Welcome back as Vaania finishes discussing climate mitigation policies. Part one evaluates the inadequacies of present climate mitigation policies while part 2 introduces readers to a new and emerging climate mitigation policy.
Owing to the failures of national and international climate mitigation policies (elaborated on in part 1 of this article) climate change cannot be tackled at a national or international level. Alternatively, I argue that the best climate mitigation policy is one that focuses on the individual and calls for individual changes. For example, eating more plant-based foods, reducing air travel, using public transport, and not using plastic bags. These are small but effective behavioural changes. If one commutes a 20mile round trip, it reduces one’s carbon footprint by 4,800 pounds annually (C2ES, 2020). Furthermore, Public transportation is not only environmentally friendly but also economically as it saves individuals more than $9, 738 per year (ibid). However, with the existence of climate change deniers and a lack of prioritization for climate change mitigation the following question ensues: how do we engage all 7.8 billion people in this world to have enough self awareness to foster a real and long lasting climate friendly change to all individual behaviours?
The Answer:
Carbon conversations, I argue, addresses and solves this problem. Carbon Conversations are “a series of 6 meetings which brings a personal perspective to climate change” (Cambridge Carbon Footprint, 2013). Meetings are guided by experienced facilitators who help participants understand the basics of carbon footprints by allowing participants to explore their own identity, actions and behaviours to be able to comprehend their effects on the climate (ibid). This method engages participants at an emotional level and therefore helps to get rid of psychological barriers that may lead to climate change denial (Clark, 2009). Furthermore, it also gets rid of socio- economic barriers by helping participants understand how they could lead a more sustainable lifestyle in spite of economic or social barriers that may persist in their daily lives (Cambridge Carbon Footprint, 2013).
Carbon conversations have yielded extremely positive results. For example, of the 360 participants that have taken part till date, “a typical participant makes an initial saving of a tonne of CO2 a year and develops plans to reduce emissions by 50% in 2- 5 years”(Clark, 2009).
An alternative perspective might argue that while carbon conversations may have been effective on a small group of participants, overall the infrastructure needed to make long term sustainable lifestyle changes requires Government intervention. For example, one may argue that even if individuals are introduced to a carbon conversations program and decide that they want to forgo using private transport in favour of using public buses, unless the Government provides these buses people cannot make this change. However, I believe this argument is weak because firstly the existence of public buses does not mean that everyone will use it unless people are educated on why they need to use it and secondly, once people gain this education (through a carbon conversations program), they can engage in collective contentious action (Tarrow, 2011: 7). One way of doing this would be through petitions that urge their Government to introduce a public transport system (if one doesn’t already exist in the country) or to scale the already existing public transport system. Thus, my proposition is that once individuals are educated enough about the environmental advantages of using public transport, via the carbon conversations program, they can engage in enough collective contentious action. This will force budget reallocation, in turn eradicating infrastructural problems. Therefore, this also addresses problems such as a lack of budget because Governments are now compelled to respond to public demand and thus will need to reallocate their budget to provide for a public transportation system. To better grasp this solution, I illustrate it using Figure 3:
Figure 3
Simply put, while this solution may seem “extreme” and “radical” to many, I believe that the only thing extreme about it is it attempts to challenge the paradigm of society we live in. Just because of the challenges that this solution possesses, we mustn't make the mistake of not exploring it as a policy option. After all, every unique discovery one has ever made- from the wheel to laptops was once deemed merely a facade of our imagination.
I do acknowledge that implementing a carbon conversations program globally will come with its fair share of problems. Here is where I urge researchers and policy makers to work hand in hand to overcome possible barriers that exist in the establishment of a large scale carbon conversations program. For example, should this project be first introduced to those in their year 6, or would it be more effective to introduce it at a later stage, perhaps only when one reaches university? Researchers could conduct a field experiment to answer this question. As such, the future implications of this article is paramount and forces individuals, researchers and policy makers to consider this new climate mitigation policy.
Bibliography
C2ES (2017). Reducing Your Transportation Footprint | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. [online] Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Available at: https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-your-transportation-footprint/.
CambridgeCarbonFootprint(2013).CarbonConversations. [online]CambridgeCarbon Footprint. Available at: https://cambridgecarbonfootprint.org/carbon-conversations/.
Clark, D. (2009). Manchester Report: Carbon Conversations. [online] the Guardian. Available at:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-carbon-conversations.
Tarrow, S.G. (2011). Power in movement : social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Vaania Kapoor Achuthan is a 1st year undergraduate studying politics and international relations. Strangely, her/their interests lie in the intersections of war correspondency and animal rights.
Comments