The Actors With Power
I. The Government
Almost all experts agree that governments—not individuals or private businesses—need to lead the fight against climate change. Accelerated technological progress and policy implementations are required to deliver emissions reductions at rates sufficiently fast to avoid crossing dangerous tipping points in the Earth’s climate system. Here are some of the policies that governments are using/could use for a greener transition.
Committing to and delivering on Climate Agreements
One of the most significant climate agreements in history, the Paris Agreement requires its almost two hundred signatories to set individual goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly every country in the world has signed on, and over sixty countries (including top emitters the United States and China) have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. Although participation in the voluntary agreement is near universal, experts believe countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough to meet the agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
Carbon taxes
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, pollute the atmosphere and change the climate. Carbon taxes attempt to minimize those emissions by requiring the largest greenhouse gas producers—for instance, coal-fired power plants—to pay for the damage they cause. By attaching fees to emissions, carbon taxes encourage people, businesses, and governments to emit less. Governments can use the revenue generated from these fees to pay for social programs, invest in clean energy, or lower taxes for the public. Today, more than forty countries have implemented a national carbon tax, including Sweden, Argentina, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and Ukraine.
Cap and trade
The term cap and trade refers to a government program designed to limit (or cap) private-sector greenhouse gas emissions. In cap and trade systems, governments allocate or sell a set number of permits, each of which represents the right to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases. If a company needs more permits to make its product, it has to trade with another company to buy them. So, as with a carbon tax, companies directly pay for their pollution. However, unlike carbon taxes, cap and trade programs ensure emissions in a city or country do not exceed a designated limit. Today, thirteen U.S. states, China, Mexico, and every country in the European Union have implemented cap and trade systems. But experts disagree on whether these policies are more effective than carbon taxes at limiting emissions.
Subsidy investments
Tax policies to Encourage industries, businesses and individuals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging individuals to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and driving cleaner vehicles.
Adaptation and resilience
Governments can institute adaptation policies aimed at making cities, states, and even countries less vulnerable to climate disasters. Adaptation policies range from creating evacuation plans to building roads and bridges that can withstand rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. Other measures including but not limited to providing access to cooling and heating to low income communities, flood prevention, reforestation and investing in coastal barriers to protect from storm surges.
Clean energy Investments
Rapid expansion of renewable power production, energy storage and transmission, carbon capture from power plants and factories, geoengineering projects aimed at carbon removal, investing in nuclear power production.
Bans
Some of the most effective bans include but not limited to ban polluting refrigerants, announce accelerated timelines for bans on gas powered vehicles, phase out coal, tax/ban single use plastics, deforestation/protected lands etc.
Policy Interventions to create social tipping points
1) removing fossil-fuel subsidies and incentivizing decentralized energy generation (energy production and storage systems), 2) building carbon-neutral cities (human settlements), 3) divesting from assets linked to fossil fuels (financial markets), 4) revealing the moral implications of fossil fuels (norms and value systems), 5) strengthening climate education and engagement (education system), and 6) disclosing information on greenhouse gas emissions (information feedbacks).
Source: CFR.org, PNAS – Social tipping dynamics
Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector. There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done.
Source: UNEP.org
In addition, there are independent organizations like Climate TRACE, which monitors and publishes real time greenhouse gas emissions. The group monitors sources such as coal mines and power station smokestacks worldwide, with satellite data and artificial intelligence.
“Nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, are plans submitted to the United Nations that outline how each country will contribute to the temperature goals of the Paris climate agreement. Together, they should add up to enough emissions cuts to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). As part of the Paris pledge, countries agreed to submit new plans every five years that would cut their emissions more than the plan preceding it. But in 2021, the first year such updates were due, some countries submitted targets that did nothing to limit their emissions. Others, like India, didn’t submit new plans at all. According to an assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme, the promises countries made to cut emissions by 2030 put the world on track for warming of at least 2.7 C. The Paris Agreement lacks a formal enforcement mechanism and doesn’t mandate how much individual countries should cut their emissions. Many countries are trying to balance their climate goals with energy security. That could leave the world to confront a situation later where some countries offer stronger commitments but together we fail to close the gap between where emissions are and where they need to be.”
Source: Countries Back Away from Pledge to Update Climate Goals This Year, Scientific American
Conflicting Policies: Governments across the world are still investing in power generation from coal and natural gas. Oil subsidies are still widely offered which makes greener alternatives less attractive while at the same time there is very little use of carbon taxes on fossil fuels.
Accountability: Rich nations such as the US and EU have historically been the beneficiaries of economic growth from fossil fuels while they have mostly outsourced their emissions to the developing nations. Developing nations want rich countries to support financially for historical climate reparations.
Collective action: Geopolitical tensions, nationalistic vision about growth and development is further limiting collaboration across countries. Combating climate change requires collective action on many fronts, and it requires collective action both nationally and internationally. But this is extremely difficult in democracies like the U.S., which face strong individualist traditions in the culture.
Complexity: Complexity is the death knell of many modern public policy problems and solutions. And complexity is inherent in climate change. The causes of global warming are varied, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. As the climate warms, it affects glaciers, sea levels, water supply, rainfall, evaporation, wind, and a host of other natural phenomenon that affect weather patterns. It is hard to see the connections between coal plants in one part of the world and hurricanes in another. Governments are still too slow to enforce sweeping policy changes to tackle the complex climate issue.
Source: Brookings.edu, Speed and scale
“Governments have not actively engaged their citizens in climate actions yet. Current strategies of rich countries tend to rely on innovation rather than transformative societal change. The public are encouraged to transition to greener technologies rather than being empowered to translate their climate concern into meaningful individual action. When initiatives to drive public engagement on climate change have happened, they have tended to focus only on the ‘win-wins’, such as recycling, subsidies to buy electric vehicles, and avoiding thornier but more impactful issues such as reducing meat and dairy consumption and air travel. Reducing demand and consumption is inherently conflicting to economic growth. The idea of rationing emissions to tackle climate change and level individual use of global resources is not new but it is challenging for those in rich countries. Global economic structures support unending growth, which currently, also promotes unending environmental degradation and climate change. Public concern about climate change is high in both rich and poor countries. As governments struggle to commit to, and plan, climate action, the climate crisis grows ever more urgent. Yet, to date, most efforts to engage the public in the climate fight have avoided raising the economically critical activities which would have the greatest impact on emissions. This failure to effectively empower citizens is matched with continued support of structures that perpetuate a business-as-usual approach.”
Source: chathamhouse.org
II. Businesses and Corporations
“Corporations produce just about everything we buy, use, and throw away and play an outsized role in driving global climate change. A recently published report identified that 100 energy companies have been responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions since human-driven climate change was officially recognized.
Many companies have set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but most of those targets fail to include the emissions associated with the entire life cycle of a given corporation’s products. This is important because when a company makes a product, that product requires raw materials that created their own emissions during harvest, extraction, refining, etc. (known as upstream emissions); and when a consumer uses that product, there are further emissions that come from the product’s use and eventual disposal (known as downstream emissions). These are called Scope I-III emissions. Failing to account for or address these emissions means that the vast majority of greenhouse gases attributable to corporations and their products are falling outside of well-publicized corporate climate commitments.
Global Companies, have a lot of work to do to address their full climate impacts. Measuring and reporting emissions is a great first step. Ensuring the accuracy of this measurement and transparent reporting would be a good second one. Committing to a Scope I-III target that applies to all of the emissions a corporation’s activities and products are creating—not just those emitted while a product is being made in a factory.
Corporations are able to drive policy change, shape consumer preferences, and rapidly respond to the necessities of climate change at a scale and pace beyond any other political or private entity. Meaningful corporate action is not only necessary as climate change accelerates by the day, it is a global obligation.”
Source: NRDC.org
Well, remember companies need to grow their revenue and profits at the end of the day. Can they do so by committing themselves to Environmental and social goals? ESG framework is still evolving and there is a lack of transparency around the true scope of a company’s emissions.
It is extremely difficult to produce truly sustainable products and services in a cost competitive method when fossil based resources are cheaper and subsidized. While some companies are making progress in developing more sustainable products, others engage in a process called “Green washing”.
Companies involved in greenwashing behavior might make claims that their products are from recycled materials or have energy-saving benefits. Although some of the environmental claims might be partly true, it is far from being truly sustainable. Greenwashing is an attempt to capitalize on the growing demand for environmentally sound products, whether that means they are more natural, healthier, free of chemicals, recyclable, or less wasteful of natural resources.
Some big companies are also trying to compensate for their carbon footprint by purchasing “Carbon Offsets”. These offsets are supposed to be investments in a reforestation project or supporting renewable development in developing countries. They are also becoming widely popular in air travel.
Carbon offsets haven’t done much to reduce the volume of emissions in the first place. It is a bet that something will absorb or someone else will reduce their emissions in the future. This will possibly disassociate the consumer from the issue and deflect attention from the immediate dangers posed by climate change.
Source: Based on various (weforum.org, Vox, Carbon Offsets, Illustrated – Nature.org)
Source: Climate Watch; World Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer.
III. YOU - The Individual
“Consumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant and the strongest accelerator of global warming. Most climate solutions are developed based on sector-based emissions. In this process, they assess which sectors are causing the most emissions such as transportation, electricity, industry, buildings and agriculture. This way of measuring diverts the focus from something more crucial – The Consumer. These industries are producing more carbon because the consumer demands their products.
Allocating environmental impacts to consumers is consistent with the perspective that consumers are the ultimate drivers of production, with their purchasing decisions setting in motion a series of trade transactions and production activities, rippling along complex international supply-chain networks.
Consumers often have little control over environmentally damaging decisions along supply chains, however they often do have control over making a consumption decision in the first place. It is ultimately up to individuals to decide what type of food to eat and how to manage their shopping to avoid household food waste. It is also largely up to individuals to decide how many new items of clothing to buy, whether they should own and drive a car, and how many personal flights to take.”
Consumption based emissions is a different way to assess the problem and handle the solution. If consumer is the least common denominator in climate change, can all individuals act collectively and solve this problem. It requires some lifestyle adjustment from our entire society. We will have to fly less, drive less, eat less red meat, drink less dairy, waste less food, and generally buy less products that we don’t need. Consumers could either be the active agents of decarbonization or aggressive culprits accelerating emissions.”
Source: “Scientists warning on affluence” – Nature Communications, 2020,
.
“Flights are energy-intensive and depend on fossil fuels. Subsidies from fuel taxes give the airline industry an unfair advantage over other transportation modes. Consumers don’t see the true environmental costs of their air travel because low flight prices don’t reflect their environmental impact. Emissions from flights stay in the atmosphere and will warm it for several centuries. Because aircraft emissions are released high in the atmosphere, they have a potent climate impact, triggering chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that heat the planet.
While many sectors are beginning to reduce their emissions, aviation’s have continued to grow. Carbon emissions from the airline industry is expected to grow rapidly until 2050. If left unchecked, they could consume a full quarter of the available carbon budget for limiting temperature rise to 1.5 C.
New green aviation technologies are still far from reality. Requirements around biofuels and electrification could help. But, because of battery weight, electrification fits for flights under 1,500 kilometres. That’s a problem since 80 per cent of flying is for flights longer than that.
If the aviation sector were a nation, it would be among the top 10 global emitters. It is responsible for 12 per cent of transportation emissions. The global tourism industry is responsible for eight per cent of global emissions — more than the construction industry. The total carbon impact of a single flight is so high that avoiding just one trip can be equivalent to going (gasoline) car-free for a year.”
“Think twice before you grab that great flight deal for a weekend away in the sun. It’s not so great when you think about the emissions that will continue to warm the planet for centuries.” – Tom Green, Climate policy analyst
Source: Davidsuzuki.org
Production and use of household goods and services is responsible for over 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Every step in the supply chain to get a product to your home — whether it’s a plastic toy, video-game system or reindeer pajamas — uses fossil fuels, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and driving climate change.
Extraction of raw materials, processing and packaging contributes in large part to CO2 emissions polluting ecosystems. Traditional manufacturing processes often deplete the planet of natural resources, consume immense energy and water, and use chemicals that are harmful to the environment. But the damage doesn't stop there. After consumers use and discard products, they end up in landfills.
Distributed global supply chain, hassle-free online shopping and next-day delivery is driving immense demand on freight traffic. Gas guzzling heavy and medium duty trucks, shipping and aviation generate significant amount of emissions.
Source: Consumer behavior and climate change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.008
What we eat, and how that food is produced, affects our health but also the environment. Food needs to be grown and processed, transported, distributed, prepared, consumed, and sometimes disposed of. Each of these steps creates greenhouse gases that trap the sun’s heat and contribute to climate change. About a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is linked to food.
The largest chunk of food-related greenhouse gases comes from agriculture and land use. This includes, for instance:
- methane from cattle’s digestive process,
- nitrous oxide from fertilizers used for crop production,
- carbon dioxide from cutting down forests for the expansion of farmland,
- other agricultural emissions from manure management, rice cultivation, burning of crop residues, and the use of fuel on farms.
In addition, the other sources of food emissions come from
- refrigeration and transport of food,
- industrial processes such as the production of paper and aluminum for packaging,
- the management of food waste - Almost 1 billion tons of food – 17 percent of all food available to consumers worldwide – goes into trash bins every year. Producing, transporting, and letting that food rot contribute more than 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If food waste were a country, it would be the third-largest emitting country in the world.
Animal-based foods, especially red meat, dairy, and farmed shrimp are generally associated with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. This is because:
Meat production often requires extensive grasslands, which is often created by cutting down trees, releasing carbon dioxide stored in forests. Cows and sheep emit methane as they digest grass and plants. The cattle’s waste on pastures and chemical fertilizers used on crops for cattle feed emit nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas.
Shrimp farms often occupy coastal lands formerly covered in mangrove forests which absorb huge amounts of carbon. The large carbon footprint of shrimp or prawns is mainly due to the stored carbon that is released into the atmosphere when mangroves are cut down to create shrimp farms.
Plant-based foods – such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils – generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods.
Source: NRDC.org
Take 5 minutes and answer a few questions to know your carbon footprint.
https://climatehero.me/
www.footprintcalculator.org
Did you know that the size of an individual’s carbon footprint is mind-boggling:
o USA average = 16.6 metric tons annually
o Global average = 4.8 metric tons.
o Target to save the planet = <2 tons by 2040
Buy Less or Buy Used: Living with less would change our planet, our society, and ourselves. Buying less is better than buying “Green”.
Fly Less: Rethink your flying needs. Is there an alternative to that leisure and business air travel? May be a local road trip or a virtual meeting
Move Clean: Electric/Hybrid vehicles, Trip chaining, Carpool, Public Transport, Walk/Bike, Work Remote, Reduce trips, Work with your city council to make your roads friendly for walk/bike
Eat Smart: Eating less meat and dairy, avoid processed and packaged foods, Buy local and seasonal produce, reduce food waste
Power Efficiently: 1) Improve your home energy efficiency – LED light, Insulation, Appliances, Heat pump, Cook stoves, Windows 2) Reduce electricity usage: Turn off lights, line dry, Run full loads dishwasher 3) Switch to renewable power source if you can
Speak Up: You are connected to other, so talk to others about climate change and share your personal experiences. You can influence your family, friends and the broader society. Your individual actions could have a cascade effect, leading to community level action and ultimately contributing to systemic change. Individual actions can become social trends that make a difference. Individual choices scale and multiply to become collective actions and becomes values, norms and culture
Source: Various sources within UN.org
Your everyday actions are at the center of the fight against climate change. Your micro actions shape the macro impact on climate. Every item you buy or consumer has a carbon footprint. You as an individual decide what to consume – the type of food you eat, how many clothes to buy, the number of flight trips you take, how big you want your house to be etc. Your choice/decision sets in motion a complex set of activities that drives up greenhouse gas emissions. By 2030, there are going to be 5 billion people like you who will make a purchasing decision based on their needs and wants.
Source: UN.org, IPCC.ch
In 2022, For the first time, IPCC has directly discussed behavioral, social and cultural dynamics in climate change mitigation. “The measures needed for the successful transformation to a zero carbon society includes fundamental shifts in lifestyle choices and consumption patterns.”
“Taking action against climate change often means making specific lifestyle changes. Climate friendly lifestyle changes requires personal sacrifice, yet the outcomes are felt on a collective level. That doesn’t sit well with human behavior because we are designed to take care of ourselves and our personal survival over the global good. We tend to choose the instant gratification, tangible results and clear short term wins.”
Source: Science Direct
“The increasing frequency of extreme weather events across the globe, the intensifying international debates about the political urgency to mitigate climate change, as well as the respective more action demanding social movements have caused a significant increase in climate change awareness among the population. Despite increasing awareness about climate change and positive attitude towards climate protection, there is a big attitude -behavior gap, i.e., people’s awareness does not immediately translate into notable behavioral changes. “
Source: Biomedicalcentral
Individual attitude towards climate change differs a lot across countries and it is very divided. A lot of this is due to misinformation and difference in values, beliefs and norms. Some of the key individual attitudes to climate change are listed below
- I don’t believe in climate change
- I believe in climate change, but it is not human induced
- I am aware of human driven climate change, but individual actions won’t make a difference
- Aware of the problem and I know my actions matter, but it’s not practical to change my lifestyle
- I am very concerned about climate change, and I am willing to adjust my lifestyle
- I already live a climate friendly lifestyle and I do my part
- I am extremely worried, and I don’t think we can solve this. The world is going to end.
Source: pewresearch.org
- Climate change is not linear for people to understand: How can that one hamburger or steak increase the temperature of the planet? It just doesn’t make any sense.
- Trade Off between Short term vs. long term benefits: We overvalue the benefits in the short term relative to benefits in the long term.
- It hasn’t deeply impacted most people yet. When weather disasters from climate change such as wildfires or severe drought has happened, they tend to happen far away for most people. Many of the impacts are still too far removed from our daily lives. As a result, people tend to treat this as an abstract concept and simply aren’t motivated to act forcefully.
- Present vs. future: We talk about climate change as a future threat (net zero by 2050). Only when you and others experience this future threat in the present, this could change.
- Personal Sacrifice: Taking action against climate change often means making specific lifestyle changes. Solving climate change requires personal sacrifice, yet the outcomes are felt on a collective level. That doesn’t sit well with human behavior.
Source: hbr.org
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s latest report agree that “social influencers and thought leaders can increase the adoption of low-carbon technologies, behaviors, and lifestyles”.
Creators/influencers can reach people in ways that other media can’t. Their posts appear alongside those of our friends and family, woven into our daily lives. YouTube has 2 billion logged in users each month. Over 30% of the global population aged 13 years or more log in each month. TikTok is the fastest growing news source among Gen Z.
Collective action usually starts with individuals who raise awareness and drive change. ‘Greenfluencers’ can be agents of social change for climate mitigation, adaptation and model climate friendly lifestyle behavior.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2022.2115525