Aweh dearly beloved fellow ruminants & groupies
Is conflict an inherent part of the human condition? Why don’t we just be nice to each other and get along? The Ukraine war and the recent and emerging war in Israel serve to remind us that despite all our progress conflict endures. There are very polarised views on both sides of these terrible wars and immense human suffering.
From an evolutionary perspective, it can be argued that conflict is inherent because it confers an evolutionary advantage. Throughout human history, competition for limited resources such as food, water, and shelter has been a driving force. In evolutionary terms, individuals and groups that were better at acquiring and defending these resources had a survival advantage. Evolution by natural selection favours traits and behaviours that enhance an individual’s or group’s chances of survival and reproduction. In some situations, conflict or competition may have been adaptive for these purposes.
Yet evolution has also favoured traits related to cooperation and altruism. Many societies and cultures promote conflict resolution, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence as core values. There is also much that is noble about humanity.
What does this mean for climate change? The Paris Agreement of 2015 was established with the aim of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. If countries adhere to their current pledges, the world is projected to experience a temperature increase of 2.1 to 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels, in contrast to the 3-4°C increase under current policies. Such a scenario could have significant detrimental effects on both human populations and the natural environment.
Our approach to climate change reflects both cooperation and conflict. Let’s consider a recent example. Three weeks ago, Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists held a three-day occupation outside the head office of Standard Bank in Rosebank, Johannesburg. It was an act of civil disobedience, a deliberate and peaceful provocation to Standard Bank which, the organisers say, aimed to highlight its continued financing of fossil fuels, and in particular the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project. The featured image shows a burly security guard having a convivial discussion with one of the protestors and providing a friendly demonstration of how to implement a chokehold. Standard Bank has since issued d an apology for its behaviour. Confrontations such as these are increasingly common across the world.
The debate around climate change is becoming increasingly polarised with both sides increasingly starting to shout at each other.
The climate lobby is becoming increasingly strident in issuing dire warnings and even the Pope has weighed in suggesting that we lead immoral and irresponsible lifestyles. Is the moral messaging helping? Not so much. An Italian study showed that willingness to support meat tax diminished among the highly religious when they were exposed to the Pope’s message. While young people are very concerned about climate change, they flock to celebrities that promote consumerism (what the Pope calls, “irresponsible lifestyles”) and have shockingly high carbon footprints.
Consider, for instance, an evolving situation illustrating climate change cognitive dissonance and conflict relating to heat pumps. There is a growing consensus that heat pumps, powered by renewable electricity, offer the most efficient and cost-effective means of heating buildings in a decarbonised world. Heat pumps can achieve up to 400% efficiency, producing up to four times more heat energy than the electricity they consume. Additionally, they can double as air conditioners for cooling during the summer. However, in Europe, legislation mandating the replacement of existing gas boilers with heat pumps provoked a political backlash in Germany. Although decarbonisation necessitates the eventual elimination of fossil fuel for building heating, the installation cost of heat pumps in domestic homes remains a significant financial burden, even in advanced economies like Germany. On the one hand we have climate activists and government policies trying to implement decarbonisation and on the other hand as soon as people realise that sacrifices and significant cost might be involved their commitment falters.
In the United States installing a heat pump in your home costs between $2,500 (R47,500) and $10,000 (R190,000), with the average homeowner spending $5,500 (R104,500). Although labour costs in South Africa may differ similar costs can be expected in South Africa.
In the West, there is a growing commitment and legislation to decarbonisation and phasing out of coal yet in India and China coal power stations that will operate for many decades continue to be built. Will we achieve net zero by 2050? It is doubtful. We are not prepared to make sacrifices in the name of climate change.
As the consequences of climate change become more pressing and urgent, how might this unfold? As temperatures rise, can we anticipate more conflict and a shift toward blaming others? Who is responsible for climate change? Is it my generation that has passed the problem on to younger generations? Is it the industrialised economies, which are responsible for a substantial portion of cumulative historical emissions? Is it the fossil fuel producers? Is it the banks that finance these producers? Could it be countries with high per capita emissions, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa? Or are policy and regulatory failures to blame? You may choose whichever perspective aligns with your views.
Are you personally to blame? Of course not. Banish that thought. I know that you support decarbonisation. It’s the fossil fuel companies and the banks. Protesting outside their offices may capture their attention, but do remember to cycle there, eliminate meat consumption, close your bank accounts, and generally decrease consumption to get your own carbon footprint to net zero. Alternatively, take a moment to look in the mirror and reconsider who is accountable for climate change when you face your reflection. Or, perhaps vilifying someone else and creating conflict is a more appealing prospect than attributing blame to yourself, unless, of course, you’re a masochist. Conflict is a feature of the human condition, not a bug, and I point the finger at you.
I want to express my gratitude for all the ideas and comments received. I genuinely appreciate them, and please continue to share your thoughts.
Regards
Bruce
Ruminant Pink Friday 