Ajit: More than anything else, I would challenge anyone who feels hopeless to be specific about what’s troubling them. This is obviously easier said than done, but if you take a couple of hours to write down what it is that scares you about climate breakdown, what makes you angry, and what leaves you feeling hopeless, the fears become (hopefully) easier to confront.
In my case, reporting on the climate has made me way less worried about some problems and way more worried about others. In terms of hope, I am, perhaps unpopularly, a firm believer in the idea that we have far more agency than anyone around me seems to realise (with the exception of a handful of scientists). Too many people my age claim a powerlessness that is not backed up by data. Sure, your ability to replace a coal plant with a wind turbine may be limited (it’s still not nothing, if you live in a democracy) but you have power over what you eat, how you get around, how much you buy.
Many people say something like: "I am only one of 83,000,000 Germans, what I do has no effect."
But this is untrue. Consider these three things:
-
We know perfectly well that this kind of arguments does not hold water for collective matters. Nobody can say "If I do not pay taxes, it does nor matter, I am only one if 83,000,000 citizens."
-
Second, if you put 83,000,000 as a divisor of your effectivity, you absolutely need to be honest and also consider the numerator of that fraction: Your carbon emissions affect directly each of the 8,300,000,000 habitants of earth. Every kilogram of CO2 which your car emits affects that many people. This is a big multiplicator!
-
Third, Germany for example is part of the third most powrful economic bloc, within it it is the economical most powerful country, and it is currently the only fully democratic bloc where citizens have the ultimaye power what happens.
There is often the argument that individuals cannot change things, but change needs to come from goverments. But while we of course and absolutely need goverment action, individuals do have a big influence on collectives. Here as well, honesty is required: If you are against slavery, why would you continue to keep slaves? Because of convenience? Is this a convincing argument?
The ethics of this sitiation had been clearly laid out in 1783, in the age of enlightenment by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, it is the Categorical Imperative. It states:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
And, if we had a goverment that truly cares about climate change, would not be one of its first actions be to discourage and disallow e.g. needless privste flying to zero? Why do we need a fricking goverment to tell us what is rational and right to do, and what we already know? As an adult, do you still ask your primary school teacher for permission to go out of the room to pee?
