Climate Fiction: Youth Action for Climate Justice
This blog is originally a speech for ‘Amnesty Talks: Climate Justice in Taiwan’ on 16.Dec. 2021, hosted by Amnesty International Taiwan English Speaking Group and 350 Taiwan. During the event, three organisations: Taiwan Climate Youth Coalition (represented by Shun-Te Wang), Environmental Rights Foundation (represented by Yan-Ting Lin and Mau-Ting Nee), and 350 Taiwan (represented by Liang-Yi Chang) were invited to share their opinions on Climate Justice in Taiwan
The contribution of the youth generation is a crucial element in shaping just climate policies. However, now there is a rigid wall between the youth and the process of policy-making. I believe that imagination, as a means, helps break the wall.
Since the last December, our government has kicked off a net-zero task force. The strategy is developed in a top-down form, which means citizens are only informed after the strategy is finished and launched unless they are invited to the ‘policy consultation meetings for net-zero work groups‘. TWYCC and Environmental Rights Foundation, and some other chosen ‘eNGOs’, received chances to join of the meetings. Moreover, the topics of the meetings are — — carbon sink, net-zero building, green transportation, low-carbon industry, economic incentives, and just transition.
It seems like a very fair mechanism. Nevertheless, it didn’t work well. Whilst the meeting, the topics about “climate justice” are marginalised; so as the youth’s voice. From my viewpoint, it is because of two reasons. One is at the surface, and the other is deeper in its structure.
Let’s start with the surface one: KNOWLEDGE GAP.
The participants spend most of their time on technical details during the meeting. For example, time framing of the policy (e.g. Should we phase out fossil-fuel vehicles by 2040 or 2050?); subsidies (e.g. How much money should be spent to help the industries?); and technology (e.g. Should we focus on biodiesel or hydrogen?). These topics are too technical for the youths or even for some eNGOs. They can hardly join the conversation.
Thus far, for youth activists like us, all that we can do are only listen and take notes. When it comes to our turn to speak, we will try to divert the conversation to the topics that we believe are more important, for example, climate justice and generational justice. We, therefore, asked if there is any training opportunities for mechanic workers. We asked if there would be electric vehicle programmes in universities. We also asked if we have alternative options for remote communities as example, in mountains where EVs will be hard to reach.
We have asked the above questions. Nonetheless, the bureaucrats and representatives from industries didn’t answer. Instead, they turn back to their technical discussions.
Apparently, the knowledge gap excludes us from the detailed policy discussion. There is also an ideological gap between the youth NGOs and the policymakers. The in-system policymakers prioritise both the profits of industries and the efficiency rather than the need of people. This ideology is reflected in our institutional arrangement. Currently, the authorities, which take responsibility for climate policies, are the Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Economy (Energy), Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and Ministry of the Interior (similar to the Home Office). The ministers from these departments are the chairs for the net-zero workgroups and for the consultation meetings. These departments are those who negotiate with industries and draft the policies.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education bureaucrats are merely invited to the meeting. I am not exaggerating. But I think the roles for the representatives from the Ministry of Labour are simply being invited and informed. Just like eNGOs. In short: The current system asks teens to join a one-fits-for-all consultation process, regardless of the heterogeneity of economic, cultural, and social capital between different stakeholders.
Then, we need to ask, ‘WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE MEETING?’
We are invited. However, we are not able to join the conversation. In a two-hour consultation meeting, the participants spent 40 minutes on technology, 40 minutes on industrial strategy, 20 minutes on regulation. And then, at the end, 20 minutes or less on education, on training , on public awareness and behavioural change, and on jobs proposed by eNGOs including TWYCC, by Yan-Ting and by other our colleagues. After the meeting, the bureaucrats recorded participant’s opinions and divided the opinions into several categories according the its responsible governmental departments. And here comes the problem. The opinions, related to climate justice, propose by TWYCC and other NGOs are categorised into a category called ‘the others’, which means, the government noticed about our opinion. It is recorded. But no action has been taken, at least so far. A process is called ‘cherry picking’.
As the youth, we found it challenging to dig into the very detailed technical discussion on climate change. However, it also makes us easier to see the whole picture. We can notice what kind of topics are preferred and what are excluded from the consultation. It is easier for us to see the system’s failure because we are not yet a part of that system. As Zarah Slutana said in her maiden speech as an MP of the U.K., I quote, ‘Climate crisis is a capitalist crisis, and the climate struggle is a class struggle across borders’.
The term ‘class’ is referred to as either the working or the ruling class in a capitalist society. Here I want to include ‘youth’ into the class struggle, although what we have is a struggle feeling in our mind, rather than kicking off industrial actions. Most of the members of TWYCC are students. They are trapped in a limbo between adolescence and adulthood, which means they are carrying lots of expatriation and pressures to become an adult. During this transition, we find out many difficulties.
We find out the importance of climate change is not widely recognised by our society, not even by our parents. We find out working on climate change is unlikely to become a decent job after graduation, while those who don’t concerned about climate change are more likely to have a wealthy life. We find out there is limited recourse on campus to support those developing a career towards sustainability. We see in the news that during the construction of the power plants, whether it is powered by nuclear, by solar, or by wind, the effectiveness of the construction and the interest bring to the industries are always more crucial than the right of local communities. Moreover, the last one, maybe the most frustrated one: after years of campaigning for climate change, we realised that we members of TWYCC are the minorities, while those who don’t care about climate change are the majority.
There is a special term describing youth’s worry. It is called ‘climate anxiety’. If you are interested in it, there is a recent research about it published in the Lancet Planetary Health. The members of TWYCC are too young to experience ‘climate justice’, defined in the classical definition, such as job lost or distributive justice in their everyday life. Nevertheless, they are concerned about is quite relevant to climate justice. Moreover, our member’s situation inside the policy consultation meetings reflects how our government deal with climate justice at the moment.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
The most fundamental way is of course a change from internal government. Radically changing our ‘public servant’s’ mind is challenging. Apart from that, we also need more support from society. That’s why in recent years, we co-organised the annual climate march. This year, in September, we worked with our colleagues to demand our government ‘live up to the intergenerational justice, improve climate education, and enhance children and youth’s ability to act on climate change’ during the 2021 Climate Strike.
We also need to deal with the knowledge gap, apart from the engagement system. Nonetheless, I think the proposal is not let the youth people become nerdy climate experts. What we care about is not the gap that stops us from joining the conversations. What we genuinely care about is a gap lays between technical discussions and the need of people. We need to reconnect those political agendas to our everyday life.
What I am working now with TWYCC members is a project called “Envisioning Our Net-Zero Future.” It is a collaborative sci-fi project since 2019. Furthermore, here the critical action is ‘envision’. The target for that action is 2050 net-zero. And the approach of envisioning is science fiction.
Envision means we use our imagination to reconnect technical discussions to the need of people. Hence, the project was started with a literature review. We had read a couple of documents range from climate science to policy papers. We found out the latest IPCC AR6 WG1 paper is the most inspiring one in the research. As you might already recognise, the IPCC AR6 report uses a system called ‘SSP’ pathways to predict future scenarios. SSP means the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. It is a set assumption of the future. Also, each scenario is combined with two elements: socio-economic assumption and greenhouse gas concentration trajectory.
For example, the ‘SSP585’, also called ‘Taking the Highway’, is based on socio-economic assumption no.5 and greenhouse gas concentration trajectory RCP8.5. The socio-economic assumption no.5 means. This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. Moreover, the RCP8.5 means every country keeps making pollution as usual, and our climate policies have had no effect.
While,, if we look into the definition carefully, you will find something interesting. This is definitely about Neoliberalism. The scientists had already taken Neoliberalism into account during their scientific research. Unfortunately, not much policy-maker noticed that. So that means if we include these elements inside our fictional project, they will complement what our decision-makers and the general public doesn’t aware of. So, we use this information to imagine what life will become in 2050. Most TWYCC members are university students, so we construct a fictional university called ‘Warming University’. And then, we start to develop every detail on campus. For example, where is that university? How much is the tuition fee? How many students are studying inside for what programmes? What will the students eat in canton? Is there religious student society on campus?
Also, it is so interesting — because as we develop the detail more, we discover more and more issues about climate justice pop up. Yet, none of the research reports can answer those questions. For instance, we are writing a story about a high school student attending the Warming University’s open day. Also, that character asks: ‘If I am looking for higher salary, should I study medical instead of climate science?’ Later, that character further asks: ‘If I study climate change as specialist, by the time I graduate, Taiwan has already finished the energy transition. Is that mean I need to find a job in developing countries?’
These questions are fictional. However, I believe they are more realistic than technical discussions inside the policy consultation meetings.
Our fictional writing project is still under development. It’s not going to be fast since TWYCC is a volunteer-based NGO. Nevertheless, we believe, in this case, youth have a critical role in climate justice. Our anxiety is a direct result of climate change. Our situation during the decision-making process reveals the challenges of achieving climate justice inside the system. However, our creativity and imagination is a key to reconnecting climate justice and people’s everyday life.
Author: Shun-Te Wang
Editor: Tzuyin Chou