We acknowledge climate change, and we even call it the climate crisis. Yet, we roam freely in cars, travel on planes, and shamelessly waste piles of paper because of a tiny little stain. In such actions lies the climate hypocrisy, the hypocrisy in which we preach climate activism only and only if it does not cause inconveniences in our daily lives.
But the hypocrisy does make sense. Why should we care about the environment? Why should we engage in climate activism when it would infringe our civil liberties: we are denied the right to refuse public transportation because it takes too long, the right to eat meat because it tastes good, and the right to participate in fast fashion because it’s cheap.
After all, it’s not our problem. That is a matter of fact. We will never be the ones drowning on a sinking island; we will never be the ones without homes; we will never be the generation that goes extinct. We simply do not feel responsible for our actions, because we are not the ones who face the consequences.
Climate activism, at its core, is a trade off between long-term and short-term benefits; its participants essentially give up their convenient methods and cheap prices in turn for a sustainable lifestyle in which natural resources are not depleted. However, this trade-off may not be seen as a justifiable one when the long-term benefits are not yet clear. And by the time we realise the urgency of the issue, it would be too late.
This poses a question: If we are unable to rely on individuals to make sustainable choices, should climate action be enforced in institutions and governments?
UWC can be taken as a case study of such actions made by institutions. Namely, the school has integrated Service into its curriculum, and has also implemented Veggie Wednesdays –a day where the canteen only provides plant-based foods– as a measure to encourage sustainable action. The extent to which such initiatives can be regarded as successes can be debated, since they are frequently under student reproval; the more daring students often fabricate elaborate excuses to escape Service, while the more creative ones come prepared with their packed lunches. However, these initiatives have undoubtedly accomplished, and continue to accomplish the objective of sustainable action. Veggie Wednesdays, for example, have created a dent in water consumption and land loss simply because meat is not consumed on that day.
On this account, enforcement by governments seems a viable option to ensure that its citizens are engaging in sustainability initiatives. For example, governments could switch the entire nation’s electricity sources to be of non-fossil fuel origin, effectively forcing its citizens to use energy in a sustainable manner.
However, it is unlikely that many governments would pursue this cause; climate hypocrisy is not an issue that only pertains to the actions of individuals but governments also. Earlier this year, the Biden administration approved of the Willow project, when it had promised voters “No more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.” In 2021, the European Commission supported the funding for 30 gas projects worth €13 billion amidst its attendance in COP26. If the governments have also displayed the attitude of climate hypocrisy, then who is held accountable to counteract climate change?
*idk if I should add smth here before conclusion as a transition*
Then will we ever be held accountable for climate change, as the primary consumers and contributors to the phenomenon? Or will we be the ones lucky enough to escape, flying on aeroplanes and watching climate documentaries, while the rest drown in the sea.
Comments