 |
The amusing admission this week that Dr. Gail Bradbrook drives a highly polluting, diesel engine car would, in a more thoughtful world, be a moment for those engaging in climate activism to pause and reflect a little more deeply on precisely what the goals of their movement are. This would be surely the least the general public could reasonably ask of them, before they embark on a renewed campaign to disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens. Unfortunately, I assume from past experience, the moment will be left to pass by.
Bradbrook's defence was that she cannot afford an electric car, and that she needed to drive her children to various sports fixtures, for which the public transport does not exist. The Telegraph noted that in the past she was also criticised for flying 11,000 to Costa Rica, justified, apparently, by the need to seek medical care unavailable in the U.K.
The problem underlying Dr. Bradbrook's defence, and the kind of environmental reforms for which many campaigners are looking, is that they assume the we can reach 'net-zero' without drastic changes to the western lifestyle. However, that is simply unrealistic, unless we understand the 'net-zero' target in a quite a facile way.
We all know that the world's resources are consumed in a vastly disproportionate way. According to Friends of the Earth, the average European consumes more than 4 times that of an average African, and an average American or Australian as much as 10 times more. Even if these figures can be debated, it comports with a reality we can all recognise, the the West consumes more than it fair share of what the earth has to offer.
The goal of reducing U.K. emissions to at least 100% below 1990 levels does not include emission associated with U.K. consumption. This means that, inevitably, in the future our lifestyles will be buttressed by the benefit of carbon emissions released in other countries to provide us with goods and services. The batteries in our electric cars will continue to depend on minerals dragged out of the ground in other places, where governments and industry may be unable or unwilling to find green ways of conducting energy intensive mining.
It is not unreasonable for the very great many people caught in poverty in poor countries to desire some of the comfort enjoyed by wealthier countries. Yet, it is inconceivable that the world can justify everyone living the lifestyle of a British or an American person; and it is dubious whether we can make it genuinely carbon neutral, even for ourselves. Does this mean that climate concern means we plan to leave the poorest in the world with their rather terrible, but very environmentally friendly, lot in life?
I hope not.
Which means, it seems to me, that we need to begin to ask the questions about what are the radical changes to the way in which we need to make in order to simplify the modern lifestyle expectations, in order to reduce our impact on the planet? This may mean not expecting to be able to make all the journeys to which we have become used - ferrying teenagers to every sporting activity they desire, just as an example. I suspect it will rule out travelling half-way across the world, for medical treatment that a tiny fraction of the world's population could ever afford. It will certainly involve genuine sacrifice and facing an absence of easy answers.
When climate activists begin to ask these sorts of questions, however, I'll begin to get really interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment