We cannot silence our conscience forever.
While debating the latest news around Brexit, the Italian governmental crisis, Kashmir or Hong Kong, I often hear a little buzz in my head. Like the sound an iPhone makes when receiving an email. It started a few years back.
It used to be quite remote — almost inaudible — when I still worked for the private sector. Yet, whatever I was doing, I couldn’t escape it. Bzzz. Bzzz.
On March 29th2017, when I decided to take a big jump and focus my career on politics, the buzz grew in intensity. While describing courageous reforms of the EU, or pushing for the public administration to be finally digitalized, I kept on hearing it: louder and louder. Bzzz. Bzzz.
Today the buzz never leaves me. While cooking a meal, doing of my laundry, going for a run. Bzzz. Bzzz.
That little buzz in my head reminds me that whatever I am doing is meaningless: humankind might disappear from this planet in 2100 because of climate change. By that date -when our children will still be alive- an estimated increase of 4° degree Celsius in temperature will make our planet hardly habitable for humans. Yes, the risk is not on Earth itself: it will be different, but fine. Probably new species of animals will appear, able to cope with the conditions. But not us.
If we do not stop the climate crisis, our generation will be the last one to grow old on Planet Earth.
I wish that these would be the exaggerated words of a conspiracist whose arguments can be easily dismissed with a roll of eye, and a quick scroll to the next article. But I am not. I am a 27-year old who until a few years ago linked environmental topics to the WWF panda logo, and who now is unsure whether by the time he will retire, New York, Venice and Shanghai will still be cities people live in, or just relics of the past, as Pompeii.
The math behind this statement is as strong as Pitagora’s theorem and the certainty that Spotify will take those 10 dollars from your bank account by the end of the month.
Since the first climate conference in 1979, the scientific community has reached the conclusion that man-made pollution is warming our planet. The “scientific community” is not some plotting body of bureaucrats, but the same group of people that cure diseases, enable us to fly into space, and invented the internet. If you don’t trust a judgment shared by 97% of scientists in the world, you should go back to the stone age.
Global temperatures have already increased by 1°C since 1880 and experts estimates that to avoid perils for humans we need to keep the temperature rise well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels (basically, compared to the time when we did not release huge quantities of carbon emissions in the atmosphere). Sadly, we are losing the battle. July was the hottest month ever recorded. Ever.
So now that we are all aware of the desperate situation in which we find ourselves, what can we do to fight it? Latest research estimates that only a 45% carbon emission cut done by 2030 will save us: at the current state of technological advancements this roughly means stopping half of the flying planes, half of the cars on the road, half of coals plants, and almost halving our electricity usage.
Is this feasible? I don’t believe it a single second.
Will technology evolve enough to enable us to produce clean energy everywhere in the world in 10 years from now? Surely green technologies will create massive employment opportunities, but ten years might not be enough for this.
The best option that our society has to survive is to find a common political solution that citizens from all continents will advocate for with their political leaders. We not only need a global consciousness of the problem (thanks Greta for your work there), but also a practical, transnational policy that can be converted into national law in every corner of this globe.
I am not an expert, but I can for example imagine that introducing a global cap and trade regulation on carbon emission would do the job. “Cap and trade” equate to set a maximum level of carbon emissions allowed in the atmosphere, divide such quantity among several permits, and allow trading of these permits among companies, basically enabling them to sell and buy the right to pollute.
Basically, once the maximum level of emissions is set on a global scale, the private sector and any other “polluter” will have to adapt their business model to follow the new constraints. Exactly as we all have to struggle to do our best with limited resources, the possibility to pollute should be limited as well. Companies will incur some extra costs, that will be easily offset by the fact that if they comply in 80 years there will still be people to sell their products to. As Mr. Trump would say: “A pretty good deal”.
To ensure that such a legislation will have an impact, it needs to be introduced in most of the countries in the world, and surely across its biggest economies. A global movement of citizens is needed for such a battle, and the Greta and the Alexandra O-Casio of this world need to stand behind it.
Do we intend to grow old without witnessing an exponential growth in floods and famine? Do we wish for our sons and daughters to experience the same environment— or even a better one — that we have grown up in? Do we want to give the possibility to our kids to visit New York without a scuba-diving license?
I do. We have one shot to save what’s most important for all of us, and the time is running out.
Are you in?
Bzzz. Bzzz
PS Economists might do not like the simplified explanation of the cap and trade model, or the fact that it was the only proposal presented. They might feel compelled to suggest alternative solutions: please do. We need a “big idea” to stop the crisis we are collectively running into.
