talked about how temperatures in her native Poland have increased since she was a child. She talked about ocean plastic and how distressing it is to think of the many parts of the world where people still use plastic bags freely, instead of longlife re-usable bags. She was intense and animated. I’m not sure we got away from the subject before my waxing was over!
The next day I asked my osteopath, a youthful-looking fellow in his mid-forties. He immediately began to talk about his car usage, and we chatted about the conflict between taking the bus or walking - and saving time by driving. Should we be inefficient in our daily lives, if it means reducing emissions?
[The short answer is ‘Of course!’ but our social programming is to despise inefficiencies, to squeeze the most out of every day. Embracing a slower lifestyle is literally a paradigm shift!]
Are you curious about Extinction Rebellion’s 3.5 programme? Find out more here. Who knows, maybe you’ll be door-knocking soon too! And if you’re Croydon based, I might see you on the Croydonian XR 3.5 team!
What if we prioritised the Climate Emergency as the emergency it is?
Two evenings ago the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society had a debate on the motion: “Global Warming and its impact on humanity should be prioritised over all other things.”
There were two debaters.
I arrived too late to hear the first presentation. I know the first speaker argued with the motion, on the basis that not addressing the climate emergency as a top priority will ultimately make all our other problems worse.
The second argued we ought not prioritise global warming above all else because this would be excessively disruptive. He argued we should let market forces take the lead, and trust that research and innovation will solve global warming over time.
That argument sets off alarm bells in my head.
That’s what some of the people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire did. They stayed put and trusted that the advice from the Fire Service was trustworthy, that protective mechanisms would kick in. But the safety mechanisms were broken. The building’s cladding was a mega fire hazard. I would argue that putting profit before caution is one of the roots of the inertia we’ve had around climate change for decades. Can we really trust the system that’s part of the problem to deliver us?
When those of us attending were given five minutes each to contribute to the discussion, the strength of feeling in our contributions was palpable.
There is a narrative that argues the over 60’s care less about the climate situation than the under 30’s. Maybe that’s true statistically. But at the small gathering of the Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society, we were all over 30 and most of us over 60. And we all cared passionately.
What did we have to say though? Here’s a rough summary of the views expressed, in no particular order.
The pessimist: We should have heeded the warnings about global warming decades ago but we’ve left it too late. I feel sorry for future generations.
The optimist: Let’s have hope, because consider how many doom and gloom predictions of past decades didn’t come true! We worried about exponential population growth, the ozone layer and being unable to feed future populations - but technology has come through for us every time!
We can’t trust the markets because markets run on greed and ultimately care nothing for whatever stands in their way - even the risk of climate catastrophe.
We can trust markets to solve the climate crisis.
Markets can be part of the solution but change needs to be managed - and therefore not left to unfettered markets.
We need joined-up thinking and collaboration on an international scale.
Governments will never discomfort their electorate and therefore cannot be trusted to lead on changes required.
Most people care about surviving day by day.
Failure to address the climate emergency will lead to the breakdown of civilisation, as individuals fight each other for day-to-day survival in a world of water shortages, crop failures and catastrophic weather.
Radical action is required but to achieve this with the agreement of populations, they need to recognise the need for radical action.
Radical action such as immediate cessation of using oil and gas, including use of cars and airplanes will lead to a collapse in society. People would die of cold, starvation and heat stroke. We’d have a habitable planet but fewer people to live on it.
Climate action needs to be managed in such a way that it benefits society and the benefits are clear to society.
We’ve already on track for 1.5 deg C planetary warming and may need to accept that some low-lying areas eg the Maldives and parts of Bangladesh will be lost. How can we save as many people as possible?
Green Party voices say some crazy things. They aren’t a credible party.
The Green Party would get more votes if we had proportional representation. [The four women in the room pointed out that they sympathise with The Green Party, vote for them, or would do so if the First Past The Post System didn’t stand in their way]
Individual actions, including their impact on the market, won’t go far enough fast enough.
What is required is focus, co-operation and collaboration on a scale humans have never tried before, far less governments.
The way markets work needs to be reformed. But in a manner that’s thought through and agreed on, to avoid collapse and chaos.
The impact of food, water and energy shortages on populations includes civil war.
If our sitting government was addressing the climate problem in a manner commensurate with the gargantuan size of the problem, their policies and plans would be proudly told to us and our confidence and morale around our country’s tackling of the climate emergency would be sky-high. Instead, all we hear about is the progress on renewables and there’s so much more to be done.
Insulating Britain’s heat-leaky buildings rapidly is economically and logistically impossible.
So I’ve shared with you 21 points, offered by seven people in a lively and respectful discussion.
What the seven of us have in common with each other, and millions around the world, is a readiness for policy-making that will take us off the path to a climate so unstable, that our existence is threatened.
Now one of the obstacles in problem-solving is that the status quo always rears its head. That was well illustrated within those 21 views listed. Seth Godin wrote about the tension between problem-solving and the status quo in his blog just this week:
Once we agree that we have a problem, the status quo will show up. It will argue with every tool it has that any variation from the current path is too risky, too expensive and too painful to consider. The status quo will stall. It will argue for studies and will amplify the pain that will be caused to some as we try to make things better for everyone.
And the status quo usually wins. That’s because the makers of change are now playing defense, forced to justify every choice and ameliorate every inconvenience.
Perhaps there’s a more useful way forward.
We begin by agreeing that there’s a problem.
And then each party, every single one, needs to put forward a plan. A plan that either addresses the problem or takes responsibility for not addressing it.
And for each plan, we can consider the likely outcomes. For each plan, we can ask, “will that work?” and follow it up with, “why?” and “how?”
What would you say if I knocked on your door and asked you:
What do you think of our climate situation?
Is your government doing enough to address the climate emergency?
Should it be our number one priority?
What would effective prioritisation of the climate emergency look like?
You know what my answers to Q1-3 are.
The more interesting question is No.4.
Can we envision a world working collaboratively, with focus and imagination, prioritising the climate emergency?
What do you think that would look like? What aspects of the status quo would have to go?
Some terms used in my 21-point summary are my interpretations. Nobody except me directly used terms such as ‘radical action,’ ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate action’ at the Debating Society meeting. Sharing the views and concerns expressed is not an endorsement.
With Love,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Radical,
Croydon,
London,
That patch of earth known today as the United Kingdom
Lat +51.51 Long, -0.118