It was the week before Christmas in 2009, and an air of disappointment hung over environmentalists around the world. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen had just ended in failure, only weeks after world leaders strode confidently into the downtown Bella Center, brimming with hope for the future of the planet. Instead of a comprehensive framework for emissions reduction, a skimpy accord was drafted—but not adopted—which stated simply that climate change was a real issue, and that action should be taken. More than two years later, we now see that Copenhagen was a critical turning point, when our attitude toward climate change shifted from “mitigation” to “adaptation to the inevitable.”
Recent events confirm the current apathy toward mitigating emissions. Following the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, Prime Minister Stephen Harper flew across the Pacific Ocean to tie down a deal worth billions, in selling tar-sand oil to China. By creating this partnership, Canada is complicit in the emissions outlook to which China has subscribed, namely that if economic growth requires fossil fuels, then fossil fuels we shall burn (China is still considered a developing country and is therefore exempt from Kyoto Protocol targets).
The argument for economic growth over emissions reduction is a compelling one, and was echoed last week by Joe Nocera of the New York Times, who praised Stephen Harper’s energy policy by writing, “At least one country in North America knows where its national interests lie.” However pragmatic, this tone is tempered by a resignation of our will to mitigate emissions, which negatively affects public perception of the environment, and therefore discourages the public to act sustainably.
At stake are the small-scale environmental initiatives which over the last few decades have blossomed in communities across the continent. A small endeavor like planting a tree is predicated on the belief that every level of society is responsible for its share of sustainable good work. But this social contract could be shattered if those in charge fail to pull their weight and mitigate the most destructive industrial emissions.Local sustainability must have the incentive of global sustainability to work. “Planting trees cools the urban heat island effect, cleans the air, brings in more biodiversity and generally creates a more pleasant environment,” Professor Isabel Galiana told me last week. “Local initiatives should strive to seek out these co-benefits.”
As of now, small-scale environmental initiatives are still running strong, including on our campus. “I want to reduce the niche allure associated with the term (sustainability) and instead make it a concept accessible to everyone,” Snax Cafe Sustainability Coordinator Miriam Dreiblatt told me. “It would be entirely unsustainable to imagine implementing these projects without the aid of other students.”
Dreiblatt has tapped into the hidden power of small-scale initiatives: they are inclusive and therefore spread outward like wildfires. In the face of governmental apathy toward climate change mitigation, then, perhaps it is the job of small-scale initiatives to keep alive popular support for battling global warming. As Professor Galiana said, “If a particular country or province is seeing the rise of many such initiatives, it may induce the government to adopt aggressive policies.” In the ten months until the next UN Climate Change Conference, let us hope she’s right.
