The Climate's Check Engine Light

 

Of all the anxiety-inducing things in this modern life, having the check engine light come on has to be in the upper half of the list! Thankfully, I didn’t have to wait too long for a diagnostic checkup, as I had an oil change scheduled just a couple of days hence. And what pleasant news I received!

“It’s emissions-related,” our small-town shop manager said. “You’ll have to have a dealer check it out to know more, though.” Then she added: “If we were in California, it might be something to worry about. Here, not so much.”

I was relieved. It was just one of those emissions things. Maybe my gas mileage was hurting a little bit. Maybe the engine was running a little less efficiently—a little dirtier. But at least I wouldn’t be breaking down by the side of the road.

“Thanks for the word,” I replied, knowing that I still had some minor recall-related things that I needed the dealer to attend to. “I’ll ask them about it next time I’m in.”

Earth as seen from the Apollo 8 spaceship

I’ve been reflecting on this exchange, and especially my relief, for some days now. It’s but one example of the multitudes of human actions and nonactions which, in totality, have created our present climate-change disaster. We’re inclined to prioritize our immediate well-being over some future, more theoretical well-being, or lack thereof. It’s why we so often eschew paying a premium for more energy-efficient appliances or windows given that the future benefit doesn’t seem to be worth the present outlay of cash. But this tendency to maximize our immediate well-being is not without cost in the present. My relief at the nature of my engine diagnosis is tainted by the guilt of my inaction.

I came across a term the other day that I don’t recall being exposed to before: moral injury. Moral injury results when someone feels compelled to act contrary to their deeply held values. Perhaps a soldier does something in the heat of battle that runs counter to what he or she thinks is in accord with the ethical conduct of war—something that then haunts them for the rest of their life. Perhaps a nurse, feeling constrained by a doctor’s orders, hospital protocol, or insurance industry dictates, feels forced to do something that is not in the best interest of the patient. Unlike those examples, my moral injury, is a self-inflicted one. I care deeply about the environment and the future of our planet, and yet I settled quite comfortably (superficially anyway) into a sense of relief at being able to avoid that emissions-related repair cost.

So, why don’t I just buy an electric car? Surely then I’d feel less angst about such things. Indeed. An electric vehicle is almost certainly in my future. Up until now, though, I’ve received at least some cold comfort from having hung onto my small and reasonably fuel-efficient four-cylinder vehicles for ten years or more. No more, though. Electric vehicles have entered the mainstream and are estimated to emit 30-50% less greenhouse gas over their entire lifetime, depending on how the electricity that charges them is generated. I’ll certainly be committing moral self-injury if I don’t choose an electric vehicle for my next purchase. But will I feel good about it? Will my moral injury be healed?

I don’t think so.

No?

No.

You see, if we could somehow freeze our current population and consumption levels and make our global average lifestyle (not just our automobiles) 30-50% more efficient, then perhaps we’d have a shot at addressing climate change. Sadly, though, given present trends, our world population will continue to increase, as will our per capita consumption. We’ll need an ever-increasing supply of lithium and an ever-increasing supply of energy to charge the batteries that we make from it. Will our transition to a growing worldwide fleet of electric vehicles (and electrified everything else) really take place without greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise? And, if so, will cleanly energizing this worldwide fleet really be accomplished without reliance on nuclear power generation? I’m skeptical.

The truly green future that I envision—one without reliance on nuclear power—requires a paradigm shift. It involves us transforming our self-centered and consumptive lifestyle rather than merely finding new ways to power it. It involves us transforming our extractive, power-over relationship to the natural world into a harmonious relationship with the natural world. I propose that we:

1. Invest in and utilize mass transit to such an extent that personal automobiles are no longer a daily or even weekly necessity. Rent vehicles (rather than owning them) for those occasions when a personal vehicle is essential.
2. Refrain from materialistic displays of purchasing power for the sake of status or prestige. Embrace the smallest and most energy efficient option, whether it be a home, automobile, or other.
3. Practice evaluating a product’s entire lifecycle before purchasing it. What is the impact of its manufacture on the environment? What happens to it when it is no longer usable?
4. Embrace simplicity. Resist the urge to electrify everything. Consider quality hand tools and time-tested kitchen devices, for instance. Invest yourself—your labor and effort—into your yard and household duties instead of thinking of them as something to accomplish in the shortest time and with the greatest of ease.
5. Consider having fewer children. Support investment in under-resourced areas of the world such that high birthrates are not considered an economic necessity. Reimagine immigration policy such that immigration is seen as precipitating the reinvigoration of communities and economies.
6. View the overall well-being of our communities as essential to our individual wellbeing. Embrace win-win as opposed to zero-sum thinking. A higher wage for a struggling worker benefits us all. Healthcare for someone who didn’t previously have it benefits us all. Food security benefits us all.  Stressed individuals do not make the best decisions for the environment.
7. Support a tax on fossil fuels and use the proceeds to responsibly mitigate climate change disruption in under-resourced areas of the world. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby proposal of a Carbon Fee and Dividend system is a sound one, as far as it goes. A truly transformational system, however, would use the proceeds from the right-pricing of carbon usage in affluent countries to help those whose very existence is threatened by the climate change that we in the West are inordinately responsible for.

I certainly can’t be alone in wanting to do right by the environment, even as my actions fall short from time to time on account of my stress level or bank balance or occasional laziness. Where I do feel alone, however, is in my skepticism that merely buying an electric car or supporting that wind farm out in the country will be sufficient to truly put us on the path to climate stability. These may be necessary, but they’re not sufficient. My concern is that, without a paradigm shift similar to that outlined above, we’re merely spitting into the winds of climate chaos—adopting strategies that will ultimately prove ineffectual, even though they might soothe our moral injury in the short term.

Image Credit

Earth as viewed by Apollo 8. Image courtesy of NASA:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/36019/earth-viewed-by-apollo-8

 

 Copyright 2023 by Mark Robert Frank