UK Households: Sceptical or Down Right Stubborn?

The link between climate change and flooding has become a reality for an increasing number of people in the UK, with 1 in 6 households threatened by flood events (CarbonBrief, 2014). Why is it then, that property-led climate change adaptation and mitigation isn’t taken seriously by the public? Particularly by those living in high-risk flood areas (Bichard & Kazmierczak, 2012)...

Rain fall in southeast and central southern England 1910-2014 

(Source: Met Office, 2014)

Surely it’s an unquestionable progression that as the UKs housing stock grows, household consumption, unsustainable activities, GHG emissions and flooding events will increase. It makes sense then, for households to adopt energy-efficient measures - insulation and thermal glazing etc – and make habitual changes to reduce their climate change contribution. However, whilst it’s encouraging to see households making the effort to conserve energy, what should be black and white is plunged into grey, as members of the public quickly pass the blame and unwanted responsibility to the government - failing to acknowledge their responsibility and the immediacy of climate change and flood risk seriously.

Let’s look at the facts. People aged 45-55 emit the most carbon in the UK – at 50% more than under-25s! The wealthiest households emit twice the amount of carbon as the bottom 10% of UK earners (CSE, 2013). Whether surprised by these figures or not – I admit I was – they do help us to make sense of lacking public participation. Maybe the middle-aged can learn something from the more recently educated, younger generation? Perhaps it isn’t out of the question to encourage the wealthy to invest in more sustainable alternatives and compromise on convenience and comfort?

Mean Annual Carbon Emissions of top and bottom 10% of UK earners (CSE, 2013)

Total and Breakdown of Emissions by top and bottom 10% of UK earners (CSE, 2013)

Unhelpfully, news reports have suggested that the UKs flooding isn’t caused by climate change per-se, but is “self-imposed”; accusing population growth and building on unsuitable areas such as floodplains etc (Harrabin, 2014). So, are the public right to pin the blame and responsibility on the government after all? Or are reports such as these reasons for public scepticism and neglect of responsibility?

BUT on the other hand, such changes come with a significant hit to the public’s piggybanks. Despite saving money long-term, adaptation can only be facilitated by those who can afford it. Is this a significant financial barrier that policy-makers overlook?

It is clear that mitigating GHG emissions in the UK requires government efforts and public participation. However whilst skepticism lingers it looks like it’ll take more than a flood to wash it away.

India: Eco-warrior or Eco-worrier?

As one of the world’s BRIC economies, India’s fast-paced socio-economic development relies on exploiting its natural resources; producing many of the GHGs we’re trying to get rid of!

Following The Great Acceleration of 1950, India’s GHG emission has rocketed as human enterprise dominates the Earth system (Steffen et al., 2015). From 2005-2013 alone India’s carbon emissions have increased nearly two-fold from 1410MtCO₂ to 2407MtCO₂ - overtaking land-giant Russia and ranking 3^rd in the Global Carbon Atlas. Considering the country’s size versus its GHG belching contemporaries I feel this is a cause for concern…

CO₂ emission global ranking 2005

CO₂ emission global ranking 2013 

As a back-lash of GHG emission, long-term climate change threatens India’s ecological and socio-economic systems with less-frequent rainfall and longer periods of drought depleting water resources and affecting rain-fed agriculture, rising sea-levels flooding coastal areas and increasing malaria incidence alongside increasing temperatures. However it is encouraging to see the government’s determination to improve adaptive capacity and the mitigation of GHG emissions through efforts undertaken at home, introducing a range of domestic reforms to create a pathway to a sustainable future (Gupta, 2005):

• Ethanol blended petrol to reduce pollution and boost the sugar industry
• Joint Forestry Management, utilizing rural and tribal knowledge of forest species to increase carbon sequestration, conservation and reduce human intervention
• Population policies to stabilize its growing urban population
• Government-funded research into renewable energy to harness the potential power India’s abundant renewable resources have to offer

Ecotourism is another domestic effort which drives India’s economy and climate change mitigation – sounds like the best of both worlds right? Considered a growing niche, “green hotels” embrace environmental responsibility and are committed to utilizing ‘ecologically sound practices’ i.e. saving resources and reducing waste. However a study by Manaktola and Jauhari (2007) highlights how India’s efforts are challenged by the very consumers it endeavors to attract. Despite presenting a positive disposition towards green practices, consumers are less-willing to compromise their life-styles and quality of service or to pay premiums for environmentally-friendly hotels unless they personally benefit from practices. To me, this is a selfish obstruction of rich westerners which effects not only India’s sustainable progression but also the global effort.

Whilst it is encouraging to see what India is doing to mitigate its contribution to global climate change, only time will tell how effective its domestic efforts prove to be... But that’s another precious commodity the world is running out of in its efforts to reduce harmful emissions!

Alaska's Climate Change: An Inuit Conundrum

Global climate change has presented Alaska with a significant socio-economic and environmental dilemma, initiating discussions which propose furthering oil-fuelled economic growth to fund damage repairs to its coastal villages caused by rising sea levels. All at the expense of inducing further climate change…

Confused? Me too, but these situations are becoming all too common as contemporary society has found itself paying for the costs of unrelenting anthropogenic domination over natural Earth.

Some say it’s a case of “balancing two conflicting pressures” – climate change versus economic growth - however when analysed in detail, social forces must be taken into consideration in the battle determining Alaska’s future (Sackur, 2013).

Home to a long-established indigenous Inuit population, Kivalina is a commonly used example of an Alaskan village whose coastline is unprotected against rising sea levels and coastal erosion as a result of retreating Arctic sea ice. With an impending population-less future by 2025, Kivalina’s residents face evacuation and the destruction of their livelihoods – due to a crisis they argue they haven’t contributed to (Sackur, 2013).

Situation of Kivalina

 Kivalina,Alaska

Governor Walker argues that drilling for oil within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will boost Alaska’s revenues and pay for the damage incurred by rising sea levels and coastal erosion (McGrath, 2015). Whilst environmentalists are criticising Walker’s proposal as too one-dimensional to solve Alaska’s problems, I can’t help but feel that blind and backward are more apt descriptions of the idea and that a more considered approach should be adopted. The solution to Alaska’s issues aren’t black and white. It is easy to condemn anthropogenic activities and argue fuel extraction is completely against global sustainability efforts, but when human wellbeing is thrown into the mix, other options must be explored before potentially life changing decisions are made.

Flip the coin over, and natives of the area in which the drilling is proposed collectively object to development and argue the importance of protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd which - totalling at a population of 169,000 - is a significant component of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its natural dynamism. Not to mention, an ‘important subsistence resource’ for the Gwich’in people who live there. 

Porcupine Caribou Herd

Bearing that in mind, surely Alaska faces a lose-lose situation? What’s the best scenario? Increasing climate change and sea-levels? Allowing the destruction and evacuation of an Inuit village? Or threatening the survival of the Gwich’in people and disrupting the natural dynamics of an area?

I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision.