Going ‘Zero Waste’ doesn’t mean being clueless to the rest of the impact one has. From what I have seen following others online, there is an awareness from those following that path, as it is obvious it is all linked. The ‘R’ in Refuse from the 5Rs of going zero, it is intrinsically linked to reducing consumption. The resource consumption and production of goods have the most impact out of the full life cycle of a ‘thing’, and these people know it well. When I first started following other zero wasters I was frustrated as I was focusing on those with photos of a reusable coffee cup while flying and pumping carbon in the air. But the more that I engaged, the more that I realised it was a minority of that community. I think for some, if not most, the start of reducing your waste to the size of a jam jar is the beginning of self-learning and educating oneself of the rest of the environmental impact one has, and how it can be reduced.
I did a degree in Environmental Earth Science, followed by a masters in Environmental Impact Assessment, but even with this education I didn't quite ‘click’ or felt that I cared enough on other eco-topics such as the industrial livestock damage, animal rights, social injustice of textile production and its toxic impact, as some examples.
So I read Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything, which I must admit it wasn’t an easy read for some parts of the book, but it did help me see how linked everything is. These are some of the notes I took from that book if you don’t want to read it all:
We are all inclined to denial when the truth is too costly — whether emotionally, intellectually, or financially.
We have not responded to this climate challenge because we are locked in — politically , physically , and culturally. Only when we identify these chains do we have a chance of breaking free.
Fossil fuel companies receive up to $1 trillion in annual global subsidies , but they pay nothing for the privilege of treating our shared atmosphere as a free waste dump — the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.
There is a close correlation between low wages and high emissions, a causal link between the quest for cheap and disciplined labor power and rising CO2 emissions.
If countries aimed for somewhere around 3 to 4 days a week, introduced gradually over a period of decades, it could offset much of the emissions growth projected through 2030 while improving quality of life.
Many of the countries with the highest commitments to renewable energy are ones that have managed to keep large parts of their electricity sectors in public and often local hands, including Austria and Norway.
Over the course of the 1970s, there were 660 reported natural disasters around the world. By 2000, there were 3,322, a fivefold boost.
Nuclear is not carbon free, no matter what the advocates tell you. Vast amounts of fossil fuels must be burned to mine , transport and enrich uranium and to build the nuclear plant. And all that dirty power will be released during the 10 to 19 years that it takes to plan and build a nuclear plant. A wind farm typically takes two to five years.
There are high rates of methane leakage in the fracking process. Methane is up 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
Reserves available by all the fossil fuel companies represent 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s a very big problem because to keep the warming below 2C degrees, we can only burn 565 gigatons between 2011 and 2049. So as you see, 2,795 is five times 565. The fossil fuel companies are determined to burn five times more fossil fuel than the planet’s atmosphere can begin to absorb.
In the United States alone, the oil and gas industry spent just under $400,000 a day lobbying Congress and government officials, and the industry doled out a record $73 million in federal campaign and political donations during the 2012 election cycle, an 87 percent jump from the 2008 elections.
Underlying logic of extractivism — that there would always be more earth for us to consume — begins to be forcefully challenged within the mainstream.
Our culture’s most intoxicating narrative: the belief that technology is going to save us from the effects of our actions. The notion that science will save us is the chimera that allows the present generation to consume all the resources it wants, as if no generations will follow. It is the sedative that allows civilisation to march so steadfastly toward environmental catastrophe. It forestalls the real solution, which will be in the hard, nontechnical work of changing human behaviour. ”
As if economic growth still has a meaning on a planet convulsing in serial disasters .
Developed countries, which represent less than 20% of the world’s population, have emitted almost 70% of all the greenhouse gas pollution that is now destabilising the climate.
Living non-extractively means relying overwhelmingly on resources that can be continuously regenerated. Deriving our food from farming methods that protect soil fertility; our energy from methods that harness the ever - renewing strength of the sun, wind, and waves; our metals from recycled and reused sources.
Only mass social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system, left unchecked, is headed.
The economic impacts of slavery abolition in the mid - nineteenth century have some striking parallels with the impacts of radical emission reduction.
When major shifts in the economic balance of power take place, they are invariably the result of extraordinary levels of social mobilisation.
What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Comments