In a recent conversation I found myself discussing social and moral responsibility regarding climate change. The debate focused around the idea of "if we know that there is a problem, but that the solution to the problem is larger than one person, do we have a moral obligation to act?"
After years of educational campaigns, we all know that it is "good" to recycle, "good" to buy food from sustainable sources and "good" to try to reduce our climate emissions by walking, cycling or using public transport (the latter has also been promoted as increasing our daily exercise to remain healthy). However, many people now do these as a matter of routine, so when it comes to further helping the climate, they are unsure about what more they can do. People are already doing "the easy bits": they have already made the changes that will not have a large impact upon their lifestyles and, rightly so, they feel vaguely proud of the changes they have made.
In many ways climate change needs to be battled in a bottom-up approach because although each individual is one person, together in the UK we number over 63 million people, each one creating green house gases in our cars and our gas boilers (in the UK more gas is burned in domestic boilers than in the gas power plants). If each household insulates their home, turns down the heating and drives their car less, that adds up to a large reduction in climate emissions. However much of the UK's housing stock is older than 30 years old, making it harder to insulate efficiently, the young, elderly and infirm need to live in well-heated housing, and at times public transport just cannot replace a self-driven vehicle.
Some people have taken up the government's financial incentive and installed solar panels and/or wind turbines onto their properties, thus becoming part of an ever-growing self-generation collective. This "green energy" is then used on the property, reducing the amount of electricity that property requires from the Grid. In some cases, any excess energy is sold to the Grid thereby increasing the proportion of "green produced" energy compared to fossil fuel-based energy. Some people argue that the installation of solar panels for self-generation is a really good idea, and great for the environment, whilst others argue that Britain's climate is unsuitable for such a scheme to be worthwhile. Not all properties in the UK are suited to have self-generation equipment installed, and it is also a costly process, although in theory over many years you will save money due to increasing Grid energy prices.
So if you already recycle, you already walk or take public transport, you are already thinking about the sources of the products that you buy in shops, you already have your heating on for the minimum amount of time and your home is well-insulated, and you have already installed self-generation equipment, is that it? Have you already done all that you can for climate change? Aren't you already doing enough? Is it now up to someone else to "fix" it?
For some the answer is yes; it is now up to scientists to come up with new technologies, and new methods which will reduce emissions and possibly remove emissions that have already been created. Others say that it is now up to businesses and large corporations to make a difference. After all, a corporation creates many more emissions than a single household and they have some control over how things are made and transported. Others say it is now up to governments and world leaders to create international policies to change the way that other countries operate so that they cut their emissions, and to change the way that businesses and public services run so that waste is reduced and energy saved.
For others the answer is no, the individuals have not done enough. For them climate change is an individual's problem as well as a global problem. After all, government's should listen to their people and enact the policies that are important to them, scientists can only do research if there is money and if there are people researching those areas, and businesses need to make a profit and therefore need people's custom. Some people devote a lot of time and effort into joining lobbyist groups, whilst others try to have direct influence by becoming a member of government, becoming a scientist, joining a company or creating their own "green" company, or by using their money to sponsor research.
Whether "yes" or "no" is the correct answer is very difficult to say. Each person has their own priorities in life, and each also has their own level of moral and social responsibility regarding climate change. The more direct routes are not for everyone, and for some people climate change is not high on their agenda: it's not directly affecting them and they have other more pressing issues in their own lives. For others, they feel it is important to try and preserve the planet for future generations Each person needs to decide upon their own level of social and moral responsibility. What's yours?
No comments:
Post a Comment