Climate change is the popular environmental problem of today’s generation. In the 70s it was concern over pesticides (thanks to Rachel Carson), in the 80s sustainable development entered our lexicon, and today it is climate change. The biggest problem is that for the first time, the generational environmental problem is one that is global in nature. Climate change affects GLOBAL average temperatures, not local plant and animal life, nor local and regional communities. That climate change is global in nature means that while the causes of climate change are local in nature (leaving the car running while you run into the store to buy a quart of milk), the effects of climate change are either much more global (potentially the melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels) or tend to affect people in far parts of the world (new weather patterns leading to failing crops and/or changing growth patterns).
This causal dichotomy seems to be rooted in the difference in between cause and effect from both a time and distance point of view. The decisions we make are day-to-day, but the effects of these decisions are not felt for months (or years), and possibly are never felt by us, but by others living on the other side of the world. Scientists like to call this idea “complexity”, and I think that’s a pretty good name.
How is climate change a “complex” problem? Well, as a global problem that is caused by human activity, its causes tend to be rooted locally and in the short-term, but the effects tend to be at the global level and are much more long-term thanks to the length of time it takes for the biosphere to process excess carbon.
So just as the causes are local and quick moving, solutions need to be able to be nimble and focussed. They need to address personal transportation choices, personal and local energy choices, and local and immediate lifestyle choices. Where are the solutions coming from? Well, I would say that while the effective ones are just what I’ve listed above, the ones we hear about are the ineffective, global and longer-term. They look at a global problem and attempt to develop global solutions.
It’s why I laugh when people complain that our national leaders are not making enough efforts to combat climate change. They can’t! If you want political leaders who will have an influence on climate change, it’s the municipal leaders who expand the road network instead of putting money into public transportation, or the regional leaders who approve more single-family housing developments and oppose mixed-use housing. These are the individuals that we should be trying to influence; these are the individuals who can make the local-based decisions that will have global solutions.
More on this topic in a future post. In the meantime, let’s hear from you in the comments: is climate change a complex problem with complicated solutions that should be addressed only by leaders at a national level? Or, is there room for local leadership (elected and unelected) to help solve this problem?
For More on Climate Change, Science and People:
- Climate Change Does not Mean Environment
- Addressing Women’s Vulnerability to Climate Change
- Arctic Sea Ice Season Underscores Accelerating Decline
Photo Credit: Green Options Media Archives