A debate is raging over Net Zero between those who would profit from fossil fuels, aka deniers and those who would do away with them, mitigators. The topic is complex, encompassing scientific evidence, vested interests, the rights of other species, societal priorities and humanity’s role in the world; and the true interests of each side are not easy to uncover. They have been at loggerheads for decades.
It surely suits deniers to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of humanity’s contribution to global warming so they can without conscience continue to drill, dig, emit carbon and maximise earnings. Mitigators would like a screeching U-turn towards alternative energy sources which might slow down inexorable carbon emissions and their consequences.
Capital investment is required for alternative, “greener” technologies and infrastructure but returns are too distant for those who measure life by monthly balance sheets and boardroom bonuses, who would prefer to keep profits from oil and gas rolling in. The wider public seems supportive of the greener message but for how long and at what price to themselves?
Adaptation
There should be a third strand to this debate which has to date been rather sidelined as less important than either of the two opposing big hitters: Adaptation. When the catalytic Stern Report was published in 2006, it stated “In the decades before the investment pays off, adverse consequences of the warming trends already underway must be dealt with by adaptation, such as through better disaster preparedness, lessening the vulnerability of infrastructure, and risk-pooling measures.”
Note the “decades” required before mitigation might take effect. Do something now and it may pay off eventually but do nothing now and the worst will come unabated.
Just look at the evidence
We already surely can’t deny that there have been effects of climate change. Just look at the ice-caps and glaciers we thought were permanent and at their speed of melt. See the disastrous decline in species diversity throughout the world even in our own lifetimes. Look at the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events in apparently random and unprepared locations. Pakistan; Bangladesh; Spain; USA; and others can already tell us from experience of the need to adapt. Look at the UK map as it may be in 2050. Governments, even of climate sceptic hue, have a duty to be able to respond to events, even those they refuse to expect.
The debate between fossil fuel and mitigation is already too late. The need for adaptation will be upon us whichever camp we espouse. Changes in diseases, food sources and extreme weather events are unstoppable and will not be ignorable. True, the current fossil fuel fan club will pile up un-spendable short-term dividends with a Nelsonian eye to the whole issue or to their part in it.
Mitigators trying to act responsibly will do their utmost for the futures of peoples, places and nature but risk losing the debate completely under the brute power of wealth and media in the hands of deniers. These will manipulate public attitudes to the costs of greener energy in new vehicles and boilers, to abstention from established life-styles and to mandated behaviour change.
Mitigation by collective action
Mitigation can only be effected by collective action, which looks increasingly unlikely when wars proliferate and profiteering autocrats rule. Mitigation efforts by individuals, communities, companies or countries in isolation can make little difference to the future of the planet but actions can be locally transformative if they facilitate survival of inundation, drought or supply chain severance.
Pragmatism alone demands accommodating what you cannot affect but addressing what you can. Adaptation is still within our grasp and can bridge the gap before mitigation has its effect, if any. Adaptation should already have the highest priority. It may have been overlooked in the war of noise between deniers and mitigators but the need for it is immediate. The climate is changing, irreversibly, which will impact many aspects of life, whatever various interest groups may claim about causation. Preparing for its impacts is vital.
Are we too far gone?
Have we gone already too far down the capitalist road where making or saving money as fast as possible is the only motive for action? Is there not still room for ethics, shared or long-term responsibility? There are duties in politics: to lives and communities, present and future; to do the right thing for human society; and for the natural world. Have politicians abandoned such duties?
The increased focus on denial and on war suggests strongly that some have. Which threat is most consequential: war or climate change? One is avoidable; the other not.
We the people must demand that those whom we elect at the very least take adaptation as seriously as they take military threats, with something akin to the Strategic Defence Review for the protection of land, sea and communities.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
