What are the most important changes we need to make as a society to reach zero carbon?

This question was initially posed during the accreditation process for the fantastic Carbon Literacy Project. The answer might have more to do with our humanity, than our environment.

First, we need to define society.  In the UK, society might be understood to mean ‘everyone’.  But society is multi-polar; it’s about cohesion, capability, culture, culpability, and capacity.  It’s about accountability and responsibility, but also belief in tangible and material outcomes, acknowledging that ‘climate’ is largely intangible.

Are we discussing worldwide society, European society, UK society, society in Syria, Somalia, Shanghai, or Singapore?   The climate crisis is global; however, there is no global authority with the power to enforce climate policy or action.

Communications technology has led global society to become more cohesive than ever.  Paradoxically, it is increasingly fragmented and polarised in culture, wealth, worldview, and communal values.  At the same time, global competition for power, influence, and scarce resources has never been greater.

When devising solutions for a zero-carbon world, context is vital.  The human dynamics behind technological shifts, such as those leading us away from fossil fuels, are often the most challenging aspects of change.

Afterall, the climate crisis has been created by the underlying systems and cultures of humans.  Our role as individuals might be to buy less, use less, and travel less (or at least more consciously).  However, mainstream culture remains skewed to incentivise us to ‘buy more’, ‘use more’, and ‘do more’.

The climate-culture paradox is exacerbated by inequality.

Those countries bearing the greatest burden of global heating, are also the poorest, least developed, and least responsible.  Furthermore, over 45% of global emissions (and growing) come from China, India, Iran, Indonesia, and Brazil, countries with rapidly advancing economies.  These countries accounted for just over 8% of emissions in 1970, and must now balance their quest for modernity, prosperity, and influence, with global citizenship, amidst ever-weakening relations with the West.

So, my first point, is that global society is not singular. What works for one society, or one part of one society, must be adapted, reinterpreted, and galvanised for others.

There is no rulebook for addressing the climate crisis across multipolar societies.  Western technological approaches seek to overwhelmingly preserve (and expand) consumption, rather than reduce it. However, these technologies remain unproven.

While we often hear of carbon capture (CCUS), carbon credits and offshore wind, we hear less of legislative global cohesion, of re-shaping global power structures, or of the UN gaining punitive authority.

The concept of sharing innovation for greater good operates on the fringes of our capitalist and geopolitical norms.

Rather than a globally democratic model for human betterment, climate technologies (for example, those improving crop resilience) are levied by global powers as a means of regional influence.  Here, new societal structures are required to incentivise the widespread sharing of technologies outside the confines of profitability and empire building.

Returning to the title question:

‘What are the most important changes we need to make as a society to reach zero carbon?’

This line of questioning often arises from a place of great intent, great passion, great hope, but also great privilege.  Such questions can imply an ability or predisposition to act.  Though, arguably, this is seldom the case.  Other (more immediate or innate) societal and individual needs take precedence; hence, emissions continue to grow steadily to the current day, despite human causation of the climate crisis being widely recognised during the 1970s.

And so, we must be inclusive, specific, and relevant in understanding which parts of which societies play which role, to impact which metrics, and to what short-term tangible benefit.

Furthermore, we cannot afford to assume that society of any shape or size will act in moral disposition.

Capitalism / neoliberal economics (arguably the root cause of global heating as we know it) is built upon self-interest: the enrichment of a few to prosper the many; a broken model that privileges those with power.  Socioeconomic change must, therefore, coexist alongside emissions reduction. Society must evolve to ‘capitalism 2.0’, under which the costs of industry, to ecological and human health. are acknowledged and taxed appropriately.  Notably, whilst European legislation is tightening, very few companies record their true impact on human or planetary health.

We will not change human self-interest. And so, thinking of emissions reduction; namely:  energy productionl; energy use; industry; agriculture and food production; deforestation; transportation; food production; food waste; etc, we need to ensure co-benefits are in effect at all levels and in all societies where action is required.  For example, greener transportation must also be faster, more convenient, more enjoyable, or lower in cost.

One of my own great climate passions has been food waste.

Globally, food waste accounts for c.3x the emissions of aviation.  However, in the UK (depending on which data you use), emissions from food waste and aviation are roughly at parity (c.8%).  Crucially, communication is skewed to ‘blame’ food waste on householders (c.70% of post-production food waste), however, this is unassailable.  The cost of influencing individual households to bring about material and sustained change is likely to be hundreds of times greater than the funding available.  In truth, food waste correlates with retail sales, and supermarket tactics are designed to maximise food ‘basket value’.  Until this metric changes, food waste will continue to proliferate.

Thinking of the UK, solutions for a zero carbon society include stricter rules on lobbying, a phasing out of fossil fuels, greater collaboration between scientific disciplines, fair taxation on industries resulting in disproportionate costs to environmental / public health, the capping of fossil fuel profits in favour of communities, greater domestic resilience in food production and manufacturing, safer transportation by foot and bicycle, rethinking our language: simply ‘people’ rather than ‘employees’ and ‘consumers’, tackling food waste for what it is (the need to sell more), banning green marketing claims unsupported by meaningful evidence and impact, accelerating infrastructure investments in electric grid and mobility, government backed funding for Greentech startups, greater support for community energy projects, a unified body of best practice for climate communication, and a solution for people to share their cars whilst unused, or preferably remove the need for cars altogether.

A full list of societal changes would extend to a list many pages in length.

Many of these solutions involve huge technical advancements.  However, what unifies climate solutions, is that their primary challenge is most often human, in that we must balance differing perspectives, capabilities, contexts, and objectives, in a harmonious way, for the good of all. Central challenges include the increasing global shift to nationalism, and that our own political system is heavily skewed toward the short-term, serving power structures led by those responsible for the greatest societal harm.

Ultimately, we need to make the climate crisis worth tackling, for people who wouldn’t otherwise place it at the forefront of their actions; a concept that applies universally across all emissions and all societies.

I recently founded 4d Impact, a CIC which helps aid the co-existance of profit and environmental / social purpose. Wherever you are on the journey to net zero, we’re at hand to help translate intent to impact, through strategy, culture / training, communications and impact reporting.