Activism Heats Up: A Proposed Solution to Global Warming
George Monbiot is the author of The Age of Consent, Captive State, and Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. He is also the winner of a UN Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. Rebecca Recant, a recent Peacework intern, interviewed him on May 8, 2007.
Full Article:
In August of 2006, Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth rocked the nation, bringing the issue of global warming to the forefront. But advocacy for the reversal of global warming did not stop there. As David Morris claims, "George Monbiot's new book Heat picks up where Al Gore left off, offering real solutions without sugar-coating the large personal sacrifices they will require."
Monbiot, a popular UK columnist and acclaimed environmental activist, writes "If in the year 2030, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere remain as high as they are today, the likely result is two degrees centigrade of warming. Two degrees is the point beyond which certain major ecosystems begin collapsing... Beyond this point, in other words, climate change is out of our hands: it will accelerate without our help." To mitigate global warming, Monbiot proposes a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030. In Heat, he devises a plan for action to achieve this necessary 90% reduction. Though the UK is his experimental subject, he claims that the model is "generally applicable almost anywhere."
What actions will be necessary to achieve a 90% reduction in global warming?
The first task is to recognize and accept the scale of the challenge. To prevent runaway climate change form taking place, we need to stop global temperatures from rising by 2°C above their pre-industrial level. Preventing 2°C of warming will mean cutting global emissions by 60% by 2030. If everyone is to have the same entitlement to use energy, this means a 90% cut for the rich nations. Within those nations, that cut should also be distributed equally. I think the best means of doing this is with a carbon rationing system. Everyone is given an equal entitlement. If you use more than your share, you can buy the surplus from people who use less.
A rationing system both encourages people to think about every decision they make in terms of its impact on climate change and provides a powerful incentive to switch to low-carbon technologies. If you want to keep the lights on without using up your ration, for example, you will have to switch to energy-efficient bulbs and to a supplier whose electricity comes from renewable power.
This is not to suggest that a carbon rationing system solves the whole problem: We also need government programs of investment in infrastructure which make it easier for us to do the right thing than the wrong thing, and support for those who cannot afford to make the more energy-efficient choices.
Are these measures politically and economically feasible?
I have demonstrated that it is technologically and economically possible. I have been through every major sector of the economy to show how a 90% cut can be made without causing a collapse in our quality of life. But I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible. There is a reason for this: it is not up to me to do so, it is up to you. In fighting climate change, we must fight not only the oil companies, the airlines, and the rich governments of the world; we must also fight ourselves.
How does the responsibility of the world's largest polluters differ from that of the rest of the world?
The US has two special responsibilities. The first arises from the fact that it produces a disproportionate share -- roughly 24% -- of the world's carbon emissions. The second special responsibility of the US arises from its extraordinary capacity to innovate. In 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US economy, following stiff government intervention, turned around on a dime. Motor manufacturers began producing fighter planes within 90 days. Just think how much faster a similar transformation could be today! Only the US can make this happen, and the rest of the world is waiting for it to join the struggle.
How do you propose we confront those who deny the impacts of global warming?
We must keep exposing both their false claims and their undeclared interests. Several websites are doing an excellent job is this respect. Realclimate.org, which is run by climate scientists, confronts bogus claims about climate science, while DeSmogBlog and Exxonsecrets.org reveal who is paying the people making these claims.
Not everyone who denies that human-made climate change is happening is being paid to do so, but those who are not paid invariably use arguments formulated and false facts disseminated by those who are.
What can we do as activists?
We must above all regard ourselves as citizens rather than consumers. We cannot solve the problem simply by buying better light bulbs or driving less. These actions become meaningful only when accompanied by collective action, which must be mandated by government. I know this is an unpopular message in the US, but nothing else is going to work.
Read more about Monbiot's approach to climate change in his new book, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. As Monbiot states, "The real inconvenient truth, which no legislator or former legislator will publicly acknowledge, is that even to attempt to reconcile the American way of life with the sustainability of the planet will require decisive actions and dramatic change. I have one purpose in writing this book: to persuade you that climate change is worth fighting… It is not -- as some people have claimed -- too late. I hope to prompt you not to lament our governments' failures to introduce the measures required to tackle it, but to force them to reverse their policies, by joining what must become the world's most powerful political movement."
