Ways to Deal with Climate Change
There are two main ways to deal with climate change:
- Mitigation. Mitigation is "a human intervention to reduce the source or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases (UNFCCC Glossary)." Examples of mitigating climate change is using renewable energy instead of burning fossil fuels or decreasing consumption of products.
- Adaptation. Adaptation is "adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (UNFCCC Glossary)." examples of adaptation includes more efficient use of water resources that may become scarce in the future, or adapting building code to the future climate changes.
The image below shows other mitigative actions that can be taken to slow down growth of CO2 emissions.
 |
| Cunningham & Cunningham, 2011, Fig. 2.9 |
While the ways to deal with climate change are well known and understood, it is not very well established who should do all of these mitigative and adaptation actions. Thus, we need to define whom we mean by "We" in the questions "How do we deal with climate change inequities?"
Who is "We"?
We define "we" as human beings that can belong to the following communities: global community, country, regional community, geographical community, and minority community. Also, "we" can mean separate individuals.
Global Community Level
We have geopolitical borders between countries and cultures, but climate change does not have boundaries. It affects the planet as a whole. Thus, we need to deal with climate change as a global community. The IPCC report for policymakers in 2014 states that if every country pursues its own interests, we may not be able to reach the global goal of reducing CO2 growth to 400 ppm by 2100. The international cooperation is required to reach this goal.National Community Level
The issue of inequity comes into place when figuring out which part of the global community should be executing the mitigative and adaptive climate change actions. As it was discussed on the Climate Change Inequities page, some nations have historically contributed more CO2 emissions and should be held accountable for that. They should contribute the most to mitigating climate change and/or help other nations adapt to climate change. This is an example of trying to solve the intergenerational inequity between the past and present generations. An example of this solution being executed is the Kyoto protocol due to which most industrialized developed nations abide to decrease their CO2 emissions to a certain level. The only large industrialized nations that did not sign the Kyoto protocol is the U.S., and the nations that signed it before and then withdrew are Canada, Russia, Japan, and New Zealand.
While this solution may seem fair, the solution proposed by the IPCC report for policymakers is to require countries that will contribute most to global warming in the future to make the largest efforts to decrease their CO2 emissions growth. This way, the intergenerational inequity between the present and the future generations is taken care off. This is only a suggestion to policymakers, but not a definite course of action. Thus, it is not clear if the future largest emitters of CO2 will be held accountable.
Each nation should also pay attention to inequalities within its countries. For example, a recent study showed that widening gap between income classes can lead to collapse of the most developed civilization. Narrowing the economic gap between socioeconomic classes can not only help people to adapt to climate change, but to save their country as well.
Energy Independence and Fuel Efficiency in the U.S.
On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced the first National Fuel Efficiency Policy that aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the fuel economy of all vehicles sold in the United States. The policy proposed standards that required the gradual increase of new vehicle fuel efficiency between 2012 and 2016 to reach 35.5 miles per gallon. On July 29, 2011, President Obama reported the second phase of the fuel efficiency policy. This phase required that new vehicle performance reach 54.5 miles per gallon efficiency by the year 2025.
While there was considerable backlash from prominent Republicans regarding the policy, automobile manufacturers responsible for 90% of car sales in the United States backed President Obama’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy because it provided certainty and predictability in fuel efficiency regulations until the year 2025. Additionally, the policy encouraged the collaboration of multiple regulatory agencies, which was previously unprecedented in American politics, and it reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as the cost of gas for American consumers. Therefore, the National Fuel Efficiency Policy of the Obama Administration was a successfully implemented environmental policy for the United States government and its citizens, and has also shown significant promise for the future of environmental policy implementation in America.
Geographical Communities
Around the world, communities defined by their geographical location on the planet are taking action to address the causes and effects of climate change. Some people are taking action according to very specific and unique initiatives that have arisen entirely within their communities, and others are acting according to initiatives that already exist on a national or global level.
One example of the kind of initiative or social movement to address climate change that exists on a national and global level from which individual geographical communities around the world can adopt and modify for their own purposes is the Transition Movement. The Transition Movement was founded in 2006 by Rob Hopkins when he led the establishment of the first transition town, Totnes, which is located in the United Kingdom. Since 2006, the movement has grown tremendously as shown by the map below.
These Transition Initiatives around the world are considered a grassroots approach to addressing the issues of climate change and peak oil. The communities who register as Transition Initiatives and use the "12 ingredients" for transition are striving for relocalization and resilience from within. They do this by focusing primarily on over time making their food, transport, energy, education, and economy entirely local.
Founder Rob Hopkins was quoted in a news article in 2013 saying that he "can't see any other ethically defensible thing to be doing at this moment in history" besides the Transition Movement. According to Transition U.S. (a national branch of the worldwide network), support or ethical argument for the Transition approach is based on four major assumptions:
One example of the kind of initiative or social movement to address climate change that exists on a national and global level from which individual geographical communities around the world can adopt and modify for their own purposes is the Transition Movement. The Transition Movement was founded in 2006 by Rob Hopkins when he led the establishment of the first transition town, Totnes, which is located in the United Kingdom. Since 2006, the movement has grown tremendously as shown by the map below.
 |
Founder Rob Hopkins was quoted in a news article in 2013 saying that he "can't see any other ethically defensible thing to be doing at this moment in history" besides the Transition Movement. According to Transition U.S. (a national branch of the worldwide network), support or ethical argument for the Transition approach is based on four major assumptions:
- That life with dramatically lower energy consumption is inevitable, and that it's better to plan for it than to be taken by surprise
- That our communities currently lack resilience.
- That we have to act collectively, and we have to act now to build community resilience and prepare for life without fossil fuels.
- That by unleashing the collective genius of our communities it is possible to design new ways of living that are more nourishing, fulfilling and ecologically sustainable.
There have been both success stories from and criticisms of the Transition Movement (TM) thus far as a way to address the impacts of climate change as well as the inequities of climate change both on a local and global level. Review of research and writing on the subject shows that there seem to be three main categories of criticism of the Movement.
One category has the central argument that the TM is not radical enough; that is, that gradual socio-economic reform is not enough to address the causes and effects of climate change. Some, like Ted Trainer on his blog Culture Change, claim that what is needed instead is a form of "radical system replacement." In the blog post linked above, Trainer argues that the highly internal focus of TM ignores global injustices and inequities that arise due to varying perceptions of "standard of living." We can ask, who in the world gets to decide what a good standard of living is and at what cost to the environment is acceptable? In this same category of criticism, some like Chatterton & Cutler, argue that because TM does not decouple economic growth and carbon emissions, significant global change is impossible to achieve by these means. They also criticize the Movement's attempts at "all-inclusiveness and non-confrontation" as this leads to depoliticization and a lack of power to change the social and political structures already in place.
Another category of criticism revolves around the notion that TM can undermine national efforts at emissions regulations. Bushnell et al. write that a movement of relocalization may result in conflict:
Others like blogger Steffan argue that people involved in TM are inconsiderate of the current and likely future suffering of people in places and communities already severely impacted by climate change, because they are primarily concerned with the well-being of their own communities.
These three main categories of criticism of the Transition Movement are important to consider, because they may be the same types of criticisms or ethical arguments against other forms of climate change initiatives that exist at the level of the geographical community.
A recent study by Feola and Nunes was summarized by Transition Network, and those summations were further condensed into this diagram to provide insight into the Movement's successes and failures at addressing existing social inequities:
One category has the central argument that the TM is not radical enough; that is, that gradual socio-economic reform is not enough to address the causes and effects of climate change. Some, like Ted Trainer on his blog Culture Change, claim that what is needed instead is a form of "radical system replacement." In the blog post linked above, Trainer argues that the highly internal focus of TM ignores global injustices and inequities that arise due to varying perceptions of "standard of living." We can ask, who in the world gets to decide what a good standard of living is and at what cost to the environment is acceptable? In this same category of criticism, some like Chatterton & Cutler, argue that because TM does not decouple economic growth and carbon emissions, significant global change is impossible to achieve by these means. They also criticize the Movement's attempts at "all-inclusiveness and non-confrontation" as this leads to depoliticization and a lack of power to change the social and political structures already in place.
Another category of criticism revolves around the notion that TM can undermine national efforts at emissions regulations. Bushnell et al. write that a movement of relocalization may result in conflict:
Local regulation of markets has resulted in part due to local pressure from environmental concerns and partly due to impatience with national governments' inactivity in terms of capping market activity in order to reach environmental targets. . .Local level initiatives are unlikely to greatly impact upon environmental targets such as carbon emission reduction and may result in leakages and a movement of trade to non-regulated localities. The failure of localities to implement affective regulation may negatively affect the likelihood of an adoption of policy at a national level. . .The third category of critique of the TM is that it ignores other already existing socio-economic injustices interrelated with climate change like those of gender, race, and class. Cohen , for example writes about the socio-economic and gender inequities within the Movement and perpetuated by it. She says that "...it is not enough to simply have an open and welcoming attitude towards other people...because implicit economic and social pressures may still prevent people from participating." She also writes that in the United Kingdom, those involved in TM are the "usual suspects": people who are formally educated, have higher than average employment (but not necessarily income), and are between the ages of 45 and 60 years old. She says that as of 2010, there had been no research on race, ethnicity, or religion within the movement.
Others like blogger Steffan argue that people involved in TM are inconsiderate of the current and likely future suffering of people in places and communities already severely impacted by climate change, because they are primarily concerned with the well-being of their own communities.
These three main categories of criticism of the Transition Movement are important to consider, because they may be the same types of criticisms or ethical arguments against other forms of climate change initiatives that exist at the level of the geographical community.
A recent study by Feola and Nunes was summarized by Transition Network, and those summations were further condensed into this diagram to provide insight into the Movement's successes and failures at addressing existing social inequities:
 |
| Data summarized by Transition Network |
Minority Communities
Many climate change inequities fall into line with already-existing minority communities; meaning that many of the people effected by climate change issues are already categorized into some sort of "minority" demographic. For example, a 2006 study commissioned by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, found that the "ecological base" for the environmental movement--defined as Americans who report the environment as being central to their concerns--is "nearly ninety percent white, mostly college-educated, higher-income, and over thirty-five." While this trend has been controversially proven many times, it does not mean that other demographics are unconcerned with the environment.For instance, there is a man by the name of Anthony "Van" Jones that began a green job organization called Green for All. Van Jones claims that the rich, white environmentalist demographic comprising the environmentalist movement is a result of situational relevance. Many minority communities have been polled to show that the environment and its health is very important to their values, but that there are just other troubles that are more prevalent in their lives that prevent them from supporting environmental problems as their primary concern in policymaking.
Green for All, which began to receive funding targeted for training low-income populations to work jobs that were considered "green jobs" in 2009 under the Energy Independence and Security Act, provides this mission statement on its website:
"Green For All is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through a clean energy economy. We work in collaboration with the business, government, labor, and grassroots communities to increase quality jobs and opportunities in the green industry – all while holding the most vulnerable people at the center of our agenda."
Since its birth, Green for All has implemented 3 million jobs to low-income community citizens under the category of green jobs, and has made it clear that minority communities who would not necessarily preference environmental issues as a primary concern on the ballets still care greatly about the condition of the earth and the climate. This program as introduced the idea of an eco-populist movement that varies from the stereotypical eco-elitist environmental movement; it has introduced solutions that affect ordinary people and provide the general citizens with an outlet to contribute to moving the United States toward a green economy.
Individual Level
When a collective action problem like climate change exists on a global level, an individual may feel impossibly small and ineffective addressing it on her own. Even taking action within a political or economic framework or within a community-level social movement may feel inadequate. So, what is the value of considering the importance of individual-level action to address the inequities of climate change? I argue that any meaningful action comes from within individuals making choices, individuals thinking about how they want to live and why they want to live that way and then choosing to live that way. We hope that by visiting our website, you will be inspired to think about your power as an individual who can think and feel and decide. It is up to each of us to decide what our responsibilities to ourselves, to each other, and to all other life and the Earth are and how we will deal with the inequities of climate change.There are many ways how an individual can mitigate or adapt to climate change. Here is a list of tips how an individual can help reduce CO2 emissions.
 |
| Image Source |
Why should an individual act to mitigate or adapt to climate change?
In some cases, human beings will have to adapt to climate change because they are forced to. But certain human beings are not experiencing harms caused by climate change and are contributing a lot to increasing global warming. For example, a U.S. citizen produces four times more CO2 than the world average citizen. Thus, a U.S. citizen causes four times more harm through negative consequences of climate change than an average world citizen. A U.S. citizen can decrease its emissions by using energy efficient appliances or switching from fossil fuels created energy to renewable energy. This way, a U.S. citizen can reduce the damage to other world communities.
There were recent cases when French old citizens died of the heat stroke during unusually hot summers. If they didn't contribute a lot to CO2 emissions, they wouldn't have to suffer as bad of consequences. So, in a sense, mitigating climate change can be an investment into insurance to decrease future risks related to global warming.
Individuals create culture of the country that influences the way how people use resources and ways how people can influence climate change. The IPCC report said that changes in lifestyles and culture will be necessary in many countries to reach the CO2 emission goal. For example, the western heavily industrialized nations' lifestyle is based on high consumption that requires burning a lot of fossil fuels. Reducing consumption or changing to using other sources of energy will be necessary to mitigate climate change. The act of changing culture can come from within. This is where efforts of individuals are necessary.
Finally, individuals that live in democratic countries (where most CO2 emitters are) can vote for policies that reduce CO2 footprint of their country. They can communicate with their representatives and congressmen to ensure that they represent the will of the people.
