Climate change and sustainability program
After I retired from teaching at Monash at the end of 2022, I started facilitating a program on climate change and sustainability for the Moreland (Merribek) University of the Third Age (U3A) in 2023.
The program is continuing this year. We are currently thinking about the best way to store some resources from the program. We may be able to store them on the U3A website eventually but for the time being I will put some here. Only resources that are suitable for public access will be stored here (nothing with private information about individuals).
Below are copies of slides I gave to our first meeting for 2024. The idea of these is to define some key concepts and briefly review where we are in 2024. I've also included some notes and some additional links for more information. The images of the slides can be enlarged by clicking on them.
Introduction to Climate change and sustainability program 2024
Çaring for Country is an Indigenous tradition that can guide both climate change action and broader action for ecological sustainability. The Victorian Heritage Council provides an explanation
here. Caring for country is also often associated with caring for people, especially young people. As such, it is a model for how we can think about both the social and ecological aspects of climate action and sustainability (sometimes referred to as an écosocial' or 'socioecological' approach).
The majority of emissions causing global warming and climate change come from human production and use of fossil fuels for energy (plus some from other sources, particularly methane from animals in agriculture, and from waste; nitrous oxide from nitrogenous fertilisers used in agriculture; and some human-made gases in industry).
The graphic on this slide, from the Climate Council, shows how prior to the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2016 the use of fossil fuels was rising sharply. Since the Paris Agreement, current policy suggests emissions from fossil fuels may peak in the 2020s (possibly around this year) but are not declining sufficiently to meet the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming to well below 2C and preferably to 1.5C this century.
The latest pledges from countries under the Paris Agreement (Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs) potentially could put us on target for 2C, but would not be sufficient to stay within 1.5. If current practice continues it looks more likely we may reach about 2.6C, which would have severe and potentially disastrous effects for ecosystems, other species and many human societies.
The Australian government
reports on national greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The government has suggested we are on track to meet the target of 43% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. However there are several problems with this:
- much apparent decline comes from estimated changes in Land Use, Land Use Changes and Forestry (LULUCF),
the reliability of which have been questioned. Excluding LULUCF, there has been little change in most sectors, except electricity, where emissions have declined due to the growth of renewables, particularly rooftop solar.
- there was an apparent decline during the pandemic, but recent levels suggest emissions in some sectors such as transport have subsequently risen
- the target of 43% is considered by experts to be much too low - a target of 75-100% is recommended.
As the
graphs from the Guardian in the slide above show, once these factors are taken into account, we are not really on track to meet even the low 43% target, particularly if LULUCF estimates are excluded.
Climate change is very important but it is only one of the ways in which human activities are threatening natural environments, ecosystems and other species. The 'planetary boundaries' concept developed by the Stockholm Resilience Centre identifies nine areas where human activities could be or are disrupting earth systems to a degree that poses significant risk to the stability of the systems and the safety of living beings who rely on them. As shown in the diagram above, they suggest we are already operating outside the safe area of six boundaries.
One of the issues we face in addressing climate change is how to do so in a way that promotes sustainability (protecting planetary boundaries) more broadly. For example if we decided to reduce carbon emissions from transport by switching as rapidly as possible to electric vehicles, we could potentially reduce fossil fuel emissions, but would continue and in some ways increase many other environmental impacts from motorised transport. Reducing the use of motorised transport, particularly private cars, by switching to active transport (walking and cycling) while shifting to electric vehicles where they are needed, is much more sustainable.
Another factor is that while we talk about 'human activities' causing climate change and breaching other planetary boundaries, not all people are equally responsible. High income populations and nations generally
have a much greater responsibility.
Clearly we need to live in ways that are more sustainable, particularly in high income nations, but there is currently debate about whether this can be achieved through '
green growth' or whether we need to reduce production and consumption, for example through '
degrowth', '
sufficiency', '
circular economies' and similar concepts
Doughnut economics is a term coined by the economist Kate Raworth, who came up with this visual image of how we can think about social boundaries, where everyone is entitled to a fair and decent standard of living, and ecological boundaries, where we are not putting too much strain on earth's systems. This she defines as the 'safe and just operating space for humanity'. This is similar to current research on sufficiency, looking at how much we need to live a decent life and how we can best obtain this within planetary boundaries.
There are numerous areas in which individuals and households can reduce their emissions and increase their ecological sustainability, particularly the key areas in the slide above which we will discuss further as the program progresses. However a question that often arises is, what difference can individuals make in the face of such a huge problem?
In one sense the question is meaningless, in the same way that saying 'what can one country do?' is meaningless. Climate change and ecological sustainability are global problems but they are also directly related to individual behaviour and consumption patterns. In another sense, of course, the question makes a lot of sense - it is very easy to get disheartened in the face of such a huge problem, and realistically, while we are formally a political democracy, it is clear that very wealthy individuals and large corporations generally wield much more power in our system than ordinary citizens. What we can do, as well as being politically active, is look at what is being done in our local communities, and consider both how that can support our actions and also how we can strengthen and support that action. Two possible starting points for information are shown in the slide - Merri-Bek zero carbon strategy and the Victorian government's sustainability strategy.
Another key area for action and connection is health and wellbeing. Many actions that will make our lives more sustainable can also make them healthier - being more physically active, reducing meat and highly processed foods in our diets, reducing our energy bills while making our homes more comfortable, greening our local environments - these are just some examples. As seniors we also have a particular opportunity to feed in to local strategies, as both local and state governments are concerned with 'ageing well' - we can add to this the idea of not just living well as we get older, but also living sustainably.
