The Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock is a metaphorical analysis of how close humanity is to destroying ourselves with dangerous technologies of our own making [1] [2]. On January 23, 2020, the Doomsday Clock was set to 100 seconds to midnight by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist’s Science and Security Board [3]. This is the least time there has been on the clock ever. The Clock has been set at 2 minutes to midnight for the last two years, which was tied with the Clock’s previous low in 1953. The report states the following:
Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.
The situation is dire. To make matters worse, these threats are mutually reinforcing. As climate change worsens, international tensions will continue to rise, heightening the probability of nuclear conflict. Internal tensions will be exacerbated by dwindling resources, and the international need for financial aid will increase.
This article is in follow up to the article I wrote previously on the significance of climate-change in the 2019 Canadian federal election. I am therefore going to put aside the threat of nuclear war and information warfare for the time being to continue my examination of climate change.
In this article, I will do two things. First, I will explore what constitutes an appropriate personal response to climate change. Second, I will propose some Canadian policy actions.
Living with Climate Change
The Ipsos survey conducted at the end of 2018 found that 75% of Canadians agree that Canada needs to do more to address climate change, yet six in ten believe we will be unsuccessful in reducing carbon emissions and another Ipsos survey found that 46% were unwilling to pay any additional taxes to combat climate change (link).
I, in line with 60% of Canadians, am not optimistic about Canada’s or the world’s efforts to combat climate change. The CO2 that we have already released into the atmosphere will likely affect our climate for centuries to come, and global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions have been insufficient to attain the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. Further, though Canada has a relatively high carbon footprint per capita, we only have 0.5% of the global population. Implementing strong policy measures would ultimately be a symbolic gesture.
My pessimism comes from a deep-seated sense that we, as a country and as a species, have failed. Combating climate change is not an all or nothing affair. It is, as far as I can tell, unlikely that human life will cease to exist on earth because of global warming (though global warming exacerbates the conditions for a world-ending nuclear conflict). However, it will likely be responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of people (not to mention the extinction of millions of species), and we have simply proven ourselves not up to the political, social and technological task of mitigating this disaster.
Despite my pessimism, I feel strongly that we, as individuals and as a wider community, have a moral duty to act. I don’t really have a sophisticated moral argument. This is our home, and we owe it to ourselves, to future generations, and to other species to do our best to preserve life. The task is difficult, but it is one that we have brought upon ourselves, and we are thus responsible for carrying it out. What, then, is an appropriate response?
I believe we should be taking significant personal steps to reduce our personal environmental footprint. Further, these actions should not be private. We need national and international cooperation to contest climate change: making climate-based lifestyle choices is primarily important as awareness-raising tools.
I do not know how to best approach such awareness-raising lifestyle choices. It is difficult to publicize such choices without an air of moral posturing, and the market has an unfortunate tendency of creating premium environmental products that primarily serve to offload guilt. One possibility might be to engage in lifestyle changes collaboratively. For example, challenge a friend to make a change with you.
Climate change is something we should also work on being more comfortable discussing. The topic is depressing, but it is going to play an increasingly significant role in our lives as time goes on.
Should we then all become climate activists? If it was unilaterally effective, I would probably have to say yes. However, though I think activism is important, I am inclined to say that it is one avenue of engagement. It has a purpose, but it is not a universally effective approach.
Canada Policy Options
The most important part of spreading awareness of climate change is to make the public more amenable to radical policy action. Though climate action seems to be gaining momentum, more is needed. Most of the policy options that I will explore are politically untenable. Given that three-quarters of Canadians agree we should be doing more to address climate change, yet half are unwilling to pay any additional tax to address climate change, I do not know how they can be made tenable. Nonetheless, I think they should be worth considering given the magnitude of the problem we face.
1. Implement climate change war-rooms across the country
Federal, provincial, and territorial governments should implement climate-change war-rooms. High-ranking officials should be directly involved in monitoring and pushing for climate change action on at least a quarterly basis.
2. Addressing the political climate-schism
The national parties should take steps to eliminate climate-change as a political bargaining chip. All parties should collaborate on developing a long-term climate strategy that will be implemented regardless of election results. 75% of Canadians believe we should do more to address climate-change, so this would not be drastically circumventing the democratic process. If necessary, this could be ratified by a referendum (which would hopefully pass).
3. Transitioning the prairie economy
Historically Canada has been a natural-resource based economy. Oil and gas in particular is and has been one of our country’s greatest sources of wealth, as well as the most significant contributor to our CO2 emissions. Oil and gas are front and centre in the current national schism because they are also the foundation of the prairie economy. In order for transitioning away from oil and gas to be feasible, developing a new economy for the west should be a national priority, possibly by building up the technology and alternative-energy industries. This will help address the political divide while reducing green-house gasses.
4. International lobbying
All of the above efforts should be accompanied by an intense academic program, both to support the process and to document it. This would then form the basis for the political and academic dissemination of the work internationally.
A Personal Commitment
I feel somewhat hypocritical putting out this call for action when I myself have not made any significant lifestyle changes in the face of climate change. Having reminded myself of the importance of action, however, I would like to make a personal commitment. I will not purchase any beef or pork for the next year [4]. In the spirit of joint action, I invite other meat-eaters to join me. If you would like, message me and I’ll add your name to the list below. Also, I would just like to acknowledge my brother Ben, who gave up pork and beef a year ago for this same reason, and who partially inspired me to make this commitment.
The List
Ryan
[1] Quoting the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday clock is ‘a design that warns the public about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making. It is a metaphor, a reminder of the perils we must address if we are to survive on the planet” (link).
[2] The Doomsday Clock originally focused on the perils of nuclear weapons. Since 2007 the threat of global warming has been included in the analysis.
[3] The membership of the board can be found here.
[4] In case you are unfamiliar, here is an article on the importance of eating less meat.
Commentaires