The False Meme that stops Climate Action
This graph was recently published in “Die Zeit”. They certainly managed to capture the essence of the climate problem in one simple picture…
The question was: “Are Germans prepared to make changes in order to protect the climate?”
And the answers? Some people answer “yes”, but the vast majority answers “but…” They have reservations.
It makes you despair of humanity. If there is no willingness to change, what chance do we have of successfully tackling the climate crisis ?
I received this image from a friend at Citizens’ Climate Europe, and her comment was: we must try to convince more people to say “yes”. That’s the goal of our climate movement.
But it did make me think: is that really what we should do ?
Maybe the people who say “But…” are right. All the time they hear: we will have to make sacrifices to save the climate”. People get worried when they get that message. Maybe rightly so? What are they going to demand of us ? Where is it going to end ? What is it going to cost me ? When will it be enough ?
Maybe I even belong to the “But …” group. I believe that the climate crisis must be tackled urgently, but that doesn’t mean that I accept every climate measure without question. I am a self-proclaimed climate policy skeptic, and in my opinion skepticism about climate policy is much needed. After all, making more money available for climate measures does not necessarily result in better climate policy.
“But…” is a fairly accurate summary of my thoughts.
“We will have to make sacrifices to save the climate”. It is an implicit belief that EVERYONE takes for granted: the left, the right, the entire political spectrum — although the willingness to make these sacrifices varies considerably depending on political colour. But is it true ?
Of course, if one accepts this proposition as true, then it presents us with a agonising choice. For increased climate ambition implies that we must demand more from people, including those who are already struggling to make ends meet. This is where the more progressive European parties are internally divided: they want to set an ambitious climate target, but as soon as it comes to policies to realise this climate target, they back off, worried about the impact on the most vulnerable.
For example, the current proposal of the EU ENVI committee is that ETS2 (the planned new emission trading system for transport and buildings) will only apply to households from 2029. Far too late to meet the 2030 target. Moreover, they want to cap the ETS2 price at €50/tonne. It will greatly weaken the effectiveness of this policy and jeopardise the 55% emission reduction target by 2030. It means that other measures will have to be taken, most likely at the member state level — and economic theory predicts that these measures will unfortunately cost people even more money.
Fortunately, the EU is devoting increasing attention to poverty reduction and financial support for people. But if no or only limited carbon pricing will be introduced, where will the money for this support come from?
So, basically, they are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is a widespread implicit belief that there is a conflict between the ambition to solve the climate crisis and the possibility of implementing socially just policies. But does there have to be a conflict?
The core of the problem is precisely that fossil fuel companies are making billions in profits while passing the bill for the climate damage on to ordinary people. If the fossil fuel industry had to pay for the damage itself, the climate crisis would have been solved long ago.
This perceived conflict stops climate action.
I know this is ambitious because it has become deeply rooted in our consciousness, but I want to fight the meme “We will have to make sacrifices to save the climate”, as I believe it is leading us nowhere.
This way of thinking is wrong, and makes us secretly sabotage our own policies. Don’t make people sign up to a vague demand to make sacrifices for the climate, while no guarantees are given. They are right to have reservations about it.
I would like to replace it with the following meme:
Price Pollution — Pay People
This policy, also known as “the Climate Income” is recommended by many economists as the most effective climate policy.
Pricing pollution will make polluting products more expensive than clean products. The price difference will make people and companies choose the clean alternatives. It will greatly accelerate decarbonisation and the widespread deployment of clean alternatives. The proceeds are used to support the people in the energy transition.
Everybody receives a Climate Income. Most households, especially low and mid incomes are better off or break even through this policy.
It is simple, transparent, just and effective, and I hope that for many people it will dispel their reservations.
This makes it possible to implement an ambitious climate policy, that will receive broad support from the people. There is no longer a conflict.
Brigitte Van Gerven
Citizens’ Climate Europe
https://www.citizensclimatelobby.be/
https://citizensclimateeurope.org/
