Climate Blame

Why aren’t we acting on the most large-scale threat to humanity yet?

E. J. WYNDHAM

This article was delivered by our guest writer, Eleanor Wyndham, from Wenona, at the 2022 IGSA Festival of Speech. She was awarded second place among a pool of talented speakers, and has kindly provided the SWR with a transcript. Her speech has been marginally edited to fit the print medium of this publication.

The man who invented the engine would go by horse every day, the inventor of the lightbulb worked by candlelight, and he who invented the telephone wrote letters for years before telecommunication. Those trying to improve the world through renewable energy sometimes need to drive cars, take hot showers, and heat their house with gas because that is what is available to them. But to what degree?

In approaching this topic, I conducted some research. After opening a TED talk on Redefining Climate Change Denial, I initially thought the video would be a video that flattered my environmentalist moral compass, but it wasn’t until halfway through that I found myself categorised as a “Passive Denier”. An environmentally aware, climate change acknowledging person, amongst the majority of the western population, who go about their daily life inadvertently contributing to the problem as though it doesn’t exist.

I further exemplified my given category as I proceeded to pause the video on my internationally manufactured laptop so I could justify the 10-minute shower I had that morning. Then, perhaps intuitively to distract myself from this unprecedented accumulation of guilt, I sipped the coffee I had made with the aid of fossil fuel powered technology.

I thought, “Surely, I cannot be regarded in a position of climate change denial morally equivalent to that of an outright denialist – right?”

Like the inventors at the opening of this article, in an institution where I have only little influence, I justify myself as merely a participant in the world around me. I identify problems in my environment, and I make a point to act on them to the best of my ability (even if that has meant being taken in private transport). Despite these affirmations, this new “Passive Denier” category persisted to challenge me.

My aim for today is to draw some light on the social complexities surrounding climate change beyond its daunting environmental effects – as a directory of understanding what groups geographically, financially, and ethically who are best able to fix the systematic inaction on climate change. The perspectives I’m going to share are not a foundation for appointing blame; Climate Blame is precisely what I condemn.

Exactly what factors have pushed our society to successfully act in times of urgency in the past? — and why aren’t we acting on the most large-scale threat to humanity yet? During the peak of the Covid-19 outbreak, it was obvious that human life was facing a threat. It began to affect thousands of families, even in the most privileged circumstances. The Covid-19 outbreak received immediate government funding, hours of news coverage and broadcast, and developing countries were supported with aid almost immediately. After 3 years of uninterrupted action and leadership, we find ourselves in 2022 with life back to normal (to an extent). It has been suggested that the difference between activism on Covid-19 and Climate Change is how relevant in space and time they feel to an individual. 

Climate change related headlines have not been as consistently broadcasted, and unless natural disasters are the biggest topic – environmental news appears secondary. In Western civilisation we benefit from a system that provides resources at great demand. This seems to successfully conceal the gradual effects of climate change from the routine of our personal lives. Examples include air conditioning, seasonally unlimited fruits and vegetables, and, for the most part, a reasonably unpolluted atmosphere. Having grown comfortable in what is our understanding of normality, there isn’t any urgent indication that climate change requires significant adaptation to a reduction in consumption. Protected by this sense of normality, we are, as a result, blind to both international consequences, such as the 33 million displaced citizens in Pakistan, the drought in China, and the Swiss Alps melting at record rate, as well as the severity of climate change that weather fluctuations in the Western nations indicate, which include the unprecedented heatwaves that annually hit Europe and La Nina in Australia for a third consecutive year.

When we are then criticised for our embedded routines that we have spent our lifetimes depending on the convenience of, it is far easier to resort to blaming the forces of a system we apparently abide to. Or worse, proceeding to then condemn national governing figures for hypocrisy or failure of leadership they may be held accountable for to justify the degree of our own irresponsibility. I don’t disagree that those in power should be held accountable to their claims, particularly in regards to enforcing improvement strategies for a nation’s annual CO₂ emission targets. However, regardless of the targets set by government bodies – it is problematic to criticise a spokesperson’s individual practice. Like us, they are a participant in a system that we, as a collective body, have supported for generations.

Perhaps we could perceive this blame game as something akin to a food chain of power. The closer you are to the top, the more blame you receive for not making immediate systematic changes. But if we are persistent to avert our own responsibilities through lifestyle comparison to authority or financial privilege, is it not worth understanding what developed nations might deem of us?

Without sparking too much controversy on what is already a politically delicate topic, we need to acknowledge that climate change also encompasses racial injustice. This can be seen as western corporations benefiting from the international sourcing and production of consumerist goods. The underpaid labourers which generally consist of displaced people of colour with limited to no other option of employment. They are educationally, economically, and systematically at great disadvantage. The Amazon’s sacred forests are currently being destroyed for Western agricultural purposes to produce, predominantly, palm oil, which proves to be in everything we consume – from toothpaste to chocolate. Not only has this contributed to devastating rates of biodiversity loss, CO2 emissions and ecological destruction – but the vast majority of the native people of the Amazon do not possess the resources needed to cope with the environmental impacts of Climate Change. 

There is a similar economic disadvantage for many developing coastal regions and island nations, such as the Philippines and Bangladesh. Can we blame their contribution to the accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere? Of course, we can. But will it do anything? Not when you consider that it is our consumerist culture that supports the demand to produce these unethically produced goods. When I emphasised the term groups in relation to economic, geographical, and ethical responsibility above, it is because it must be stressed that it is the collective responsibility of consumers that is vital in impacting the demand for system change. A system will sustain if it is supported. Not just by the rich, not just by the sweatshop workers employed to manufacture the product, but by the greater commonwealth of developed nations. It is clear considering the increased rate of environmental disasters and the devastating impact it has had on millions of people that we do not benefit from supporting this system anymore. In reducing our demand for products such as red meat, palm oil, plastic, fast fashion, single-use disposables, fossil fuels and private transport – the old system will experience a decrease in profit. Our everyday choices must change in nature so that environmentally friendly alternatives become more widely produced – and therefore more easily accessible.

The consequence of decades of fossil fuel burning is well and truly with us, but there is still a light at the end of the tunnel. I disagree that we “passively deny” the reality. However, for years we have, perhaps, passively denied our responsibilities through comparison and blame that, in turn, by moral measure, might be equally as ignorant to outright climate change denial. I’ll end with this: if you are aware of the issue, or are at an age of independence, or have sufficient finance, or live in a developed society with environmentally conscious choices at your disposal – YOU are within a degree of responsibility to make action happen.

With every choice you are given, you are also given the power to vote for the kind of influence you want to be.