BLOG: Personal actions for climate change

by Muhammad Rahiz

Two concepts, one agenda?

I do not recall having read much hype about climate change as an environmental issue between 2001 and 2005 when I was reading for my undergraduate degree. Back then, environmental protagonists were largely calling for sustainable development. From 2005 onwards, there was strong awareness of climate change which, according to my observation, spiked especially from 2010. This could be due to two main factors: 1) more confidence in the physical basis of climate change, and 2) the alarming state of environmental affairs which saw unprecedented rise in extreme events such as floods and droughts. I find it rather odd that despite having similar birth period (sustainable development and climate change were “formalized” in 1987[1] and 1988[2], respectively), there seems to be a lack of spotlight given to sustainable development compared with climate change.

This could be because sustainable development is more embedded in long term resource management, whereas climate change is synonymous with environmental hazards, therefore is more appealing to and easier to relate by the ordinary person. Often, the line between climate change and sustainable development is blurred and actions toward tackling climate change (e.g. reducing carbon footprint) are largely forms of sustainable development. Likewise, actions toward sustainable development contribute to slowing down or cushioning the impacts of climate change. Academic discourse aside, I wonder if there is a need for climate change and sustainable development to exist as two separate concepts given that both have the same agenda – future preservation.

Climate change as marketing strategy?

In almost all the cause groups that I have known (through reading), I have not come across any which does not include climate change as one of the reasons in support of their actions. I again wonder if it is necessary draw links between climate change and the group’s cause, and if the inclusion of climate change provides an effective marketing strategy (in similar cliché as the phrase “… and to promote world peace” used by finalists of Miss Universe pageants).  Indeed, the scope of climate change has gone beyond “the change in the state of climate (e.g. temperature, and rainfall) attributed to the increase in carbon dioxide”. Proponents are now drawing alternative arguments to the topic, incorporating new facets such as social justice and equity. Such perspectives have merits given that climate change itself is an interlinked phenomenon, but as much as they are refreshing, they can be confusing as well as they broaden the scope, rather than narrowing it. It is therefore without any surprise that climate change is a super wicked problem[1] simply because we do not know where to begin. What is lacking, in my opinion, is being true to what we are actually pursuing so that it brings back the focus to the problem. Think word association – climate change = carbon dioxide, vegan = animal rights, WWF = wildlife conservation, etc.

Serious fun