We know that sustainability isn’t working as it should be. Most of the time it feels like a huge burden or inconvenience because being ‘green’ goes against everything normal in our daily lives. Governments aren’t doing enough. Individuals are expected to do too much. Our civilisations have grown separately from the natural world. We thought this made us sophisticated and evolved, but all we have done is wreck our home. We know we have to change but we don’t know how. Maybe we don’t want to. But if we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t feel real. Recycling Sucks is an alternative sustainability publication that seeks to address our present environmental issues with a fresh approach. Over six chapters, this zine looks at these problems through a wider lens, covering various topics ranging from Covid-19 to evolution to consumerism in relevant and relatable discussions that challenge our outlook on sustainability in relation to ourselves and our societies. We know we have gone wrong somewhere, and now we need to start asking why. Recycling Sucks aims to pull back the curtain and understand why we’re doing such a terrible job, how we got here, and what needs to change.
Contents 1 9 19 27 35 45
RECYCLIN T
here are two major reasons why recycling sucks. This chapter will take a look at these reasons and discuss why we’re having such a hard time with sustainability – why we can’t get it right, what is stopping us from finding solutions, and why we are thinking about it all wrong. Imagine you’re in a cafeteria. Perhaps you have experienced something like this before. You’re about to leave and you are standing in front of a row of very intimidating bins. You have no clue where to throw your rubbish and you feel like if you stand there much longer people will think you’re stupid. Just as you think you’ve figured it out you read some fine print that says, ‘No Food Contaminated Waste.’ But you’re in a cafeteria, so isn’t all the waste food-contaminated? What do you do with your salad container now? You probably chuck it in the bin that seems right and leave quickly. If you’ve experienced something similar you are not alone. In fact, over 50% of Brits say they don’t recycle properly because it is too confusing and complicated [1].
1
NG SUCKS ALL WORK, NO PLAY This is reason number one. Recycling is a giant inconvenience. You know you’re supposed to do it. You know it’s the right thing to do, but you can’t get rid of the voice inside your head saying, “This is bullshit”. You don’t admit this to anyone though; what would they think? One of the fundamental flaws with recycling and a bunch of other sustainability related efforts is they place too much burden on individuals. Imagine you’re in the cafeteria again. You wanted to buy a salad, but instead you bought a salad, a plastic container, a wooden fork and a paper napkin. This includes three items you didn’t even want, three types of materials, and three objects you must now responsibly get rid of. What makes recycling so problematic is that it places all the responsibility on consumers without providing the necessary systems, information or (let’s face it) incentivisation for proper disposal of waste. For too long we’ve only been encouraged to consume and not think about waste and where it ends up. The field of marketing has thrown all its creative weight into understanding the science of consumer behaviour, but a lot less effort has been made to extend product lifespans or study what influences positive recycling behaviour [2]. We live in a time where it is cheaper and easier to replace a stereo than to fix it. Products have “built-in obsolescence” to encourage you to buy more and more even when you don’t want to [4]. We only recycle out of moral obligation – to do our so-called ‘good deed’ for the planet. We don’t know what good it does, and it doesn’t usually offer any immediate personal benefit. On a similar note, if we don’t recycle it doesn’t seem to matter either – in the UK and other affluent societies, we don’t experience the waste we produce. We just throw it away. But we are, finally, cottoning on to the fact that there is no “away” [3].
2
3
So, let’s look at what happens when materials are recycled. First, we can ask the too obvious question. What is recycling? It is generally accepted as the process of breaking down objects and waste in order to reuse materials. We envision a cyclic process where materials are used over and over. That isn’t really the case though. What we think is recycling, is usually “downcycling” [4]. The quality of the materials is significantly reduced and made into some mashed-up hybrid that will be used to produce something undelightful like frisbees or detergent bottles. A good example of this is aluminium cans. These are made from a valuable metal that takes time, money and effort to mine and manufacture. They are typically made from two kinds of aluminium. The top of the can is made from aluminium manganese alloy and the rest is made from aluminium, manganese alloy, magnesium and some coating and paint. When these cans are recycled all the materials are melted together, resulting in a weaker and less useful product. This seems nonsensical because it is. The problem is, most things aren’t designed with recycling in mind. They’re designed to be discarded [4].
Let’s move on to plastic – we know that is problematic. Plastics require a lot of energy to be processed and turned into something else. Not to mention, very little plastic waste is recycled because there are so many different kinds. In fact, there are only two types of plastic that are routinely recycled – PET (used for water bottles) and HDPE (used for bottle caps and heavier bottles). It also takes a lot of intensive labour to separate recyclable plastic from nonrecyclable plastic and other materials. Another problem stopping the success of plastic recycling is the price of crude oil. Plastic is made from petroleum, of which the price currently remains very low. So low that it actually costs less to make products from virgin plastic than from recycled plastic. It is also significantly easier, seeing as you don’t have to try determine its chemical compilation and how quickly it will degrade. How is recycling going to win when it is in competition with something as pertinent as profit? There simply isn’t enough value in it to make it worth the effort, apart from maybe helping the planet, but how important is that? Money makes the world go round. At the end of the day, recycling and sustainability are businesses, and it’s a hard sell promoting a business that offers more effort coupled with less economic benefit [5].
4
PISSING INTO THE WIND A whole generation has been raised with ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ drilled into their brains, but really, they are just three speed bumps between raw materials and inevitable waste. People have been made to think that they are doing good things for the Earth by washing and separating their rubbish but the reality of the situation is that no one is actually sure how much good it is doing [5]. This is reason number two. As far as functioning systems go, recycling actually sucks. It is sustainability’s biggest lie. It’s a lie we tell to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we are happily throwing away and even incinerating valuable materials, both renewable and non-renewable [3]. The unstandardised, unregulated catastrophe of a recycling system that we’re familiar with is doing about as much good for the environmental crisis as fixing a leaking tap in a burning building. Currently, the UK recycles around 43% of all its household waste – it’s not great but it’s a lot better than the US, which is around 25%. The significance of this victory is open to interpretation. Like a lot of other first world nations, the UK doesn’t like dealing with its own waste [6]. And the waste-handling infrastructure in the UK just doesn’t cut the mustard. This became a big issue in 2018 when China decided that it would no longer buy recyclable waste from other countries. One upshot from this situation is that the UK may be forced to pull up its socks and sort its waste problem out. But the answer is not more recycling. We need to seriously rein in our consumption and devise new and effective methods that promote circular use of materials, not disposable use [7].
5
You may be thinking, why are we so bad at recycling then? The real question is; why are we so bad at being sustainable? When you really boil it down, the answer is relatively simple. You could say it began with the Industrial Revolution. The humble Spinning Jenny was patented in 1770. This invention transformed England’s textile industry and inspired a succession of other new technologies. This led to the development of factories, industrial areas and cities. Then, in total blissful ignorance, we unleashed a monstrous industrial beast that we had no idea how to control, in fact, we didn’t know that it even needed to be controlled. It was such a hopeful and optimistic time in human history, full of development and possibility. Industry boomed, cities grew, major economies began to form and we had a seemingly endless supply of resources. Until people started dying, actually dying, because of the effects of living in industrial areas [8]. Since then industry has been back-peddling, trying to make its pollution and destruction “less bad” [9]. This has been the general spirit of sustainability since the very beginning of industry. There are two issues here. The first is, this way of thinking is obviously extremely out-dated. Secondly, it has made sustainability entirely unfun. Almost everything about sustainability is negative, including our vocabulary – reduce, save, minimise. None of those words are fun [10]. We’re still thinking about sustainability as a necessary measure to prevent people from dying – and that is really morbid. The reason recycling and other sustainability efforts feel like a burden, is because they are. They work against the systems, rather than being functionally integrated within other systems. We’ll never get everyone on the sustainability bandwagon if this doesn’t change.
6
What we need to learn from recycling is that we can’t continue to address sustainability issues in this manner. Recycling isn’t all bad. The way we recycle is bad. But we also need to realise that recycling isn’t the answer- it’s a pre-solution solution. Pretending recycling is a good system is detrimental to the way we address sustainability because it prevents us from coming up with better ideas, and it excuses our insatiable consumption of materials. It’s a Noddy Badge that makes us feel like we’re not completely destroying the planet. That is definitely not to say we should stop recycling. We definitely can’t afford to. We need to reject the lie that the waste crisis can be solved by individual habits such as recycling. But if we want things to change, we must be willing to make the first move. We need to collectively put effort into demanding better and also doing better… and then hope like hell it’ll make living sustainably a little easier.
7
So, what does that mean for individual responsibility? The single-use straw ban is a good example. It was an incredibly simple movement that just started with people saying “no�. This led to a huge, collective change in consumer behaviour that had significant results, including straws and other single-use plastic items being banned by corporations, municipalities and even governments. We know that it works, now we just need to think a little bigger and remember that there are lots of other things made of plastic apart from straws, and lots of other problematic products. Ultimately, if we’re going to get anywhere with sustainability we need systematic and societal changes that allow for effective contribution from every individual. How humans function depends largely on the society they exist in and our current societies have allowed reckless and uncontrolled use and disposal of materials [11]. We need to start acting like the materials we use are valuable, because they are, and we need to get serious about developing a circular economy. But most importantly, we need to find a cure for our crack-addict consumption behaviours.
8
I WANT IT ALL, I wan
and i want it de BRING BACK THE MILKMAN W
e all know the story of the milkman. It’s a service that many of us have used, but which the younger generation only knows from the ‘back in my day’ lectures from parents and grandparents. During the 80s, around 90% of milk consumed by British households was delivered right to their doorsteps. But over the years supermarkets became more dominant and offered a cheaper and more convenient alternative. By 2016, that percentage had dropped to 3% [1]. Today the concept feels so antiquated to us; a quaint little system from a bygone era. The idea of having milk left on your doorstep or even drinking milk out of a glass bottle almost seems bizarre. But the milkman is a symbol of the localised, circular lifestyle we have lost touch with, and need to find our way back to. The system was so genius in its simplicity, which allowed for low impact and low waste. Originally deliveries were made by horse and carriage, but the electric ‘milk float’ has been around since the early 1900s. During the 20th century, milk floats became a British icon and trail blazers for electric vehicles. In the sustainability game, they were way ahead of their time [2]. Milk was delivered in the morning in glass bottles, and when the milk was finished the bottles were placed outside again and collected during the next delivery. The collected bottles were washed and sterilised, refilled, and reused. No plastic, no packaging sent to landfills, no ‘recycled’ bottles, the loop is closed, and it’s beautiful [3].
9
nt it now,
elivered Today we buy milk from Tesco or Sainsbury’s along with avocados from Chile, grapes from Egypt and cucumbers from China. Localism is dead, and in a world where price and convenience reign supreme, it’s not coming back. We are used to having whatever we want, whenever we want it, without giving too much thought about the impact it has. If we just analyse avocados for a moment, we can put this into perspective. Sorry millennials, but we really have no business eating avocados in Britain, let alone eating them all year round. Some of the greatest demand for avocados comes from places where they are not and cannot be grown – like the UK. Shopping from a global market makes the carbon footprint of the things we
buy significantly higher. Yes, it sucks being told, once again, that the things you love most are bad for the planet and yes, avocado on toast is wonderful. Of course, when you look at other products like beef, which we know of as the worst carbon producing food product, transport typically makes up less than 0.5% of total emissions. For most foods over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions comes from land use and farming [4]. Ending globalism isn’t the answer, just like switching to local beef won’t make you greener, which begs the question, is globalism good or bad? Either way, the answer is yes.
10
The global economy we’re familiar with today has been a long time in the making. Since 200 BC, most humans have lived in empires and we have been trading goods pretty much since we have existed [5]. Luxury goods from China first arrived in Rome via the Silk Road in 1 BC. This marked the beginning of the end of local trade [6]. Today, we live in over 200 separate countries, but none of them are really independent. Our economies make up a global network that shares trade and finance, labour and knowledge. Since the end of World War II, the global economy has expanded rapidly, in a process called the ‘Great Acceleration’ [7]. This has led to increases in many varying social and economic indicators from urbanisation and wealth per capita, to deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions [7]. Some good, some bad, some really ugly. Global warming and environmental degradation are a result of rapid carbon-heavy economic and industrial growth, which has been driven through the roof by globalisation. Since the 1700s, the global economy has been guided mostly by liberal economic ideas. This follows the premise that politics and economics should be kept separate, and prosperity will be achieved through the extension of global markets as long as everybody follows the same religion. That is, continuous growth. This has worked for so long because it allows for quick and drastic reinvention in times of crisis and instability, and finding new ways to avoid prolonged economic slumps.
11
Tackling climate change obviously means rethinking globalisation, which is tricky because this also involves coming up with new ways to respond to global crises. This means reconsidering the theory of unlimited growth and finally progressing from the age of fossil fuels. History shows that more growth means more carbon emissions, and that is definitely not the solution to this particular problem. Solving the environmental crisis also requires new local and global democratic economic planning. In the past, these actions have only been
conducted in really dire situations, like mobilisation for World War II. We would like to think necessary action would be made before we’re that neck-deep again. This shouldn’t mean that we abandon globalisation. But we need to change the ideas and institutions that govern it. The balance and purpose of the international flow of goods, capital, people and knowledge that drive globalisation needs readjustment. Negative aspects such as unsustainable trade practices that rely on and promote the use of fossil fuels, need to be phased out. While global solidarity, new planetary priorities, and the connection of our societies in green transformation needs to be emphasised [7].
12
The social and economic transformation from globalisation has been enormous and there can be no denial that the creation of a more connected global society has had many benefits. The end of globalisation has been threatened numerous times with events like 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis and the election of Donald Trump. But Covid-19 could deliver the final blow. The World Trade Organisation, which was established in 1995, is in tatters. Intentional obstruction by the USA has prevented proper handling of disputes. Their head, Roberto Azevêdo announced his resignation a year ahead of schedule, marking the biggest shock to world trade since World War II. Hyper-globalism seems to be on its way out, but no-one knows what is next [8]. An interesting phenomenon took place at the beginning of lockdown that saw a resurgence in community-focused shopping. Despite being told not to panic, people panic-shopped like they were planning to hibernate for 6 months. Chaotic and empty shops, overbooked delivery services and fear of imported goods led to people exploring alternatives to their regular supermarkets. Visiting farm stalls, markets and green grocers reminded us of foreign concepts like shopping within our communities or buying seasonal produce. Perhaps it even jogged memories of the ‘back in my day’ talks.
Through globalism we have forgotten a lot about the way we used to live. We don’t have the same sense of community that we used to. We trust big international brands over family-run businesses. But these strange times have forced us to change the way we live in many ways. A return to more community-focused societies would provide opportunities for exploring sustainable ways of living and transitions to circular business models. It’s not about ending globalisation entirely. It has never been the whole problem, but it has catalysed many other problems, and of course, we can’t discuss environmental crises or the pitfalls of humanity without taking a run at consumerism and capitalism [3].
13
SHOP LIKE IT’S YOUR JOB In a lifetime, the average modern human living in a prosperous society will collect several million artefacts, ranging from houses to jeans to disposable water bottles. There is very little activity in our daily lives that is not intertwined with objects created by humans. Our lives are almost entirely governed by stuff. We don’t even realise how rife it is until we move houses or perform the dreaded spring clean. Forager humans moved houses every month, every week or even daily. The only possessions they had were those that were essential, or that they could carry on their backs. There were no moving companies, wagons, or even pack animals. They just had to make do with bare essentials [9]. Can you imagine? We look down on simple creatures of the past, like the poor peasants all riddled with frugality. We have a cure for that now. It’s called consumerism. But it is interesting to think how unburdened they must have been. We spend so much of our lives worrying about stuff – the stuff we have, the stuff we don’t have, the stuff other people have, the stuff we have to get rid of.
On the occasional journey inward, we may question our materialistic ways, perhaps even imagine a charmed, minimalistic lifestyle, but these moments are fleeting because we like stuff. So, we rationalise and convince ourselves most of what we buy is definitely necessary – apart from those occasional “treat yourself” moments. But we’re naïve to think we’re in total control of the decisions we make.
14
In our modern capitalist society, individuals are referred to as consumers, as if our lot in life is to make money, buy things and die. One of the fundamental rules of capitalism is that production must grow continuously in order to survive. But what is produced must also be bought or industries will not succeed. Consumerism was created to prevent this from happening. Under this new ethic the consumption of endless goods and services is seen as a positive thing. Historically people would have been repelled by such thinking. It would have been viewed as frivolous or morally corrupt. But consumerism, together with popular culture, has grafted hard to free us of any moral hesitation, and Just Do It (here’s looking at you, Nike). Needless to say, it worked very well. Like it or not, we are all good consumers. We buy things we think we need but don’t - things that we would have been perfectly content living without if they were never invented [10]. Consumerism tells you that buying things will make you happy, but in reality, it is just a ladder that you can never stop climbing, and no matter where you are, happiness is only guaranteed at the next rung. What’s worse is, we already know this, at least to some extent. We can’t deny the satisfaction we gain from approval, money, and status. We want it, we get it, we’re happy, and then we want something else. The satisfaction is real but it is only a temporary fix, not an answer [11]. Like any other addiction, we could recover from this one too, only if we decide that we want to be more than just consumers.
15
On the 15th of June 2020, non-essential shops re-opened across the UK and people were encouraged to “Spend to Save Britain” . It was an all-too-familiar plea to the public to do their bit as dutiful consumers and buy shit they don’t need to save the economy. Bush did it after 9/11 and Boris did it after the 2008 financial crash [12]. Yes, the pandemic has had a devastating effect on the economy, which has led to businesses being forced to close and thousands of employment redundancies. This is not to say the economy shouldn’t be repaired, but rather that we need to find new, more imaginative methods for kickstarting the economy that don’t brazenly promote outdated, unsustainable ideals. Covid-19 could present an opportunity to create better outcomes for people, the planet and the economy.
This could be further supported by a behavioural shift by individuals. Everyone has had a different experience over the last few months, but the disruption has changed many peoples’ perspectives of finances. With nowhere to go and nothing to dress up for, people are spending a lot less money [12]. Even though some people may have developed a vice in the form of online shopping, they would soon learn that an Amazon package a day won’t keep the crippling loneliness away, and frivolous purchases are never going to fill the void. Lockdown has taught many people a valuable lesson about appreciation. One of which is that happiness from material gain is only temporary - real happiness comes from simpler things like spending time with loved ones, new experiences, enjoying nature, and banana bread.
16
CONVENIENCE IS KING Some people shopped more, some people shopped less. Regardless of general levels of consumption during the lockdown, we know that online shopping increased in a major way. That is why Amazon was raking in $11,000 per second in April 2020 [13]. Covid-19 produced clear winners and clear losers. People in the hygiene industry had a whole different lockdown from people in the restaurant business, for example. But many would agree that the ultimate champion of the pandemic was probably Jeff Bezos. During the lockdown people were told to stay home and only go out for essentials. Shops were busy and often barren, but people also feared public spaces. People were forced to adapt and make many lifestyle changes during this time. The question now, is which habits will be maintained when we return to more normal ways of living. We live in a fast-paced world. We work too much, we’re too busy, and we’re too stressed. Naturally, the more busy and stressed we become, the more we turn to convenience. But it’s no secret that convenience is taking over, and you don’t have to look hard to see it in our lifestyles. Supermarkets are a perfect example. You can now cook an entire meal without chopping anything yourself. Or, you can buy a meal to avoid cooking anything at all. It has become so normal and engrained into our lives that we sometimes fail to recognise the issue. But a world that says it’s reasonable to buy pre-chopped onions breeds laziness and promotes irrational and unsustainable practices. Convenience has gone way beyond making life a little easier, to the point where it governs our purchases and drives consumerism. Even if people do care about sustainability, they will still prioritise convenience when making purchases. According to a study by Getty Images, which surveyed 10,000 people worldwide, 92% of responders agreed that the way we treat our planet will have a significant impact in the future. Research also found that 48% said that although they know they should care more about the environment, convenience takes priority in their purchasing habits. Convenience has become a barrier between intent and action.
17
Consumerism says “I can make your life better” and convenience says “I can make your life easier”. This ethic is making us demanding and lazy. Gone are the days where you have to leave your house, take money out of your wallet, buy things, and carry them home like some kind of commoner. We’re too precious for that now. You can make purchases in your pyjamas if that is what pleases you [15]. If you subscribe to Amazon Prime it will arrive in one to two days. But if you subscribe to Prime Now it may arrive before you finish your Netflix binge and roll out of bed. Convenience is the enemy of sustainability, because it has become the absence of reason. The regulation and guidance humans need won’t come from the top, at least not for now, because consumerism is the peanut butter to capitalism’s jelly. So how do we encourage rationality if it means that people must willingly make their lives more difficult? How do we encourage localism if it means making life more expensive? Maybe it would be at first, but a small effort made by many would enable faster transitions to normalise new systems. Bringing back the milkman would only be more expensive while these suppliers are marginal. Until then, we could celebrate the ability to collect milk in our pyjamas. We have to start acting like the decisions we make matter, because they do. And we have to start believing that our behaviour makes a difference, because it does.
18
THE SOPHIST MY MUM SAYS I’M SPECIAL W
e like to think of ourselves as the only humans. And for the last 10,000 years this has been true. Scientists are not exactly sure when we, Homo sapiens, sapiens, first came to be, but they agree it was about 150,000 years ago. They also agree that we first moved from East Africa into the Arabian Peninsula around 70,000 years ago [1]. But as we discovered new parts of the world, we also learned that we were not alone. In fact, three human species are known to have existed at the same time as us: Homo neanderthalis, neanderthalis, Homo erectus, erectus, and Homo denisova. denisova. What happened to them? And why are we the only ones left? There are two theories. According to the ‘Interbreeding Theory’, as we
19
moved into new territories, we bred with other humans until our populations merged. Which means, some of us would still carry ancient human DNA today. On the other end of the debate, the ‘Replacement Theory’ states that our anatomies and mating habits were likely too different for us to have sexual interest in other humans, and our populations remained separate until the other humans died out. The Replacement Theory has been generally accepted because it makes more archaeological sense, but it is also less controversial. The Interbreeding Theory would suggest that there is significant genetic diversity among racial groups, and that discussion would open a big old can of worms [1]. In 2010 the first full studies of Neanderthal and Denisova genomes revealed that present-day Europeans and Asians inherited approximately 2% of their genome from Neanderthals [2], and individuals from Oceania inherited approximately 5% of their genome from Denisovans [3]. Because these numbers are so small, it is clear that a merging of populations couldn’t have taken place. Our genetic differences weren’t great enough to prevent inter-species shenanigans, but they were enough to make such contact very rare [1].
ICATED APE “ “ So what happened to the other humans? If for example, we had encountered a group of Neanderthals in their habitat and began competing for food sources, it is possible that we would have driven them to extinction because we were better hunters. However, given our track record and propensity for violence and genocide, it is likely that any competition would have resulted in us killing them all. We can’t even manage getting on with each other, so it seems improbable that we would peacefully exist with a whole different species. After all, tolerance is not our forte. We are used to thinking of ourselves as the only humans, and this may be what has led us to believe we are the be all and end all of creation. This gap is what separates us from other animals. We’ve never thought of ourselves as part of the animal kingdom, but if the other humans still existed, would we still feel this way? Maybe that is why we wiped them out, because they were
too different to tolerate, but too similar to ignore [1]. One of the most relevant characteristics of prehistoric humans is their insignificance. The impact we had on our environment was no more severe than that of a lion, a deer, or a fish [4]. For thousands of years, we were unremarkable, a middle of the food chain beast in East Africa. We haven’t always thought we were the point and purpose of the universe. Over time we have conditioned ourselves to think so, constructing the myth of human exceptionalism. But now that myth is unravelling.
20
Nature (noun) We would be hard-pressed to deny that the triumph of humans has gone hand-inhand with the defeat of nature. The ‘Cognitive Revolution’, which began about 70,000 years ago, saw the emergence of language and the migration of Homo sapiens from Africa. It was followed by the development of early technology and functional skills required to cross oceans for the first time. The first colonisation of Australia took place roughly 45,000 years ago, and it is one of the most significant milestones in human history. It was the first time we broke from the Afro-Asian landmass, and the beginning of our campaign to become the deadliest species in the history of our planet. We were always great at adapting to new habitats, and we did so without ever changing them drastically. But when we inhabited Australia we didn’t adjust to the new environment at all. We conquered it [5].
We are probably all in agreement that Australia is a genuinely terrifying place. With megabats, crocodile-eating pythons, and spiders bigger than your head, it is a place that is not to be messed with. But a lot of us don’t even know that it used to be so much worse. The first humans to arrive on the continent would have encountered marsupial lions, two-metre tall kangaroos, flightless birds twice the size of ostriches, and two-and-a-half-ton wombats. If we had known this in advance, we might have changed our minds, and left that deathtrap, freak show continent alone. And all the giant animals would have thanked us. Because they were the product of millions of years of evolution without humans, and just a few thousand years following our arrival, they were all gone [5]. It was the first event of the ‘First Wave’ of extinction that marked our initial separation from nature. Since then, mass extinction has followed us everywhere we have gone. Maybe if we were more aware of these events, we’d be less cavalier about the ‘Third Wave’ that we are now a part of [6].
21
I’m
a bi g bo y
22
Have you ever thought about the fact that we have a word for ‘nature’? And why that is? It’s because we don’t see ourselves as part of it. From our primitive, animalistic beginnings, we have emerged as intelligent beings, far superior to those that still exist in nature. We are the only species to have conquered and subdued nature, and it is an integral part of the success of our civilisation [7]. One classic example is the taming of the frontier in the United States, which became a cultural imperative and symbol of the tenacity of the American spirit [8]. Our understanding of nature has changed since then, but industries still operate in ways that were developed when we had a very different view of the natural world. The health of natural systems, including their complexity, fragility and interconnectedness, has never been a priority in our industrial agenda [8]. Despite our new outlook and understanding of nature, we have been slow to correct this. Over the years, only some have recognised that an existence separate from nature is problematic. But we were so enamoured with the brilliance of our civilisation that it was easy to ignore. Now we are the first generation to grow up surrounded by unavoidable evidence to the contrary: we don’t understand the life source that we are entirely reliant upon. Our disconnection from nature was not victory after all. We thought that it proved our intelligence, and symbolised our sophistication over the other, simpler beasts. But it has only unveiled our arrogance and stupidity [7].
23
CLAP IF YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES A large portion of human history has revolved around getting millions of people to believe stories - stories about certain gods, nations and companies. When they are successful, they give us significant power, because it allows millions of humans to collaborate and work towards a common goal. For thousands of years, humans have lived in a dual reality. There is the objective reality of animals, mountains, and the sea; and the imagined reality of Jesus Christ, The United Kingdom, and Instagram [9]. Everything about the way we live hinges on concoctions of our own imagination. Our civilisation reflects our belief in law and order, the economy, and the promise of future. Civilisation is driven by the myth of progress – the vision that human effort will guide us to the Promised Land, and that each generation will live better than the last. But it must always be just out of reach to maintain momentum [10]. That is why we study degrees we hate, to prove that we have what it takes to work ourselves ragged at jobs that we don’t like, so that we can earn enough money to take a few weeks of holiday a year that remind us that life is worth living. At some point we’ve all been on a holiday and asked ourselves “why don’t we always live like this?” or maybe during our time working from home some of us have caught a glimpse of our dogs sleeping all day and thought, “If I had your life”. We recognise the tragedy of our existence, but we don’t dwell on it too much, because there is seemingly nothing to be done about it. It’s just life.
24
We have been guided to this point by the stories we have told ourselves – of religion, economics, science and mythology. They describe our transcendence from our simple, animalistic beginnings and the never-ending journey of human advancement. They are all variations of the story of human exceptionalism, but the story is falling apart [11]. If nothing else, we are exceptional at making life difficult - all in the name of progress. We are up to our necks in this delusion because it is all we know. History is an escalator and the only direction is up [10]. It is one of the only human beliefs to remain true and constant throughout history. Meanwhile, your dog spends all his days chasing birds, napping, eating free food and licking himself. He knows nothing of civilisation, and in many ways, he’s better off for it. People in affluent societies work on average between 40 and 45 hours a week. People in developing countries work anywhere between 60 and 80 hours a week. Modern hunter gatherers living in the Kalahari Desert, one of the least hospitable environments on earth, work around 35 hours a week and hunt every third day or so. Their workload would be lighter still if they lived in a more fertile habitat. To top it all off, they don’t end their days with homework, paying bills or washing dishes [12]. Hakuna Matata.
25
About 12,000 years ago our lives changed forever when we gradually gave up nomadic life and began to farm [13]. The Neolithic Revolution was a great leap forward for humanity that seemingly showed our evolution into more intelligent beings. Although, whether or not our ability to manipulate plants and animals proves greater intelligence is debatable. As hunter gatherers, we would have had a more intimate understanding of the plants and animals that sustained us, and a deeper knowledge of our surrounding environment [14]. Our evolution into farming symbolised the end of easy living and the beginning of our journey on the road to prosperity. Farming enabled populations to increase and allowed for the development of villages, cities and empires. Everything that followed, from organised religion, to the invention of the internet is a result of our transition into communities [15]. But humans evolved for millions of years in small groups and tribes. The few thousand years between humans learning to farm and humans living in empires wasn’t enough time to develop an instinct for mass cooperation. Human imagination accommodated for this so that social norms weren’t based on primal instinct, but rather on the belief in shared myths [16]. If the way we cooperate is based largely on believing stories, then our behaviour and societies can be transformed by telling new stories. If the circumstances are right, these myths can evolve rapidly. During the French Revolution, for example, people changed almost overnight from believing in the myth of monarchy to the myth of the sovereignty of the people [9]. Now we’re facing the stark realities of ecological and economic collapse, but we’re still clinging to the hope that the future will be better. We are on a cliff edge of enormous change, and we have arrived here by the myths that drive our civilisation [11]. We don’t know what is coming, and no-one wants to look down. We just know that we can’t go back, that isn’t an option, we have come so far [7]. Denial is just a river in Egypt.
26
! P L HE THE WORLD ONE CRISIS AT A TIME, PLEASE
T
here is no doubt that 2020 will go down as one of the most punishing years in history. With a decade’s worth of catastrophe jammed into a period of just a few months, recounting everything that has happened feels impossible. If we were to list every tragedy, social movement and bizarre occurrence, it would probably sound a lot like a present-day rendition of We Didn’t Start the Fire. Fire. In fact, a Billy Joel song about 2020 might be the only thing to redeem this year. That way, one day in the future we would be able to introduce our children to an insanely catchy tune that tells the story of all we endured in a year that has been not only catastrophic, but completely ridiculous. Hopefully that would also remind us of all the issues we’re so quick to forget, because one thing people aren’t good at is focussing on more than one problem at a time.
27
IS F*CKED AND NO-ONE CA RE
S
In fairness, it would be very difficult to remember everything that has happened this year, let alone pay attention or devote any kind of effort to each occurrence. Some of the earlier events of the year, like the Oscar’s or Harvey Weinstein’s sentencing, don’t even feel like they took place in 2020 at all. Or maybe that is just because life before Covid-19 feels like a distant memory. But we seem to have limited attention spans when it comes to global issues, and the more things we hear about, the less time we spend thinking about them. It certainly won’t improve this year. We live in the information age – global attention spans are narrowing because we are constantly bombarded by news and content. We are exhausted by information so we only focus on what is hot or new [1]. This causes us to switch between topics more frequently. Social media has played a role in this, because it increases distribution and access. Trending topics are reaching their peak collective attention quicker and quicker, but it decreases just as fast [1].
We don’t know what effect this will have on the public yet, but it is a cause for concern because issues like climate change, cannot be treated like a trending topic – something that everyone talks about for a week or less and then mostly forgets. Our focus is constantly being directed away from real crises, and it affects our behaviour and actions as well.
28
Looking back to the beginning of 2020, Australia was experiencing one its worst bushfire seasons in history. The fires burned an area even larger than Portugal, causing devastation that catastrophe models didn’t predict from climate change until next century [2]. Over a billion animals were killed and entire ecosystems were obliterated. Thirty-three people lost their lives [3] and approximately 3000 homes were destroyed [4]. The climate crisis felt real for many people for the first time and it was a significant turning point for climate awareness. All eyes were on Australia. That was until February when almost all news abruptly ended
29
and everyone’s attention was diverted to Coronavirus. What even happened to Australia? When did the fires finally get put out? Are they still burning? Who knows? Most people don’t know the fires continued until the end of March. But by then it was well and truly Corona season, and any concerns or realisations people had about the climate crisis were out the window. With gloves and masks strewn all over the streets, you didn’t have to look hard to see it. Not two years after the single-use plastic straw movement, we managed to start a whole new plastic pollution crisis, with approximately 194 billion disposable masks being used each month [5]. This is definitely not to say that no issues are as important as climate change, but one day there will be no issues as big as climate change. We can’t keep letting the environmental crisis take a back seat every time there are other major problems. There will always be other things happening. This is a valuable lesson to learn from 2020.
OPERATION OSTRICH How many climate reports does it take to get people to care about climate change? Is this the beginning of a bad joke? Because if it is, we are the punchline. We don’t need more science. We have heard it all before and it doesn’t work. You really would think that being told the world is going to end would be enough to scare us into action. After all, we are a risk-averse species, and it has been crucial in our survival thus far. If we were warned about bears on a hiking trail, we would walk somewhere else. If we were warned about sharks in the water, we wouldn’t swim. We have been warned repeatedly about our inevitable doom, but this has not inspired the same response [6]. Because the bears aren’t in the woods just yet, and the sharks aren’t in the water right now. For over four decades scientists, environmentalists and advocates have presented us with all the evidence in the world to try and drive home the facts of the climate crisis, but to no avail. It has arguably been the biggest scientific communication failure in history, even worse than when cigarette companies managed to convince us that smoking was good for us, with all evidence to the contrary [7].
30
So why do we continuously ignore climate change? It’s not because we don’t care. But there are several factors that make burying our heads in the sand a more attractive option. While it’s true that humans avoid risk, climate change feels too distant, in time and space, for most of us to wrap our heads around [8]. When we talk about climate change, we talk about goals for the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, or melting ice and polar bears. None of this has anything to do with our everyday lives [8]. Noone wakes up in the morning to see what climate change is doing in the long term. We only want to know what the weather is doing here and now, to see how it will affect our day [6]. Even more comprehendible occurrences like fires and floods, are not affecting most of us directly. They’re happening on the other side of the world. If we’re living in developed countries like the U.S., we take comfort in knowing that we’re better equipped to handle climate change than developing countries. Fires and floods are third world problems – it won’t happen here [6]. It’s like being relieved to be situated on the ‘right end’ of the Titanic. It’s ridiculous, but it’s how we distance ourselves from the issue. Sadly, the climate crisis lacks the critical ‘me’ component that inspires people to give a shit right now. And as we now know, the Australian bushfires were a significant wakeup call that turned out to be really poorly timed.
Thi
s is fine
31
The way climate change is communicated is another problem we’re all familiar with. The paradigm of sustainability is generally divided into scary science and greener than thou climate shaming. Either way, it’s entirely off-putting. When climate change is framed as a fast-approaching apocalyptic disaster, it’s only natural that we would want to avoid the topic [9]. And surprise, surprise, it turns out people don’t like being yelled at by strangers on the internet. The incessant ‘doom and gloom’ and ‘you’re doing it wrong’ narrative just isn’t working. We already know that the way we live contradicts with what we know about climate change. The fact that what we do each day conflicts with what we know we should be doing is a huge problem. It makes us feel like hypocrites, which leads to denial [9]. Denial and feelings of futility are major hurdles we have to overcome. Climate change is arguably the greatest issue we are currently facing, and that makes our feeble individual contributions feel really pointless. So we reason with ourselves that we could try to do better, we could eat fewer burgers and fly less, but if other people aren’t doing it then what’s the point? [6]. Ignoring climate change protects us from the fear and guilt, and outward mockery allows us
to get back at the preachy vegans [7]. Even without fully acknowledging it, we know they are right - at least to some degree, but we don’t want to give them the satisfaction of knowing that. It’s not an issue of ignorance, stupidity or lack of information, it’s just how we protect ourselves from the truth, and admitting that we don’t actually want to change the way we live [7].
32
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT Off the top of your head, how many films can you think of that in some shape or form, tell a story about some kind of apocalypse that causes the end or nearend of humans? Probably quite a few. We enjoy the sensationalism. It’s reflected in everything we watch and read from films to the news. Climate change is causing more frequent and severe natural disasters, and Hollywood is keeping up. The Day After Tomorrow, Tomorrow, 2012 2012,, and Geostorm are three of the most popular depictions [10]. It could be argued that making a spectacle of the environmental crisis will only make the topic feel more abstract than it already does. But the real issue is, we are so tied to our idea of civilisation that we are able to imagine the end of humanity more easily than changing the way we live. We can only see this as the end of civilisation. What would that world even look like? Would we go back to being cavemen? Or hunter gatherers? Or would we all just cease to be? The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world [11]. But we can’t separate from our current existence. Instead we look for answers in science and technology – searching for solutions in the very cause of our problems. We have existed in our “bubble of civilisation” for so long that we are cut off from the only planet we have [12]. We are above it all, doing our level best to ignore what we have done. Our guilt pushes us to recycle and drive hybrids, but mostly we want to maintain the lifestyle we are accustomed to [12]. That is why we are able to concoct stories like Wall-E Wall-E,, because deep down we don’t want to change and we don’t know how. In the worst case scenario, our uninhibited consumerism and industrial destruction will force us to jet off into space, search for a new planet to colonise, and leave all the mess behind [13].
33
Freud once wrote about our inability to acknowledge things that don’t fit with how we view ourselves and the world. We will struggle with concepts internally rather than see them for what they are because they challenge our understanding of the world we live in [12]. We block information that doesn’t align with the identity we create for ourselves and we seek information that validates our beliefs and values. We actively resist new information that challenges our self-identity [7]. We are not willing to accept change, so we brush it off and convince ourselves that the people in charge will work it out. They will find the magic solution that allows us to maintain the lives we live and continue on our current path. But it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the case. Science is falling on deaf ears and as long as we’re bound to capitalism, consumerism and continuous growth, governments will continue to feed the denial machine in the same way tobacco companies did. If we’re really as brilliant as we believe, now is the time to prove it. Every movement needs a beginning – this one must begin with us pulling our heads out of the sand.
34
KEEP CALM ANd IT’S CORONA TIME! B
y the end of January 2020, Covid-19 was speedily making its way around the world and wreaking havoc. On the 24th of January, in a brief moment of worry, the British government held a meeting of Cobra – their national crisis committee. This meeting lasted only an hour, and by the end of it the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, declared that the risk to the UK public was low. That same day, Chinese doctors published a disturbing article in a medical journal called The Lancet. This article compared Covid-19 to the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed up to 50 million people. To make matters worse, Boris Johnson was absent from this Cobra meeting. In fact, the committee convened four more times before Boris attended. However, Boris did make time that day, on the 24th of January, to paint dragons on Downing Street in a celebration of Chinese New Year. This was also the day that the withdrawal treaty from the European Union was signed. Because you know, priorities [1].
35
WASH YOUR HANDS
That afternoon the Prime Minister’s spokesperson assured the nation they were “well prepared for any new diseases” [1]. Needless to say, they were not. Fast-forward to the 2nd of March and Boris, back from a lovely twoweek retreat in Chevening with his fiancée, attended his first Cobra meeting regarding Covid-19. By then the proverbial shit was already hitting the fan, and the over-confident, nonchalant attitude displayed by the government over those crucial five weeks was about to come to an abrupt end [1]. If there is an enquiry, people will want to know about the lack of preparation during that time and why so little was done to equip the National Health Service (NHS), despite numerous warnings from scientists about the severity of the situation. Scientists, doctors, emergency planners and public officials were questioned about whether or not the government knew they should have responded more quickly. It was revealed that, contrary to government statements, the NHS was not in a state to handle the pandemic. Austerity cuts meant emergency PPE wasn’t prioritised and was running low or going bad. Furthermore, pandemic training for key workers had been put on hold for two years to focus on planning for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. This was heavily contrasted by Hancock’s encouraging statement telling the public to “be assured that the whole of the UK is always well-prepared for these types of outbreaks” [2].
36
It is safe to say that most people underestimated the pandemic, but the situation in Italy gave countries like the UK and Germany a massive head start. Germany responded quickly but the UK wasn’t paying attention. On the 12th of March, Boris announced that the UK was moving into the “delay” phase in order to flatten the curve or, as Boris so eloquently put it, “squash that sombrero” [3]. Schools remained open, large gatherings had not been cancelled, and no advice was given about social distancing. Boris also warned that “many families, many more families, are going to lose loved ones before their time” [3]. The most important messages to come from this announcement were: “wash your hands [and] we will get through this” [3]. Following this, Johnson’s Chief Medical Officer spoke at a press conference and said the government’s long-term goal was for the UK to develop a “herd immunity” [4]. This essentially meant letting a large portion of the population become infected to prevent further spread to high-risk people.
37
Apparently, this was never their strategy, but the timing of the conference implied that this was part of their approach. If you’ve seen the movie Shrek Shrek,, you may also agree that it made the sombre warning from Johnson’s previous statement sound a hell of a lot like Lord Farquaad’s speech to the knights of Duloc: “Some of you may die. But that’s a sacrifice I am willing to make” [5]. It sent very mixed signals and got people pretty riled up [6]. Things changed on the 16th of March when a new scientific study from Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene was sent to Downing Street. It showed that if the UK carried on with its current plan the death toll would reach 250,000. The same day, it was announced that public venues should be “avoided” and people should work from home if possible. None of this was legally enforced – that would only come a week later. While mainland Europe was enforcing strict lockdowns and shutting schools, the UK was still fighting the pandemic with good thoughts and good hygiene [6].
38
THIS IS NOT A DRILL That was a lot of information about Covid-19, much of which you probably already know and are sick to death of hearing about. So why bring it up? And what does it have to do with sustainability? Well, the UK government’s early handling of the pandemic is comparable to general attitudes towards climate preparation - mixed messages, incompetency, complacency, lack of organisation, ignoring scientific evidence and a closed-eye conviction of “it won’t happen to us”. According to UN official, Lise Kingo, the pandemic is “just a fire drill” for what we’re likely to experience from the effects of climate change [7].
39
In June 2019, Theresa May announced that the UK would become the first major economy to make legally binding targets to eliminate climate emissions by 2050. No-one could deny that this was an impressive flex. It is one of the most ambitious goals made by a major polluting nation. While cynics said it was a lastditch effort by May to make a name for herself before stepping down as Prime Minister, environmentalists were very happy. It almost seemed too good to be true. And it was. Because the plan allows the UK to achieve emissions targets through carbon credits. This literally just shifts the burden onto developing nations, which means some of the emissions aren’t going away, they’re probably just going somewhere in Africa. Considering the fact that the UK is the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, it only seems fair that it becomes the first nation to properly commit to cleaning up the mess it started. Shifting this responsibility onto developing countries makes the merits of the commitment seem sketchy [8]. It also shows why people have a hard time knowing what to believe in environmental politics.
40
To give another example, in June 2019 Canada declared a national climate emergency. Parliament passed a motion brought by Environmental and Climate Change Minister, Catherine McKenna to address a “real and urgent crisis, driven by human activity” [9]. The very next day, Justin Trudeau approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion – a highly controversial project which will transport shit-tons of oil from Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia [9]. He reasoned that no-one “would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave it there” (Trudeau, 2017). Fair enough, Justin, but the contradiction alone still makes this situation as nonsensical as Donald Trump suggesting that the USA should use nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes [10]. Yes, that really happened. Twice.
41
So questionable intentions aside, everyone obviously wants to know if the UK can put its money where its mouth is. The Committee on Climate Change is an independent board established under the Climate Change Act of 2008. Their job is to advise the UK on emissions targets, and report to Parliament on progress in reducing emissions and preparing for climate change impacts [11]. Progress towards meeting the 2050 target is tracked using 21 indicators. The 2020 report showed that only four indicators were met in 2019, the same four that were met in the previous year, which reflects that progress is largely off track in most sectors [12]. Since the Net Zero target, progress has not reflected much enthusiasm and the UK is running the risk of embarrassing itself massively [13 This has not been the year of action that the committee called for but the steps the UK takes to rebuild from the pandemic can help transition to low carbon activities and improve climate resilience. Green investments would also support the economy and create jobs with the advantage of low interest rates. Yes, this is a unique opportunity where environmental and economic interests align [14]. There are important lessons to learn from Covid-19. For the government, the pandemic has shown the importance for proper risk planning and preparation. For the people, it has shown how important it is that the government is held accountable for the way in which it protects the population; to know when to expect better and then not accept less. That is of the utmost importance, not only to protect the planet but also to make sure we never have to endure a tyre fire year like this ever again.
42
People assume that developing sustainable societies is impossible. We’re too set in our ways, we’re too far gone, no-one is willing to change, people care about money more than the environment. Whether or not we agree with how any government handled Covid-19, what it demonstrated is how rapidly social change can occur in a time of crisis. Once it was clear that it was absolutely crucial to contain the virus, it was no longer up to individuals to decide whether they wanted to work from home, send their kids to school or socially-distance. The only solution was a collective effort from every individual. People were willing to radically change their lives, not just because it was enforced, but because the government communicated that it was of the utmost importance. A pandemic isn’t an issue that individuals can be made responsible for. Neither is the environmental crisis.
43
A lot of people feel the need to do their bit to save the planet. It seems good in theory, but in actuality it’s not. The responsibility of saving the planet has been palmed off to individuals for too long without us even realising. The environmental crisis can’t be solved by a handful of plucky vegans and go-getting soccer moms making extensive personal sacrifices, it requires fundamental changes that can only be set in place by governments and institutions. What other big social and economic problems are being left to individuals to solve? Child labour? Unemployment? Education? No. There are no YouTube videos with tips on solving the housing crisis or lifestyle blogs on Instagram for lowering crime rates. People are taking action because they can see a problem, but the environmental crisis can’t be fixed by individual effort, and as long as people continue to think this way, governments can remain complacent [15]. The most important thing for individuals to do is demand systemic change from leadership. On the other end of the spectrum, many people are unaware of the severity of the problem or are willing to ignore the problem because that is the example being set by leadership. Monkey see, monkey do. As intelligent as we think we are, the way we behave is fundamentally simple, and the monkeys in charge need to do better. Of course, we should all eat less meat, take fewer flights and ride our bikes more, but the most crucial thing each individual can do for the planet is ensure real change is being made by our leaders to protect us and the planet.
1. They will also treat the issue like it isn’t serious, obviously. 2. They will panic because the government isn’t treating it seriously. As we’ve seen, this doesn’t end in any kind of constructive behaviour. This ends in half of the population doing what they please coupled with an inexplicable toilet paper shortage.
44
, S C I T I L O P , X SE AND F
our friends are having post-work drinks at a pub in London. It’s October 2019, it’s getting a little chilly, but it’s not 2020 yet. Life is good. The friends are discussing the events of the week - ordinary things like work stress, family frustrations, gossip about other not-present friends. One of the friends (let’s call him Rob) asks if the others had seen or been affected by the Extinction Rebellion protests taking place that month. To which another friend, Sarah responds “No, but did you see what happened to that protester who got beaten up for standing on the train?” [In case you don’t know - Extinction Rebellion is a radical environmental movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience to help stop mass extinction, climate change and social collapse. In October 2019 they launched a global campaign that involved two weeks of gatherings across 60 major cities to rebel against governments for inaction on the climate and ecological crises [1]].
45
Back to the pub. The remaining friends, James and Amy, both say they hadn’t heard of that incident, but had seen several other gatherings around or on the news. Rob, who had seen a post about the incident on social media, explains that “XR decided to stop trains at several London stations during morning rush hour, which caused a lot of delays and really ruffled some feathers. At Canning Town station, there were protesters standing on the train and people were shouting at them saying they wanted to go to work. Eventually, someone pulled one of the guys off the train and a group of commuters beat the shit out of him.” [2] James responds, “Well I don’t really know what else they expected, disrupting everyone’s day like that. They’re just ordinary people trying to get to work on public transport.
Y T I L I B A N I A T S U
S
I totally agree with the cause. But this seems like a bit much.” Amy replies, “I think the objective is to get mass attention by any means necessary, which must have been effective if we are sitting here talking about it.” Sophie then says “But this is why nobody likes climate protesters. You’re not going to fix the world’s problems by pissing everyone off and making fools of yourselves. There are much better ways to go about addressing issues than that.” Finally, Rob says “like what? Scientists have been saying for years that we’re all screwed and facing a catastrophic mess and governments haven’t listened to them. If people standing on trains actually gets peoples’ attention then go for it. I’m not saying it’s right, but neither is destroying the planet.”
46
There you have four very different views of sustainability activism. Like politics or religion, everyone has their own beliefs, values and opinions. The point of this story is to show that it’s hard enough addressing a problem when people can’t agree on a solution, but it’s even harder when people can’t agree that the problem needs to be solved in the first place. Without deciding the best approach for climate action, it is important to realise that there must be something very wrong to make people want to stand on trains to get their point across. It could definitely be argued that targeting public transport is self-defeating. After all, stopping regular people from going to work on an electric train seems less effective or logical than blocking roads and stopping cars, for example [2]. But we are too quick to question the methods of a movement rather than think hard about the issues that are driving it. Protests are a symbol of a broken society, and when people go to such extreme lengths to have their voices heard we need to ask why.
47
In May 2020 the world was rocked as footage of a man being restrained and suffocated to death by Minneapolis police went viral on social media. The impact of George Floyd’s murder was felt worldwide. It is rare that a single event sparks a movement of this scale, but Black Lives Matter may be one of the most significant movements in history [3]. It’s difficult to pinpoint why the incident caused such a major reaction, but various related events occurred leading up to Floyd’s killing, like South African police brutalising citizens for breaking lockdown measures, and the murder of a businessman by Nigerian police [3]. Top it all off with the overwhelming emotional impact of lockdown, and you could say it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. And it blew the lid off dormant systematic racial issues worldwide. One of the most important outcomes from the movement was the development of a platform that encourages the open discussion of racial inequality by everyone – not just those who are personally affected. affected.
The movement was embraced by people who would usually feel nervous talking about it or ignore it entirely [4]. Much like climate change, it is easy for unaffected people to ignore racism. Even if they are inherently non-racist, it doesn’t impact their daily life or they feel it is not their conversation to have [4]. We are never going to get anywhere solving a problem that no-one wants to talk about. The ‘climate silence’ is obvious and it is preventing us from taking much needed action to address the environmental crisis [5]. As soon as someone gets political about the environment at a dinner party everyone starts shifting uncomfortably in their seats. We have all been there. Throw in some hard truths and the slightest disagreement and suddenly you can cut the tension with a knife. People chat awkwardly, someone mumbles something about the government and eventually the topic is diverted – instant relief. People don’t like talking about the environmental crisis for the same reason that a lot of white people don’t like talking about systematic racism. Feelings of guilt and helplessness prevent people from wanting to discuss or even recognise the issue.
48
Black Lives Matter showed that when you aren’t sure of your role to play, you don’t know how to help, or you don’t know what to say, just stand up for what is right. You don’t have to do it on social media, you don’t have to do it in public, you don’t have to stand on trains. Our situation is critical, and immediate action is needed, but the ‘climate silence’ is choking all progress. Seventy percent of Americans accept that climate change is a human-caused reality, but only three in ten Americans are actually willing to talk about it [6]. We need to stop avoiding the subject for the sake of being polite. That doesn’t mean shoving climate facts in everyone’s faces, or getting heated with people who have different opinions. For now, one of the most effective things that we as individuals can do is be willing to acknowledge the issue and talk about it. It’s the most important first step, and it’s a step that everyone can take.
49
We inherited a flawed society. It’s not our fault, but we should feel morally obligated to fix it, rather than accepting complacency because these issues are too big, or not our fight to fight. We can’t keep letting the vegans and the tree huggers bear the brunt of this battle. We all live here, so we are all responsible. You’ve heard it before: think about the children. children. But also think about the children who haven’t been born yet. Think about the back in my day stories we’ll tell them. Will they be wistful and nostalgic like our grandparents’ milkman stories? Or will they be awkward and humiliating because we made such a royal mess of things. Think about it. We could be the generation that blew up systematic racism and finally ended the climate silence. Or we could be another disappointing generation who stood idly by watching the world go to shit, because we were arrogant enough to think that climate change couldn’t touch us.
50
Recycling Sucks: 1. Gibbs, J. (2019). Can I recycle this? The most confusing items demystified. demystified. Available at: https://www.confused.com/recycling-confusion/what-can-i-recycle-myth-buster (Accessed: 15 May 2020). 2. Baliozian, E. (2019). Recycling Isn’t Working – here’s why. why. Available at: https://www. climatecommunicators.com/climatexplained/recycling-is-not-working-here-is-why (Accessed: 14 May 2020). 3. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.26-27 4. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.56-58. 5. Clark, J. (2019). Everything You Know About Recycling is Wrong. Well, most everything. Available at: https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-aboutrecycling-is-wrong-well-most-everything-f348b4ee00fe (Accessed: 14 May 2020). 6. Lilley, J. (2018). Why Recycling is Dumb. Dumb. Available at: https://medium.com/@ jameslilley24/why-recycling-is-dumb-469db1354cf3 (Accessed: 9 July 2020). 7. Clarke, L. (2020). Here’s the Truth Behind the UK’s Biggest Recycling Myths. Myths. Available at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/recycling-myths-busted (Accessed: 11 July 2020). 8. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.18-20. 9. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.44. 10. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.65-67. 11. Wilkins, M. (2018). More Recycling Won’t Solve Plastic Pollution. Pollution. Available at: https:// blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/more-recycling-wont-solve-plasticpollution/ (Accessed: 18 May 2020).
I Want it All, I Want it Now, And I Want it Delivered: 1. Menezes, F. (2019). The return of the milkman: millennials behind growth of a timehonoured, more eco-friendly tradition. tradition. Available at: https://brightvibes.com/1492/en/ the-return-of-the-milkman-millennials-behind-growth-of-a-time-honoured-more-ecofriendly-tradition [Accessed: 21 June 2020].
51
2. Milk and more. (n.d.). Electric Pioneers. Pioneers. Available at: https://www.milkandmore.co.uk/ electric-pioneers [Accessed 20 July 2020]. 3. McIlhatton, J. (2020). Bring back the milkman: could Corona Virus give us a nudge towards a circular economy? [Online]. Available at: https://medium.com/@ sundastudio/bring-back-the-milkman-could-corona-virus-give-us-the-nudge-we-needtowards-a-circular-economy-affd5e4c31de [Accessed: 21 June 2020]. 4. Richie, H. (2020). You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local. local. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/foodchoice-vs-eating-local [Accessed: 22 July 2020]. 5. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens Sapiens.. London: Vintage, pp.231-232. 6. Vanham, P. (2019). A brief history of globalisation. globalisation. Available at: https://www.weforum. org/agenda/2019/01/how-globalization-4-0-fits-into-the-history-of-globalization/ [Accessed: 22 July 2020]. 7. Green, J. (2020). Why climate change is globalisation’s biggest challenge yet. yet. Available at: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2020/01/27/why-climate-change-is-globalizationsbiggest-challenge-yet/ [Accessed: 22 July 2020]. 8. Tooze, A. (2020). The death of globalisation has been announced many times. But this is a perfect storm. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/ jun/02/end-globalisation-covid-19-made-it-real [Accessed: 22 July 2020]. 9. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.48-49. 10. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.388-389. 11. Cooper, R. (n.d.). In A Culture Built On Consumerism, Everyone Is An Addict. Available at: https://www.joe.co.uk/life/in-a-culture-built-on-consumerism-everyone-is-anaddict-144339 [Accessed: 26 July 2020]. 12. Lawder, Lawder, O. (2020). To Shop or not to shop? 3 reasons we won’t go back to normal. Available at: https://www.wearefuterra.com/2020/06/to-shop-or-not-to-shop-3reasons-we-will-not-go-back-to-normal/ [Accessed: 20 June 2020]. 13. Neate, Neate, R. (2020). Amazon reaps $11,000-a-second coronavirus lockdown bonanza. bonanza. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/amazonlockdown-bonanza-jeff-bezos-fortune-109bn-coronavirus [Accessed: 20 June 2020]. 14. Hill, Hill, T. (2020). Consumers torn between sustainability and convenience, research shows. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/amazonlockdown-bonanza-jeff-bezos-fortune-109bn-coronavirus [Accessed: 20 June 2020].
52
15. The The Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. Episode 3. Amazon., (2018). [Accessed: 20 June 2020]. Available from: Netflix.
The Sophisticated Ape: 1. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.14-20. 2. Green, R., Krause, J., Briggs, A. et al. al. (2010). A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science Magazine, Magazine, (5979), pp.710-722. Available at: https://science. sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full [Accessed: 30 July 2020]. 3. Reich, D., Green, R., Kircher, M. et al. al. (2010). Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature Nature,, (468), pp.1053–1060. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09710 [Accessed: 30 July 2020]. 4. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens Sapiens.. London: Vintage, pp.4. 5. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens Sapiens.. London: Vintage, pp.70-73. 6. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens Sapiens.. London: Vintage, pp.82. 7. Hine, D.& Kingsnorth, K. (2014). ‘The Severed Hand’, in Uncivilization: The Dark Mountain Project. Project. Available at: https://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/ [Accessed: 9 May 2020]. 8. Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., (2009). Cradle to Cradle. Cradle. 2nd ed. London: Vintage, pp.20-25. 9. Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.35-36. 10. Hine, Hine, D.& Kingsnorth, K. (2009). ‘Walking on Lava’, in Uncivilization: The Dark Mountain Project.. Available at: https://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/ [Accessed: 9 May Project 2020]. 11. Hine, Hine, D.& Kingsnorth, K. (2009). ‘Uncivilization’, in Uncivilization: The Dark Mountain Project. Available at: https://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/ [Accessed: 9 May 2020]. 12. Harari, Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.57. 13. History.com History.com editors. (2019). Neolithic Revolution. Available at: https://www.history. com/topics/pre-history/neolithic-revolution [Accessed: 26 July 2020]. 14. Harari, Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens Sapiens.. London: Vintage, pp.87-90. 15. Balter, Balter, M., (2005). The Seeds of Civilization. Civilization. Smithsonian Magazine, Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-seeds-of-civilization-78015429/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-seeds-of-civilization-78015429 / [Accessed: 26 July 2020]. 16. Harari, Harari, Y. (2015). Sapiens. London: Vintage, pp.117.
53
Help! The World is F*cked and No-one Cares: 1. McClinton, D. (2019). Global Attention Span is Narrowing and trends don’t last as long, study revels. revels. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/16/got-aminute-global-attention-span-is-narrowing-study-reveals [Accessed: 2 June 2020]. 2. Simon, M. (2020). The Terrible Consequences of Australia’s Uber-Bushfires. Uber-Bushfires. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/the-terrible-consequences-of-australias-uber-bushfires/ [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 3. Pickrell, J. (2020). Smoke from Australia’s bushfires killed far more people than the fires did, study says. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/ mar/21/smoke-from-australias-bushfires-killed-far-more-people-than-the-fires-didstudy-says [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 4. Guy, J. (2020). After more than 240 days, Australia’s New South Wales is finally free from bushfires. bushfires. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-southwales-fires-extinguished-scli-intl/index.html [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 5. Holder, S. (2020). Coronavirus: Disposable face masks creating new plastic pollution crisis, experts warn. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disposableface-masks-creating-new-plastic-pollution-crisis-experts-warn-12045350 [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 6. Kluger, J. (2018). Why We Keep Ignoring Even the Most Dire Climate Change Warnings. Available at: https://time.com/5418690/why-ignore-climate-change-warnings-unreport/ [Accessed: 1 June 2020]. 7. Stoknes, P. (2015). The 5 Psychological Barriers to Climate Action. Action. Available at: https:// boingboing.net/2015/04/03/the-5-psychological-barriers-t.html [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 8. Murdock, A. (2017). Why Humans Are So Bad At Thinking About Climate Change. Change. Available at: https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/4/19/15346442/humans-climatechange-psychology [Accessed: 4 May 2020]. 9. Arcanjo, M. (2019). Why We Ignore Climate Change. Available at: https://medium. com/@marcusarcanjo/why-we-ignore-climate-change-ed8f3c400e3a [Accessed: 27 May 2020]. 10. Mattes, Mattes, A. (2020). Friday essay: eco-disaster films in the 21st century - helpful or harmful? Available at: https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-eco-disaster-films-inthe-21st-century-helpful-or-harmful-127097 [Accessed: 3 June 2020]. 11. RSA. RSA. (n.d.) The Seven Dimensions of Climate Change. Change. Available at: https://www.thersa. org/action-and-research/rsa-projects/social-brain-centre/the-seven-dimensions-ofclimate-change/about [Accessed: 7 May 2020].
54
12. Hine, Hine, D.& Kingsnorth, K. (2009). ‘The Severed Hand’, in Uncivilization: The Dark Mountain Project. Project. Available at: https://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/ [Accessed: 9 May 2020]. 13. Wall-E. Wall-E. (2008). [DVD] Directed by A. Stanton. United States: Disney and Pixar.
Keep Calm and Wash Your Hands: 1. Calvert, J. Arbuthnott, G. & Leak, J. (2020). 38 Days When Britain Sleepwalked into Disaster. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-whenbritain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh [Accessed: 24 June 2020]. 2. UK Parliament. 2020. Matt Hancock MP Makes Statement on Wuhan Coronavirus - News From Parliament. Parliament. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/ january/statement-on-wuhan-coronavirus [Accessed: 1 July 2020]. 3. Johnson, B. (2020). Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 12 March 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-oncoronavirus-12-march-2020 [Accessed: 2 July 2020]. 4. Whitty, C. (2020). UK Government Coronavirus Briefing: 16 March 2020. 2020. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=3169475523064130&ref=watch_permalink [Accessed: 2 July 2020]. 5. Shrek Shrek.. 2001. [DVD] Directed by A. Adamson and V. Jenson. United States: Dreamworks. 6. Perrigo, B. (2020). Coronavirus Could Hit U.K. Harder Than Any Other European Country. Here’s What Went Wrong. Wrong. Available at: https://time.com/5823382/britaincoronavirus-response/ [Accessed: 21 June 2020]. 7. Harvey, F. (2020). Covid-19 Pandemic is a Fire Drill for the Effects of Climate Change. Change. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/15/covid-19pandemic-is-fire-drill-for-effects-of-climate-crisis-says-un-official [Accessed: 16 June 2020]. 8. Walker, P. Mason, R. & Carringdon, D. (2019). Theresa May commits to net zero UK carbon emissions by 2050. 2050. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/jun/11/theresa-may-commits-to-net-zero-uk-carbon-emissionsby-2050 [Accessed 3 July 2050]. 9. Beaumont, H. (2020). Canada Declares Climate Emergency, Then Approves Massive Oil Expansion.. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wjvkqq/canada-justinExpansion trudeau-declares-climate-emergency-then-approves-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion [Accessed: 6 July 2020]. 10. Teirstein, Teirstein, Z. (2020). Donald ‘I’m an environmentalist’ Trump skips G7 climate meeting. Available at: https://grist.org/article/donald-im-an-environmentalist-trump-skips-g7climate-meeting/ [Accessed: 06 July 2020].
55
11. Committee Committee on Climate Change. (2020). About the Committee On Climate Change - Committee On Climate Change. Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/ [Accessed 3 July 2020]. 12. Committee Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Reducing UK emissions: 2020 Progress Report to Parliament. Parliament. London, p.109. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/ reducing-uk-emissions-2020-progress-report-to-parliament/ [Accessed: 3 July 2020]. 13. Committee Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Reducing UK emissions: 2020 Progress Report to Parliament. Parliament. London, p.18. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/ reducing-uk-emissions-2020-progress-report-to-parliament/ [Accessed: 3 July 2020]. 14. Committee Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Reducing UK emissions: 2020 Progress Report to Parliament. Parliament. London, p.14. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/ reducing-uk-emissions-2020-progress-report-to-parliament/ [Accessed 3 July 2020]. 15. Levermann, Levermann, A. (2019). Individuals can’t solve the climate crisis: Governments need to step up. up. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/ individuals-climate-crisis-government-planet-priority [Accessed: 25 June 2020].
Sex, Politics, and Sustainability: 1. Extinction Rebellion. (n.d.). About Us. Us. Available at: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/thetruth/about-us/ [Accessed: 8 June 2020]. 2. Hinsliff, G. (2020). Extinction Extinction Rebellion has built up so much goodwill. It mustn’t throw that away. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/ extinction-rebellion-canning-town-well-off-people [Accessed: 8 June 2020]. 3. Daragahi, B. (2020). Why the George Floyd protests went global. Available at: https:// www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/george-floyd-protests-world-racism/ [Accessed: 25 July 2020]. 4. McCrea-Hedley, O. (2020). What White Allyship Means To Me In The Fight For Racial Equality.. Available at: https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a32732187/whiteEquality allyship-black-lives-matter-movement/ [Accessed: 25 July 2020]. 5. Mutasek, S. (2019). Why you should talk about climate change – even if you disagree. Available at: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2019/1205/Why-you-shouldtalk-about-climate-change-even-if-you-disagree [Accessed: 26 July 2020]. 6. EPIC. (2019). New Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Are More Convinced Than They Were Five Years Ago That Climate Change Is Happening, With Extreme Weather Driving Their Views. Available at: https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/new-poll-nearly-half-of-americansare-more-convinced-than-they-were-five-years-ago-that-climate-change-is-happeningwith-extreme-weather-driving-their-views/?s=climate%20change&submit=Search [Accessed: 4 August 2020].
56