Course:IGS585/OK2019WT2/ReflectionTakeAwaysKMN

Nahid’s takeaways

This is a rather my own reflection. It aims to open up avenues for thoughts and perspectives, not to stimulate any arguments.

In climate science dialogue, often “we” versus “they” on account of responsibilities appear on both ideological front and actions. Can we label corporate world e.g. fossil fuel industries as “they”? Then who do “we” consist of? If the divided perception of “we” versus “they” persists to continue, how powerful the interdisciplinary knowledge and supporting governing institutions e.g. IPCC would be to build a common ground for mutual actions? While “Our Common Future”, widely known as the Brundtland Report, attempted to portray a “common” pathway to a sustainable destiny three decades ago, still the seriousness and sense of “common” in actions is a far reaching goal. Is the definition of “sustainability” is based on scientific evidence? If so, then how to reconcile the two opposite credos possessed by the climate change believers and skeptics?

Given the current outbreak of COVID-19, the world is expected to embrace an unprecedented economic recession. What would be the role of fossil fuel industries i.e. skeptics in re-gaining the momentum of global economic growth over the desperate urgency to sustain the world through climate responsive industrial production? Is it possible to achieve the same level of seriousness and cooperation within and across the countries to deal with the “global” pandemic COVID-19 to tackle the “global” climate challenges? While the debates might continue, do we have a gauge about the progressive acts that are not outpacing the ‘time’?

According to WHO (2020), climate induced natural disasters result in over 60,000 deaths per year in the developing countries. Moreover, ambient air pollution caused by increasing carbon emission yield about 3 million deaths a year. In terms of geographical distribution, death rates are particularly high across the middle- and low-income countries, notably Egypt, India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh. COVID-19 emerged as a global pandemic and the death tolls are on the rise on an accelerated rate. While the total number is predicted to sharply ramp up, current number stands at around 34,000. Thus far, countries affected by this pandemic are mostly from the developed or countries with emerging economy. To tackle this global pandemic, collaborative response from across the nations as well as “individual” and “communal” seriousness is seemingly inclusive and adaptive to contain the virus and mitigate the sequent adverse effects. Many climate scientists raise question that whether the same or nearly close cooperation could be mutually reached to ameliorate the continued adverse effects of climate change. The current status quo of response for two different “global” challenges stems a few questions:

• Is the “right” response to global challenges is subject to the identity of the victims, associated with the geo-political-cum-economic branding, such as developing countries versus developed world? If not, why the global consensus for mutual actions to mitigate the compounding effects posed by climate changes is still a seemingly very-far reaching destiny? Why the sense of urgency is widely variable and occasionally illusive that are meant to maintain the interests (priorities) of the respective (developed) nations when developing countries are the most sufferer of climate change driven adversities? Is the ideological construction of climate challenge embedded in a “power structure” where the hierarchy delegates “rights” to some nations to pollute, for instance, while other nations turn out to be the recipient of resulting adversities?

The role of media has always been instrumental in disseminating information to the mass populations, popularly known as “commoners”. While to get the business expanded, engaging the maximum number of commoners is a prioritized goal for the media of different sorts. In an attempt to present the unbiased information, often the “right” information is set to confront with the seemingly “un-right” facts, as Mike Hulm mentions the case of climate change on its dichotomous views by climate scientists and deniers.

Media could also be a platform to spread politicized propaganda in favor of business gains. Comedian actor Sacha Baron Cohen’s speech at ADL’s International Leadership Award event “Never is Now 2019” sets out an argumentative tone in favor of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM

Moreover, “Carbon tax” has been another example, the facts of which are politicized in favor of immediate or future political gains. My upcoming book chapter “The nexus of climate change and increasing demand for energy: A policy deliberation from Canadian context”, part of course essential reading, reflects upon this dualism.

Irrespective of “right” and “un-right” facts, when media could spread such interest-led political views to the mass “commoners”, following question become quite critical:

-       Whether the “commoners” would become the self-stimulated “change agents” to adopt climate friendly thoughts into regular actions when their source of facts emanate from a politically biased “un-right” information?

Clean technology i.e. biodiesel/biofuel is going to make “zero” emission vehicle a reality. Unless a public transit e.g. bus, the private car will occupy the same amount of large space for a limited number of passengers on the road. While the vehicle perhaps will be environmental friendly but not so when comes to effective occupancy of space.

The attraction and demand for electric vehicle is on the rise. As per the current trend, private electric car is the most preferable product of the manufacturing industries. Tesla is occupying a special affinity among many, especially the young generations. However, the climate friendly innovation still has a missing link with the effective (maximized) use of space on the transit corridor. Moreover, the life cycle cost of batteries associated with the electric vehicle needs a thorough investigation. The employment of child labor in the production chain of battery industries and dangerous working conditions being controversial affairs, the climate friendly disposal of the mass volume of batteries remains to be a great challenge. This leaves with the question that whether a climate friendly innovation is “friendly” to the humans involved in the supply chain and “environment” to come?

The future of our climate also depends on our individual choice of actions i.e. consumption habit. While this aspect has a relatively less appreciation in the literature, perhaps the implicit “denialism” or “inertia” resists our ability to compromise the level of comfort in favor of climate friendly actions. Someone could ask about the level of our “readiness” to forego or compromise the level of comfort in opting for climate friendly actions. This could be captured in “affluence” of the following IPAT equation, as Janice Larson presented:

Impact = Population X “Affluence” X Technology

Without positively changing the nature and type of our consumption habit, can we expect a desirable impact of the technological innovations that would possibly fight against the climate change stemming odds?

This also brings the question of our internal “denialism” of individual self-conscious acts while entirely delegating that to the technological advancement. The sensor driven appliances than our own ability to discretely operate them, choice of EV than to opt for a ride in mass transit or to choose to walk and bike, etc. could be coined as a few examples for this. What would make the individuals act as the one of “change agents” in bringing positive progress in combating the climate challenges?

Supposedly, the local governments are in a best position to facilitate and empower the individual residents to become the “change agents”. One of the best pathways to do that is through establishing an inclusive, adaptive and systemic foundation for participation. The extent of participatory tools being used and strategic think-tank in ensuring a true representation of the expected cohort of population by the local governments e.g. the City of Kelowna suggests a few questions:  Is actual representative participation in a development project still a challenge? Does the methodological flaw fail to secure a representative sample that otherwise would have produced “right” information for the intended project? Is “business as usual” approach of the organization an impediment to follow the rationale/sense-making planning that would have otherwise enabled the “change agents” to offer representative voices?

Date: March 30, 2020

-