Keeping the Arctic cool by warming up to change

Our carbon-intensive lifestyles and the greenhouse gases they generate are having devastating effects on the Arctic. As LEWIS AKENJI writes, it is clear that our planet cannot support this version of “the good life” for everyone. In the midst of a climate emergency, we must curb our excesses now.

As I was writing this in April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the third instalment of its sixth assessment report. For the first time in its 32-year history, the panel concluded that lifestyle changes, enabled through policies, infrastructure and technology, could reduce carbon emissions by 40 to 70 per cent by 2050. The report also confirmed what many of us have understood for years: that the options for cutting our emissions by 2030 already exist, but are hamstrung by a stunning lack of political will.

The past winter saw temperatures in the Arctic 30°C above normal and the collapse of an ice shelf the size of Rome. Many of us read this news from our centrally heated homes far, far away, but nature does not recognize this distance. We are all part of an interdependent ecology, and the Arctic helps regulate our entire planetary ecosystem. Although the need for lifestyle change to help prevent warming has long been acknowledged in theory, it is still not well reflected in government policies.

Measures like bans on single-use plastic, as seen in Canada, help address the material residue of overconsumption. But actions that could lead to significantly reducing our carbon footprint—such as eating less meat and dairy, flying less and living in smaller spaces—are still largely framed as matters of personal choice.

Reshaping norms and infrastructure

Last year, an analysis by Oxfam revealed that the wealthiest 10 per cent of people in the world generate almost half of all global emissions, and the wealthiest 1 per cent are responsible for twice as many emissions as the poorest 50 per cent. Therefore, policies that focus on curbing the consumption appetites of the wealthiest can have a significant impact on climate change mitigation while allowing people in poorer nations to consume more to meet their material needs.

Understanding the context in which people over-consume is essential. Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks “I’m going to wreck the environment today.” Consumption is the result of deeply established social norms. We consume to meet our biological and psychological needs, such as for social recognition, self-esteem and creativity. But political, economic and urban planning decisions about infrastructure also push us into consumption. For example, building airports instead of expanding rail networks drives people to travel by plane rather than train.

The 1.5-Degree Lifestyles  report estimated that in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the carbon footprints from lifestyles in high-income countries will need to shrink by 91 to 95 per cent by 2050. Change on this scale cannot be left to individuals. Governments, businesses and institutions—the custodians of our norms and culture—must take responsibility for engineering this change.

Choice editing and social innovation

One solution is choice editing: removing harmful consumption options, especially where the benefits are enjoyed by only a few while the negative impacts are shouldered by all. For example, frequent flier mileage programmes, five-star hotel loyalty programmes, and other incentives to sustain or increase consumerism have no place in a climate emergency. Similarly, we should edit out harmful investment options, such as in fossil fuels, industrial meat farms, and speculative investments in housing, food and water that lead to artificial scarcity by financializing the necessities of life.

Meanwhile, we need to edit in more sustainable alternatives. For example, a frequent flier tax could complement more sustainable transportation options, with subsidies for public transport. But as long as governments continue to delay these kinds of actions, they enable the cognitive dissonance between our everyday actions and their effects on regions such as the Arctic, the Amazon rainforest and underwater reefs.

To make this profound shift, we must also reassess the cultural values that fuel overconsumption in the first place. Lifestyles should encompass more than just consumer spending. Activities like caring for children or parents, spending time with friends, playing, studying, making art and music, volunteering or engaging in activism can contribute to a sense of well-being and life satisfaction without excess consumption. To avoid making the green transition all about scaling down—an understandably uncomfortable proposition for many—we must combine choice editing with social innovation to shift values and norms.

Because the carbon-intensive lifestyles of a few set the consumption aspirations for everyone else, the top 10 per cent of emitters have the opportunity to be role models—to use their social capital and influence to support political campaigns, lobby governments and change our notion of what constitutes a good and meaningful life.

The link between income inequality and climate change is now undeniable. It will not be possible to address one without addressing the other. A recent study in Nature found that lifting hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty would raise global emissions by less than 1 per cent. Curbing the consumption habits of high-income nations will allow for the creation of a fair consumption space in which all people will be able to meet their needs without dangerously overstepping our planetary boundaries.