Blame vs responsibility in the climate crisis
In 1896 a Swedish scientist named Svante August Arrhenius wrote a paper called “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth” [1]. In this paper Arrhenius calculated that doubling atmospheric CO2 (from 1890 levels) would cause warming of 5–6 degrees Celsius*. He also noted that human emissions of carbon (at the time, primarily coal burning) would eventually lead to warming**.
Let that sink in. It’s been 125 years since the world first learnt about the greenhouse effect — it is still happening.
By 1958 we were reliably able to get precise measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and confirm the concentration was increasing. In the 1960s we were able to produce computer models to show this would impact the global climate, which confirmed Arrhenius’ theory. And by the 1980s the global temperature itself began to rise — we were able to measure that, too [2].
So this hasn’t exactly come as a surprise.
Here’s the bit that really gets me. In the 1980s Shell was warning the world about climate change. Yes, really. DeSmog ran an extraordinary investigation into this which is well worth a read [3]. As early as 1981 the oil company was able to precisely calculate the carbon emissions coming from its activities. By 1988 the company — incredibly — stated that the main cause of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations were due to the burning of fossil fuels, of which itself was a major part. Even more incredibly, Shell even recommended switching from burning coal to gas to reduce emissions.
But by the 1990s, the company was starting to row back on making these kinds of statements. The company started to talk about ‘alternative views’ and lack of scientific consensus on the climate issue. This point, that there is no scientific consensus, has been a mainstay of climate denialism ever since. It’s astonishing that it should come from a company which had, previously, been certain about the issue. They continue to protect their core business model and products — fossil fuels — by shifting the language away from ‘certainty’ and ‘urgency’ to ‘possibility’ and ‘concern’. This subtle shift created an excuse for action on climate change to stagnate for the next three decades.
Of course it wasn’t just Shell — other oil companies, industries, and governments for whom the reality of climate change would be somewhat inconvenient also stalled, backtracked and hedged their language on the issue. So for me, the blame for climate change will always rest with the governments and large industries who have known about this problem for at least the last half century.
Blame isn’t the same as responsibility, but, just like we have known about climate change for decades, the responsibility for taking action on climate change has, for decades, been pushed onto individuals. Just change your behaviour! Stop eating meat! Don’t fly! Don’t drive! Don’t have kids!
But governments have what is known as a ‘social contract’ — that is, the public agrees to be ruled (and, in a democracy, votes for the people they think will be the best rulers), in exchange for protection [4]. That social contract does not involve being burdened with taking on individual responsibility to tackle climate change. Regardless of whether or not that is fair — it won’t work.
We have a right to expect that the people we vote into power will make decisions that keep us safe. That is a statement which should be true regardless of how you vote — whether you believe in a ‘big’ or ‘small’ Government, that institution should, as a bare minimum, look out for its citizens.
Instead, those in power have pushed the idea that behaviour change is the way out of our crisis, and by doing so have insidiously absolved themselves of making real, structural changes which make such change easier.
There is a wide spectrum of what is meant by ‘behaviour change’, though it is broadly used as a synonym for lifestyle changes, that is not flying, reducing meat consumption etc. etc. To be sure, behaviour change is a vital part of the puzzle and these are all important things to do. But, as I have written in a previous post, action to mitigate climate change over the next few decades is going to be increasingly disruptive and costly; these are burdens that cannot be placed solely on individuals to bear. Relying on the public to take the responsibility to (permanently) make these changes is unfair and unsustainable.
Moreover, in the UK two thirds of adults want faster action on climate change [5]. Globally, over half of adults surveyed saw climate change as the greatest threat to humanity — this was during the Covid-19 pandemic [6]. So I think it’s safe to assume that most people want to do something about climate change — individual change, clearly, isn’t the problem.
This isn’t about absolving the public of any responsibility for their own actions, and for living a more sustainable life, and it isn’t about the public being excluded from decision-making about climate action either. Rather, we need a new model where civic responsibility and engagement on these issues is led and, crucially, supported by those in power. This means governments and other leaders in society take seriously their responsibility to keep us safe (to fulfil that social contract) by acknowledging the severity of the facts, demonstrating brave leadership, communicating clearly and providing the frameworks and funding for individuals and communities to move towards low-carbon lifestyles. It’s a lot easier to decarbonise your home’s heating system if there is a government-funded programme to support it, and its a lot easier to drive less if there is reliable and affordable public transport. Why should individuals take the threat of climate change seriously when their government is, for example, opening new coal mines [7] and slashing domestic flight duty [8]?
There has been a general ‘wisdom’ that the public doesn’t want to engage with climate issues — either because they don’t understand the problem, or don’t care. Increasingly, this perception has proven to be untrue [9]. My own research [10] shows that when communities feel empowered to own their responsibility to change, and are supported by government funding to do so, rapid, tangible and sustainable changes occur (the incredible power of harnessing communities to address climate change is another post entirely…).
To quote Professor Rebecca Willis: “Could we not…assume that, if given evidence, responsibility and a stake in the process, most people would support action to protect the planet they call home?” [4]. Evidence shows that the public is crying out for more action on climate change — but that responsibility is too big to place on individual shoulders. Individual choices are not to blame for climate change, and they are not the solution either. We need democratic leadership and support from those in power, and from those who have for over half a century ignored the problem and sought to place the blame on everyone else.
*By the way, we just reached that level — https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-atmospheric-co2-now-hitting-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels
**Though Arrhenius thought this would take thousands of years, and would be beneficial to the world due to more favourable temperatures.
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/121158
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10541833-the-rough-guide-to-climate-change
[3] https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism
[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/newe.12202
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/britons-want-faster-action-climate-poll
[10] https://medium.com/wtfclimatechange/it-takes-a-village-117b0a1abb13
