According to This Generation, We Won’t Die From Old Age, We’ll Die From Climate Change
In a time where it’s more sustainable to not exist, eco-anxiety is a concern for even the most environmentally conscious.
I wash my clothes in cold water. I buy my produce from local farmers. I only eat meat on special occasions. I religiously keep my showers to less than 10 minutes. I haven’t purchased a pair of jeans in four years. I drive a car that gets 40 miles per gallon. Only 5% of my household waste is garbage, the other 95% is recycling or compost. I rarely travel by plane. I work from home.
According to the Global Footprint Network, my ecological footprint is 2.8 gha (global hectares) and my carbon footprint is 4.7 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Compared to the average Canadian, who, in 2017 had an average ecological footprint of 8.1, I’m not doing too bad.
So why then, when I am doing everything in my power except not existing, am I among the 46% of Canadians who are “worried” about climate change, and arguably among the additional 28% of Canadians who are “very worried”?
What is eco-anxiety?
According to a report published by the American Psychological Association, Climate for Health, and ecoAmerica in 2017, eco-anxiety is defined as “a chronic fear of environmental doom”. Eco-anxiety has also been recognized as “ecological grief”, felt by Indigenous people of northern Canada in response to watching their ancient territories changing due to climate change, or as “solastalgia”, which was first recognized in a study in 2005 and is defined as “the homesickness you have when you are still at home” when surrounded by a home that has become unrecognizable due to environmental degradation.
While these terms have been coined to define the related nature of mental health and climate change, they are not official mental health diagnoses. Rather, they serve as terms to describe feelings felt by an ever-growing population of climate-conscious individuals.
A survey conducted in 2019 by The Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Institute found that 68% of adult Americans have at least a little eco-anxiety. It was also found that eco-anxiety may be having a disproportionate effect on America’s young adults, with 47% of those between the age of 18–34 saying “the stress they feel about climate change affects their daily lives.”
From wondering whether or not you should have children, to refusing to drink water to the point of hospitalization during a nationwide drought, eco-anxiety can manifest itself in a myriad of ways.
How we got here.
The precautionary principle states that if there is even a shadow of a doubt that tragedy could befall humans, extensive scientific knowledge and agreement are not required before making a decision on the situation. For example, if there is substantial evidence pointing to a massive volcanic eruption that would cause the death of millions of people, the government doesn't have to wait for ultimate scientific proof before it begins evacuating people.
This is a simple enough principle, that is commonly well-understood and accepted when explained to even the most uninterested citizen. Yet for some reason, this has yet to happen when it comes to climate change.
As of 2021, it can now be said that humans, beyond any reasonable scientific doubt, are the primary cause of climate change.
If you put 500 scientists in a room, you’d be hard-pressed to find one that doesn’t believe in climate change. While those 500 scientists wouldn’t agree on much, all of them would agree that more needs to be done to combat climate change and that something should have been done 40 years ago to prevent us from coming as far as we have in the wrong direction.
Scientists have known that climate change is occurring for over a century now, and have warned the world about reducing emissions before a catastrophic event takes place. This international group of scientists who span generations is attempting to practice the precautionary principle, only for it to fall on deaf ears. The deaf ears of corporations, governments, and individuals alike.
That is how we got here.
Who’s responsibility is it to prevent climate change?
As we rapidly approach the beginning of the COP26 climate change conference, it becomes increasingly apparent that there is yet to be a concrete answer as to whose responsibility it is to prevent climate change.
If you ask governments, it’s China and India who are responsible.
If you ask corporations, it’s the individual who is responsible.
If you ask citizens, it’s the government who is responsible.
For decades now, the world has been busy playing a blame game instead of doing anything to prevent climate change. It’s always someone else’s problem and never our own.
So, it begs the question: who’s responsibility is it to prevent climate change?
Back in November 2020, I wrote an article that analyzed the infamous news story published by The Guardian in 2017 which stated that 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Upon the completion of my analysis, I concluded that the climate problem is caused by humans, whether they act as individuals or as corporations and governments. The fact that one leads the other is something we need to keep in mind as our Earth changes for the better, or the worse.
Now, a year later, we approach November 2021 in the same place as when I wrote that last article, with the blame game intensifying.
Governments
On October 21st, 2021, the BBC released an in-depth article describing a massive document leak that revealed that countries from around the globe are lobbying to change the AR6 Climate Change Report for 2021 in advance of the COP26 climate summit. The kicker here is that the major coal- and oil-producing regions of the world (Australia, India, and Saudia Arabia, Norway, Argentina, and OPEC, respectively) vouched for the removal of indications in the report that the world needs a rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels. The major meat-producing regions of the world (Brazil and Argentina) argued strongly against the suggestion in the report that reducing meat consumption is a necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, some of the rich countries of the world (Australia and Switzerland) took issue with providing developing countries with the monetary support they need to meet emission reduction targets.
If the kicker wasn’t clear to you, I’ll put it more simply: the BBC report shows that countries and oil cartels alike with a nation-upholding industry are more interested in protecting their industry exports and thus their economy than they are protecting their planet. News flash: climate change is bad for the economy.
The governments don’t believe that it is their responsibility to prevent climate change.
Corporations
When it comes to corporations, it’s the individual who is responsible for preventing climate change. Take for instance Shell, the fourth-largest oil company with annual revenue of $263.1 billion, who dared to ask consumers what regular citizens could do to reduce emissions. This is far from an isolated incident, and research is finding that the details behind a corporation’s sustainability plan are lacking substance coupled with a lack of overall plan commitment. With many corporations championing sustainability and environmental renewal through the actions of their customers, few are developing actionable plans where they reduce emissions.
The journey towards sustainability for corporations seems to follow one of three paths.
Some, like Costco and Netflix, have not provided any emissions reduction targets, and do not appear poised to in the near future. Others, like Cargill and Levi Strauss, have provided sustainability plans and made commitments, yet have struggled with cutting emissions. The last group, the major tech powerhouses, like Google and Microsoft, have slashed emissions, yet struggle to deal with the lifetime emissions of their products, and additionally have been found to underreport their greenhouse gas emissions.
In an ideal circumstance, governments would place pressure on corporations to reel in their emissions. Instead, according to an article in Scientific America, corporations who have opposed government regulation have spent millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns that include lobbying, advertising, and the generation of reports that appeared to be from scientific publications. The goal of these campaigns was and is to convince citizens that there is no impending climate change crisis.
At the end of the day, corporations are bound to protect one thing, and one thing only: their bottom line.
Individuals
“We don’t need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly.” — Anne Marie Bonneau
When the article about 100 companies by The Guardian came out in 2017, staunch environmentalists and regular uninterested citizens alike chose to use the article as a reason to feel less guilty about their carbon footprint. While I agree in part that most regular citizens should not feel bad about their carbon footprint when compared to the footprint generated by major fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco, Coal India, and ExxonMobil, or entire countries such as China, India, or the United States, it is our overconsumption of products created by these entities that are contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Because it’s unfair to expect that your average working-class citizen can afford a $50 sustainably-made plain white t-shirt, can purchase carbon offsets, or can upgrade to a new electric vehicle, it becomes the responsibility of the government to make the sustainability-based economy more economically friendly.
Without government involvement in putting pressure on corporations, supporting the spread of renewable energy sources, subsidizing the transition to biodegradable plastics, and giving civil engineers the support they need to design cities into eco-havens, consumers will remain reliant on less environmentally-friendly products and modes of living.
However, the government pressures can’t stop at corporations. Ideally, those pressures must involve the wealthiest 1% who will need to reduce their carbon emissions by a factor of 30 to help keep the world on track to meet Paris Agreement targets. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report for 2020 reminds us that the world’s richest 1% (who have a net worth of over $1 million, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report) account for double the emissions caused by the world’s poorest 50% (who have a net worth of less than $10,000). The UNEP report further quantifies this “strong correlation between income and emissions” by stating that the world’s richest 10% (with a net worth of $100,000) use 45% of all energy for land transport and 75% of all energy for air travel, whereas the poorest 50% use only 10% of all energy for land travel and 5% of all energy for air travel. In short, the inequalities of the world show us that the richest 1% would have to decrease their emissions by a factor of 30, whereas the poorest 50% could increase their emissions to three times their current level to achieve the Paris Agreement objectives of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
From here on, it’s clear that individuals will need the support of their governments and corporations to lead more sustainable lifestyles. Yet it will be the support among individuals who will make the transition to a greener life feasible and attainable.
Should we have eco-anxiety?
It is feasible to question whether or not we should have eco-anxiety.
When it becomes seemingly apparent that corporations and governments aren’t going to do anything about climate change, it becomes natural for climate concern to turn into eco-anxiety.
Another good test for whether or not we should have anxiety is to look at the confidence of scientists.
The underlying tone of this question (should we have eco-anxiety?) is aimed towards scientists as we ask them how confident they are that the world can keep emissions within the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Their confidence, in a way, dictates whether or not we should have eco-anxiety.
According to The Royal Society, scientists are very confident that Earth will warm further over the coming century. If emissions continue on their present trajectory with no technological or regulatory-induced abatement, warming of 2.6 to 4.8 degrees Celsius in addition to what has already occurred (+1.2 degrees Celsius) would be expected by the end of the 21st century.
New research published in the Nature journal Communications Earth & Environment on February 9th, 2021, used a statistically based probabilistic framework to determine the probabilities of countries meeting their nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. According to the research, should emissions continue following current trends, the probability of staying below 2 degrees Celsius of warming is only 5%. However, if countries were to meet their determined contributions and continue to reduce emissions at the same rate after 2030, the probability of staying below 2 degrees Celsius of warming rises to 26%.
Further evidence from the IPCC AR6 report indicates the certainty of scientists of increases in the occurrences of extremely hot temperatures over land, increased heavy precipitation events, and more intense agricultural and ecological droughts in relation to each foreshadowed incremental increase in global warming levels should emissions targets not be met.
With these details, it can seem like a climate crisis of apocalyptic nature is on the horizon no matter what we do. Therefore, it’s only rational to have eco-anxiety. However, for every problem, there is a multitude of solutions. For climate change, there is a multitude of avenues that can be taken to help reduce emissions and avoid the worst of global warming. If this is the case, where specifically does eco-anxiety stem from?
For example, in small island nations such as the Maldives, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, and others, eco-anxiety stems from the fact that their entire nation could be submerged underwater due to rising sea levels by 2100. However, eco-anxiety in the richer countries of the northern hemisphere (where climate change may not result in as grievous effects) stems from the threat of the unknown, or in response to the thought that others will be deeply affected due to rising sea levels, increased air pollution, or extended periods of drought or torrential rain.
Additionally, eco-anxiety stems from the fact that climate change messaging tends to revolve around doom and gloom, instead of focusing on what can and should be done. Messages of positivity that share what can be accomplished if we all make sustainable changes are few and far between when compared to the near-constant barrage of headlines telling us about massive wildfires in British Columbia, flooding in India, or drought in Australia. The hyperbole and alarmism that has been peppering headlines about climate change for the last 20 years are similar to the panicked rhetoric about nuclear weapons during the cold war and are further indications that focusing on the calamity of climate change is better for reader engagement than headlines that promote personal responsibility and empowerment.
So, again we ask, should we have eco-anxiety?
With all of the evidence provided in this article pointing towards the perspective that, yes, we should have eco-anxiety, I think it’s critical to explain why.
Anxiety is the feeling that has kept humans alive for thousands of years. Without anxiety, humankind would have been snuffed out a long time ago. Therefore, this anxiety must be harnessed once again to keep humans alive once more, this time against the threat of climate change. However, much like our ancestors, our anxiety must now be channeled into productive mechanisms that promote change, instead of letting the anxiety force us to shut down. Had our ancestors allowed their anxiety of being eaten overridden their ability to leave their caves, humanity would have never flourished into the self-sustaining civilization we now have who have come up with solutions for (almost) every problem we’ve encountered. Instead of letting the dark headlines predicting death and destruction dictate our anxiety, we must let our anxiety be fueled by activism and empowerment to live greener lives, lest we submit future generations to even worse climate change than we will ever see.
How to avoid eco-anxiety.
According to experts, taking action is the best way to avoid or treat eco-anxiety, “either by changing your lifestyle to reduce emissions or getting involved in activism”. These two actions can restore a sense of control and can promote a connection with the community. When collective action is taken to solve a collective problem, great results can happen, for both the mental health of those involved and for the health of the planet.
However, it’s important that we as humans must also live our lives and that we cannot limit our quality of life or experiences just to ensure that we are living perfectly sustainable lives. It’s all about balance. Too far one way and you’ll believe that it is more sustainable to not exist. Too far the other way and you’re contributing to the worsening of the very problem that you have anxiety about.
Some key solutions to avoiding eco-anxiety include:
- Avoid reading articles with “doomsday-esque” headlines and instead, focus on the headlines that discuss new climate change-fighting technologies, discuss tips to help you live a greener life, or highlight the accomplishments and work of environmental activists who are making positive change.
- Take part in activism, whether through protest marches, beach cleanups, or sustainability panels. This can also include sharing what you know about sustainable living, advances in climate science, or occurrences in the activist community by writing blog posts or sharing information on social media.
- Think small, and focus on the small changes that you can make in your everyday life to live more sustainably. These small-scale changes, such as limiting meat consumption to a few days a week, biking to work, or limiting shower time, are great ways to build emotional resilience.
- Avoid feeling ashamed for the parts of your life that you can’t make sustainable. For instance, if you live in Canada, you’re going to need to drive to work due to our spread-out cities, you’ll need to buy fruits and veggies that have been imported from warmer climates for half of the year due to our frigid winters, and you’ll need to own multiple types of cold weather gear for said winters. These things can’t exactly be made more sustainable, so instead, focus on the parts of your life that you can make sustainable.
- Reconnect with nature by spending time in the great outdoors. It’s important to remember what we’re fighting for when all you see of the wild is what’s broadcasted on the 24/7 news cycle.
- Curate social media accounts that inspire you to live a more sustainable life. Instead of following accounts that just share scary statistics, follow the accounts that promote empowerment. If we must be surrounded by social media, we might as well be surrounded by only the good stuff.
The takeaway.
We have perhaps never before lived in a time where fear of the unknown has played such a prominent and determining part in our lives.
Every generation has had its major fear, and the latest generation has climate change as theirs.
As we approach the COP26 summit, it becomes important to remember that, whatever the outcome, we must, as the British said before and during WWII, “keep calm and carry on”. While nearly one hundred years old, this saying rings true as we must focus our energy on making small actionable changes to promote sustainability instead of becoming stricken with fear of the unknown.
What will be will be, and if we can say that we’ve done our damndest to live a sustainable, green life to the best of our abilities, then we can rest knowing that we were on the right side of history.
That is all that can be asked of us.
