It is too easy to ignore those who have the most to lose from climate change – future generations
I’m not the only one who sees global warming forecasts, like this one from Datawrapper, and feel a little grateful that I wasn’t always there when the planet boiled. Born in the 1980s, some global warming happened in my lifetime. But I will probably be dead, or very old, when the worst effects are felt.
Anxiety and guilt are also in the mix. I know that there will be people who suffer, and I have a role in my emissions. I’m reducing my carbon footprint.
Unfortunately, COP26 running into challenges with Russia, India and China rejecting a promises to reduce methane emissions, the main driver of climate change, demonstrates once again that humans are struggling to do what they need to do about climate change. Frankly, climate change may be less of a problem than people’s ability to agree on things – to the extent that if people agree, they should be able to deal with climate change.
The biggest inequality today is intergenerational
Humans are already dying from climate change, but it will get worse. Just to make you understand why people choose not to have children. This is certainly good news for the climate, save 8 – 59 tons of carbon per year (note this figure is a reflection of consumption, rather than just ‘life’). However, people should not be forced to make choices on that basis.
Intergenerational equity has been a relatively minor issue over the past few centuries for advanced economies with the next generation. normally so much better than last time. Being better than his parents felt was his right.
There are some intergenerational inequalities on a ‘small’ scale, for example housing costs. Government borrowing is another example, with future generations paying off the debt incurred by the current government, but also benefiting from some expenditure such as infrastructure. These examples are not too alarming – they are a reflection of priorities, not insignificance.
Climate change is in a different league in terms of equity impact. Humanitarian action since the industrial revolution has created conditions in which, at very specific times, humanity can face an existential crisis.
Could we see a tax on pensioners to pay the future bills for climate change? Who knows. I wouldn’t blame the generation most affected by climate change for wanting to address some of the inequities.
It’s easy to ignore climate change when the people who will suffer the most aren’t even here, so it’s changing
One of the tenets of democracy is that everyone has a voice. It is impossible with climate change because the generation that is seriously affected has not been able to vote until now.
An elderly voters in developed countries it probably hasn’t helped to deal with climate change. That young man supporters are more vocal climate action. Parents have less incentive, not a problem.
However, as the population affected by climate change increases, there will be constant pressure on governments to implement carbon neutral/reducing policies.
Perhaps there is a case to issue a large amount green debt to fuel the transition to a carbon neutral economy. Kick the can down the road, but less in an environmentally damaging way. Better to pay off the debt of many future generations than a messed up planet. Such an approach may create the mother of all economic hangovers, but hopefully move emissions down a more sustainable path.
Will extreme climate action be too late? perhaps. Irreversible global warming as a result of glacial melting and deforestation etc. is possible even if humans are more diligent. It’s all a bit depressing. Best not to think about it.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Share using the link below. ▼▼