Small gestures can and do make a difference to big problems
Following the IPCC’S recent report on climate change and the evidence that, despite its disturbing conclusions, it may have fallen short in its estimates, we’ve seen a flurry of analysis about who’s responsible as well as gestures to find solutions.
In terms of responsibilities, a report last year by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) last year attributed 71% of harmful emissions to just 100 companies and their billionaire managers, headed as expected by the large coal and oil companies. Bill Gates comments on the IPCC report on his website and divides up the challenges in the fight against climate change between the percentages of the activities that generate them: 25% from electricity generation, 24% from agriculture and livestock, 21% from industrial activity, 14% from transport, 6% from air conditioning and heating, with the remaining 10% from miscellaneous activities. We need to act if we want to avoid disaster and face up to humanity’s biggest challenge and one that until now we have only been able to address through small, individual initiatives.
In terms of gestures, we have Exxon Mobil’s $1 million donation, the largest listed oil company in the world and that, for years, lied to regulators and to all of us about climate change, in a campaign for taxes on emissions, a gesture that may seem generous, but in reality obscures the fact that the oil companies are reporting huge profits, and that real measures to stop global warming would do them much more harm than a simple tax on their products.
In 2015, 22-year-old Kelsey Juliana, along with 20 other people, brought a lawsuit against the US government for causing climate change in the case known as Juliana v. United States, and if the Trump administration’s efforts to block it fail, it will go to trial on October 29. The plaintiffs are not asking for compensation, but instead the establishment of a national climate recovery plan based on the most advanced science available. The initiative may seem simplistic, but it could mark an important point in raising awareness in the United States.
Such gestures, however insignificant or self-interested, will likely play a very important role in meeting the climate change challenge either by progressing already existing initiatives or raising new ones, inspiring other companies or more importantly, customers who are not going to stand by idly when innovation and technology can provide solutions. For example, WeWork, the largest company of coworking centers distributed all over the world, no longer serves meat in its dining rooms; this may seem a symbolic gesture, but it recognizes the enormous need to reduce livestock production and the consumption of meat to reduce carbon emissions (if cows were a country, they would be the third biggest producer of emissions after China and the United States)
The Y Combinator incubator has announced a call for startups dedicated to extracting emissions from the atmosphere, another way to do something concrete, as well as raising awareness. It is small fry compared to California’s decision to go for negative carbon emissions by 2045, but it still increases the likelihood of generating significant innovation that contributes to achieving the overall objective. Uber, for example, has introduced an extra cost of 15 pence per mile on its routes in London, which may be a threat to its competitive position, but which will be used to generate a £200 million fund toward making half of its 45,000 drivers use an electric vehicle by 2021, with the aim of making the entire fleet electric in 2025.
How important are such symbolic gestures? Much more than it seems. The value of a symbol is to make companies aware of the need to carry out decarbonization initiatives, to prompt analysts and customers to judge those symbols based on their objective contribution, and even to generate affinities and preferences on the part of companies who depend on them. Symbols give us more “moments of truth” in our daily life, when we can decide that, even if a product is more expensive or different, we prefer it because it shows a commitment to dealing with the most important problem we face at this moment. Rewarding symbolic gestures means rewarding innovation and creative ideas, something we desperately need to do to change habits rooted down through the generations. How big does a minority have to be to change those habits, change the consciousness of an entire society? It’s been said that a committed minority of 25% can bring about revolutions and turn them into popular movements. As things stand, our whole future depends on that 25%.
(En español, aquí)
