15 October 2018
[Image Source:
www.polyp.org.uk]
So I have been trying to fly less, and when I
do fly, I try and fly as direct as possible. You would think that this would be
cheaper given that I am using less fuel and burning less carbon. Especially
when we as a global community have decided to reduce carbon emissions to such
an extent that we do not burn our planet. You would think that using more
fossil fuel would come at a higher and higher price. So I tried to book a
ticket with my travel agent to Europe where I am piggy-backing a few meetings,
including in Geneva, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam. So, here I thought, if I fly KLM
to Amsterdam from Windhoek, then I will do the train for the inter-country
travel in Europe, to save on emissions. Turns out, that the direct return
flight to Amsterdam from Windhoek is more expensive (by a few grand) than if I
buy the same ticket but it includes various internal flights. So, to get this
straight, having more flights tacked on to this return flight actually makes it
cheaper. In this case then if I choose the train option, not only am I paying
more for only one return flight, but on top of this I would have to still buy
my train tickets. I share this because given our current global situation it is
beyond ridiculous that we live in an economic system where you are STILL
financially incentivized to pollute and destroy life on Earth.
Last week, the
IPPC's 2018 climate change report came out on how far we have come since
our Paris agreement in 2015, and how to protect human civilization by limiting
warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius, which is more stringent than the current 2
degree target. Just to share with you the difference between 1.5 and 2 degree
warming: coral reefs, for instance, would decline by 70-90% with global warming
of 1.5, whereas virtually all would be lost with 2 degrees. In fact, we would
overall see fewer life-threatening heat, drought and precipitation extremes,
less sea level rise, and fewer species lost. Remember, it is all connected, so
the knock-on effect would be insurmountable if we even do the bare minimum 2
degrees.
To limit to 1.5 degree warming, our countries would need to reduce carbon
emissions faster than we have ever achieved. We would need to (urgently) spread
the world's best climate practices globally - like changing from cars to well
designed public transport systems (like many European countries), good energy
efficiency (like in California), vegetarianism (particularly where veggies and
crops can grow easily, like in India), land protection in Costa Rica, and
bicycle use in Netherlands or Denmark.
Most importantly, if we, along with the existence of most other species that
have evolved with us, want to continue existing, all the coal and oil still in
the ground, would have to be left in the ground.
And while the air would be cleaner and we would be insurmountably more healthy
than we are now, we would have already squandered opportunities for change when
profit-driven arguments over the past four decades meant that we have already
reached a tipping point - so we will see some devastating climate change now
either way for the next decades because the feedback system is so delayed. But
it will be hella better than what might happen if we do not change asap.
In 1972, a computer model called World3 that was developed by top MIT systems
scientists, predicted that if we continued with population and industrial
growth as we have for decades, that human civilisation would collapse by 2040,
with the tipping point being in 2020. The work was published in
The Limits to Growth. According to the book, "at around
2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly critical. I we do nothing
about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so serious
it will start to kill people." [note on update here: it already has...with
7 million people a year already dying of air pollution...and this is nothing
compared to what could come].
If we are incapable of even pricing carbon right, then what hope do we have?
And it is so simple. Yes, we will have to make to make some big changes. The
SDGs don't talk about radical transformation for nothing. But it is so
possible. And if we did it, more of us would lead a quality life. Isn't that
alone worth doing something? What is happening now, is that there is global
elite capture at the cost of the 99% of humanity, and 90% of other life. Why
have we accepted this? Why are we okay with a system that is turning our world
into a place where our children and grandchildren will not be able to survive?
Why can we not instead change the system to one that turns our world in which
we, and our children, can thrive?
Why do we incentivize bad economic policy, and disincentivize economic policy
that would create a better world for us all? Why subsidize fossil fuels instead
of taxing them? We need to be paying for the real cost of things, and not
ignoring the hidden cost. We could be building our transport system in such a
way where we eliminate not only pollution, but we also eliminate traffic
congestion, vehicle accidents, noise pollution, space pollution (you know how
much space our cars take up in a city with too little housing - your car has
more housing space than the average Namibian!), stress, anxiety, mistrust. I
could go on. Just by changing the transport system alone. But instead we
continue investing in big highways for big cars and trucks, and continue selling
big cars that pollute our ears, our minds, our air.
Those of us who have been shouting and screaming for humanity to change course
cannot shout any louder. As global scientists published in their paper last
year, a desperate plea "
A second warning to humanity", we are on our last. We are actually
past our last warning, because we have already hit various tipping points of no
return, but we can still create a better society. It is possible. If we do not,
if we carry on as normal, we will have no excuse when the water does not run
out of our taps anymore, when our topsoil is gone, when our economies
completely collapse, when dust comes instead of rain, when most of us die of
sickness and hunger. We will only be able to blame ourselves. And our children
and grandchildren will blame us too. And we will have to tell them that we knew
what was coming, the solution was simple and achievable, but instead, we did
nothing. We did nothing, because we decided to risk our planet for a few years
of profit that most of us never even saw.
[This Weekly got some airtime - watch the
MYD show interview!]
