Is breaking the law necessary in the wake of the climate crisis? (1)
This piece is mainly an insular pursuit, a line of thought hungering to be articulated. I essentially write this to answer the question: can I effectively reason my complicity?
The conclusion I have come to is no, to uphold any fragment of sound morality, I must break the law in the wake of the climate crisis. However such an opinion cannot be imposed, I am just in a position of privilege where breaking the law is unlikely to have a serious impact upon myself (assuming the act is fairly tepid). And I do maintain it is of unlikely proportions you shall emerge a blustered, state-denying tree hugger. But it may arouse some earthly consideration, and incite suspicion when digesting our current predicament.
First we ought to agree on some assumptions:
- An obvious one — the climate breakdown is happening and is being caused by human action.
- This may be less agreed upon: The scenario is absolutely dire and we are in a state of emergency. People may doubt this gloomy doomsday rhetoric, often reasoning their dubiety through faith in humanity’s boundless ability to adapt. However, the assumption behind this is fairly sinister: that humanity has faced disasters in the past, all lauded as certain Armageddon, yet we’ve always persevered. But we must recall — we have it in our power to stop this catastrophe, potentially saving billions. So whilst this argument is probably accurate (that we’ve always persevered), it is utterly perverse. Simply because we have the power to prevent this massacre and prevent the requirement for any form of adaption. Another reason for this to be doubted is the resounding belief in technology — that the fruits of our intellect will quell this mess (this will be explored below).
- The third assumption is that the government and global agenda is not doing enough. Their inaction will cause billions to suffer. They are not being significantly pressured by popular opinion so more drastic actions must be taken.
- The final assumption is most contentious. We must bring the government to account through external pressure (which will inevitably lead to breaking the law). There are a number of elements which should be broken down, when discussing breaking the law:
- The first notion that needs to be outlined is that if something is illegal it does not make it immoral. Probably quite consensually agreed upon, but here are a couple examples just in case. Take a look at how marijuana is illegal yet alcohol and tobacco is legal (drugs reeking far greater death and destruction). Or the illegality of homosexuals, or perhaps women being legally defined as property or the legalisation of slavery, there are many more examples. Furthermore, governments have no problem breaking the law when it suits them; the Pentagon recently determined that a cyberwar attack justifies military response as it is an act of war. Though this didn’t prevent the US from launching cyber attacks which disabled Iranian weapon systems in 2019. Legality does not reflect morality. In fact, in many ways the law operates in contradiction; every concession that has been made to increase the power of the people has come at a human cost. Not because of any moral obligation. The abolition of slavery, the black rights movement, the women’s movement, the right to vote, the list goes on. All involved massive direct and often violent action to force the government to devolve a small amount of power. So, the idea that the law upholds sound morality can be discounted and needn’t be a reason dissuade someone from taking action.
- Another facet of illegality is that it affects your own livelihood which is something that ought to be considered. In my opinion, a person of privilege has more of a moral duty to directly pressure the government. The idea of privilege is obviously nuanced and cannot be understood in absolute terms, since the intersection of ethnicity with gender, sexuality, class means that the notion of privilege is always changing. For example the concept of ‘white privilege’ is not consistent, it applies differently to a trans woman than a heterosexual man. This should be recognised when discussing the nature of privilege, but overall we can understand it as someone inheriting disproportionate advantages. These advantages provide greater systemic freedoms: wealth alleviates the financial burden of going to court, and being an orthodox white male removes the prejudice of systematic discrimination. Therefore a person possessing privileges should use these advantages to develop the rights of the masses (in this scenario addressing the climate disaster).
- The last factor is that breaking the law must therefore be effective otherwise there’s no point in all of this. I shall break down the different capacities of resistance and examine their effectiveness: peaceful protesting, non-violent direct action, and violent direct action.
A jolly walk into the inferno. First off I shall tackle assumptions 2 and 3 by determining the threat posed by the climate crisis. We should start off by examining the predictions and perspective amongst scientific bodies, namely the IPCC. At 1.5 degrees, drought would effect 350 million people, at 2 degrees 411m globally. 70–90% of coral reefs die at 1.5 degrees, and 99% at 2 degrees. If 99% of coral reefs die this would have an immediate consequence of affecting 500m people through fisheries and less storm protection. The disappearance of coral reefs would also have serious effects on marine ecosystems whilst potentially triggering irreversible feedback loops that spiral ocean deoxygenation, nutrient deficiency and increasing temperatures. It is also important to note the lack of understanding we presently have of the level and scope of feedback loops; the consequences could be fatal. Furthermore, the UN predict 1bn climate refugees by 2050 based on our current CO2 trajectory. 1/3 of species are thought to face extinction at 2 degrees.
So, this is all based on the assumption we are able to stay under 2 degrees, let’s explore how likely that is. To stay under 2 degrees (1.5 degrees appears nearly unimaginable now), all countries must become carbon neutral by 2050. China (the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases) has pledged carbon neutrality by 2060, India by 2070 (3rd biggest polluter). Furthermore, countries that have promised carbon neutrality by 2050 (UK and US) are very unlikely to reach these targets. Their promises appear to be skin deep, whilst the government helps support the bane of greenwashing and destructive offsetting, genuine action is absent. In 2020 the UK government issued 113 new 27–30 years licenses for oil and gas exploration and extraction, from 2018–19 the government also increased UKEF funding for overseas fossil fuel projects 11-fold to nearly £2bn (as support for renewables fell to £700,000). If these projects materialise, the chance of the UK achieving the 2050 carbon zero target is next to nothing. This may be why the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that the government has no coordinated plan with clear milestones towards achieving the net zero emissions by 2050 target. The reason behind this is mainly account of short-sighted power and profit grabs, and overall an unrepresentative government (a recent poll finds that 70% of Britons want faster climate action).
Furthermore, scientific predictions have consistently underestimated the rate and threat of increasing temperatures. Research into feedback loops (permafrost melting, ocean circulations shutting down, a withering albedo effect, Amazon deforestation), could be triggered from just 2 degrees which would cause atmospheric temperatures to spiral. The predications of glacial decline have also been largely underestimated, this can be seen in the Himalayan glaciers which are disappearing at a much faster rate than predicted. 1.5bn people depend on freshwater from the area for drinking water and agriculture. Furthermore, the melting of these glaciers will push two nuclear-armed states into severe water scarcity — “I leave the rest to your imagination” (Noam Chomsky). This isn’t an issue which is forecast in 20 or 30 years, this predicament is immediate and could cause mass destruction within a decade.
The reasons for these underestimations may be attributed to the fact that this is the first time in history climatic changes have been triggered by human action. So we don’t know how the environment will respond; this can also be shown by the IPCC retracting their initially proposed ‘below 2 degrees’, to 1.5 degrees. A further example of how the climate crisis is an emergency which is already upon us; half a million children are experiencing a climate-induced famine in Madagascar. The emergency is already upon us: 150,000 die each year directly due to the spiralling climate, this number will exponentially grow in the coming years.
So, even at 1.5 degrees the scenario is disastrous, yet we are set on the trajectory for 3.2 degrees of warming (claimed by the UN). Even with 1 degree of global warming, the climate crisis would be a bigger cause of forced migration than poverty or political oppression. With 3 degrees there would be chaos. It’s also important to note that the ramifications of increased temperature do not rise incrementally (at a consistent rate), the destruction is exponential. Just to really narrow down on the likelihood of achieving anywhere close to 2 degrees: in order to follow a 1.5°C-consistent pathway, the world would need to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6% per year between 2020 and 2030. Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2%, which by 2030 would result in more than double the production that is consistent with the 1.5°C limit.
A further note on the immediacy of the emergency. Former UK chief scientist, Sir David King, claims that we have the next three to four years to determine the climate breakdown. This is mainly based off findings on the irreversible effects of spiralling feedback loops: climatologists predict that if 20–25% of the Amazon is destroyed, the tipping point will be reached. Surpassing the tipping point means the assured destruction and death of the Amazon rainforest. 17% of the Amazon has been cut down so far and Bolsonaro cut down 1% last year. So at this rate, in 3 years we may have reached the tipping point. We would see mass dieback within as little as 15 years, and serious environmental repercussions. Australia’s top climate scientist notes how we have activated 9 of the 15 known climate tipping points that regulate the planet. Some of these include the Arctic, the Great Barrier Reef, Antarctica ice sheets; the chance that there will be permanent ice in the Arctic in 2022 is virtually zero. Up to 99% of coral reef is predicted to vanish by 2025, with climate scientists predicting with a high degree of certainty that the Great Barrier Reef is doomed. Even if all global emissions were cut to zero overnight, the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to 2 degrees of warming. It appears that these tipping points will likely be crossed. The immediacy of the issue should not be understated.
In 5 to 10 years we could also see some major issues emerging in South East Asia and China due to the failure of rice crops. China has raised serious concerns over this issue as it would put hundreds of millions on the brink of famine. The same projections were also evident in large areas of Jakarta, Mumbai and Kolkata, home to 70 million people, which could become largely uninhabitable due to inundation. These aren’t distant issues, they are immediate and they are grave. One should also recognise the massive increase this would cause in migration. Migration nearly always gives rise to horrific human rights abuses. For every 21 people who attempted to cross the Central Mediterranean Sea one person died during 2014 and 2015. This rises to one death for every 13 people if the one uses the metric of the number of people who actually arrived in Italy and the recorded fatalities are used. Europe was thoroughly shaken by the 1.2m refugees that landed in 2015, how would we cope with the 1bn climate refugees?
Of the 184 countries that signed the 2015 Paris Agreement, one is on track to achieve their commitment: Gambia. On our current trajectory David Spratt & Ian Dunlop (in a report from the National Centre for Climate Restoration) predict our most likely 2100 reality will be 5°C of warming. They also determine that with 4°C of warming, organised life is not possible.
There is a massive disparity between the claims of the scientific community and governing bodies. An article written by three climate scientists with 80 years of collective experience on the climate issue claim that they struggled to find one climate scientist who actually thought the Paris Agreement was feasible — no scientists at the time actually thought limiting to 1.5°C was possible. The more common consensus was that we were heading to beyond 3°C by the end of the century. This is a pretty serious revelation and should not be overlooked. Fundamentally, it means that the whole scientific community thought the idea of staying under 1.5°C was infeasible yet every governing body around the world failed to mention this, whilst marvelling the global community in being able to achieve it. I don’t think it’s an understatement to say we’ve been lied to. These three scientists claim, in addition, that these net zero targets were never intended to keep warming below 1.5°C, they were and are being driven to protect business as usual.
Now, a note on how the most powerful government in the world has responded to the crisis. The department for transportation under the Trump administration released a 500 page environmental assessment which concluded that no new regulations for automotive emissions should be made. They conclude that temperatures will be at 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 which is twice as high as the scientific world estimates possible for organised human life to persist. So, the most powerful government on the planet has decided that climate change is going to kill us all so we might as well enjoy ourselves whilst we can.
Some may still not be convinced and may hold the argument; my small impact won’t actually do anything, so what’s the point? First off, we have a moral duty more than most countries; from kickstarting the industrial revolution, to being one of the biggest consumers on the planet. And, we are not the one’s suffering, the consequences are not dealt fairly; whilst the famine is occurring in Madagascar the average person in the UK emits 45x more emissions than someone in Madagascar. There is a massive disparity between the damage we’ve caused and the consequences we reap. Secondly, we have a significant impact on the global stage, whilst our position as a global power has receded, we are still a core member of the UN security council, NATO and G7, as well as wielding significant influence over the commonwealth. It is thought that the UK emits 1% of global emissions, however this number doubles when including the supplies we import, international flights, and imported fossil fuels. Furthermore, we are one of the largest consumers on the planet per capita and still provoke gross environmental exploitation: in 2020 UKEF and HM Treasury guaranteed £1bn in financial support for a natural gas project in Mozambique (despite the governments recent decision to end funding for fossil fuel projects overseas). We embody the plague of excessive consumption, this reaffirms consumptive patterns in other developed countries. Our influence should not be understated.
Lastly, the issue of moral imperative should really be enforced. If you were walking your family to get their organs harvested with a slim chance of saving them, you’d probably do everything in your power to fight for that chance. One also has a moral obligation to not be complicit, and do whatever they can to save the family. A crude example, but accurate. The climate crisis is the same but far worse, not only are your future generations at risk but also the majority of less privileged families around the globe. Therefore, the cost of complicity, far graver. Furthermore, the power of individuals should not be understated, the enslaved people of Haiti probably felt their small uprising against the French colonial rule was futile. Yet, they overthrew the French, emancipated the people and became the government. Or more recently in Scotland, when 29 Extinction Rebellion activists got arrested for blocking a bridge in 2019, a couple days later the Scottish government brought their carbon neutral target forward to 2045. From personal interaction with some of these rebels, they described the havoc they caused amongst the police and the disruption they caused the jail system, which therefore seemed patent in affecting the government’s decision.
Someone could still hold the position of climate nihilism, taking a chapter out of the Trump administration; there’s no point in acting because the climate crisis is inevitable. In the first place this conclusion is not backed by any scientific consensus. Secondly, it creates an atmosphere of hopelessness and inaction which is one of the most destructive stances to uphold. The philosophy that we’re already fucked, actively confirms that reality. It’s more destructive than the hopeful government lobbyist, the adamant NGO, or even the plastic straw abstainer. It’s self-fulfilling extinction. Thirdly, it is violently privileged. That we have the ability to sit back and weep over the inevitable desolation that we have caused. Though, we’re are not the ones swept away by torrential storms, massacred by tsunamis, or shrivelled by drought. It is a violent position, climate nihilism. Wallace-Wells sums it up well: ‘The fight is, definitely, not yet lost — in fact will never be lost, so long as we avoid extinction, because however warm the planet gets, it will always be the case that the decade that follows could contain more suffering or less.’
A line of argument someone may also hold is that; we are now facing a whole array of crises threatening humanity, so what makes the climate one special? This is an important question, and one people should consider, as it should influence where one focuses their efforts. These crises often include: the nuclear threat, biological warfare, AI, nanotech and many others. Many of these are serious threats and should not be downplayed. Essentially, these issues need to be addressed, but the climate breakdown is already upon us and an effective response to the environmental crisis could mitigate these other disasters. If the climate breakdown continues unabated, conflicts will rise between countries; water wars, wars over resources, migrational conflicts. This would increase the chance of nuclear warfare, therefore, responding to the climate crisis does seem necessary in staving off the ticking doomsday clock. Also, if serious environmental policies were implemented this could detract from military spending and, through public pressure, governments could relocate military spending to fund climate projects. Such claims were voiced in the UK to de-arm Trident; driven by the fact that £18bn was spent on the nuclear project in 2019, compared to £1.5bn on the climate crisis in 2019. Jeremy Corbyn addressed this concern with a policy of scrapping Trident, married with more extensive environmental policies.
The US military is a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined, whilst the majority of Americans want to cut the budget (56% of voters support cutting the defence budget by 10%, whilst 2/3 of Americans want the government to do more on the climate crisis). Therefore, reducing military expenditure and nuclear projects would help reduce emissions whilst providing funding for climate action. De-arming and responding to the climate crisis can be mutually effective. Furthermore, in responding to the climate crisis, core foundations of our society may have to be abandoned; like the policy of relentless growth and consumption. The framework of capitalism is built on these foundations and so a new political structure may have to be established. A global cohesive response is also necessary in effectively tackling the climate breakdown, which could lay the ground for a different kind of system to be built (something contrary to the blight inimical competition). Conclusively, the threat of nuclear destruction is still very real and cannot be shadowed by the climate crisis, I merely aim to show that effectively enacting climate action can mitigate other existential issues such as the nuclear threat. As to the threat of AI: I examined a paper which included 4 surveys with 995 participants (experts in AI); 55% predict that AGI would either never occur or occur after 2060. Some academics claim that the threat of AI could develop in the very near future.
Another threat is that of biological warfare or bioengineered pandemics. A report that collated the opinion of over 50 experts on the threat showed that 73% consider it a major threat and 52% say that it is the same or a greater threat than nuclear war. The majority also consider a human-induced biological crisis a greater threat than a natural pandemic. 46% of experts determine the likelihood of an act of biological warfare occurring in 5 years somewhat unlikely and 33% somewhat likely and 13% very unlikely. The number rises in 10 years with 54% saying it is somewhat likely and 27% saying very likely. The majority of this 81% also predict that this attack would be small scale and not one of international scope. This would be likely, made worse with a spiralling climate crisis: living conditions would plummet which could increase the risk of biological warfare. As resources are exhausted conflict rises dramatically — the UN predict that 5bn will experience water shortages by 2050. The Future Earth Risks Perceptions Report in 2020 concluded that 72% identified climate change as a central driver to a potential future global systemic crisis. This report included the perspective of more than 200 scientists from 52 countries. Therefore, unabated climate breakdown is likely to play a role in animating these other crises.
Now, I haven’t dealt with these crises justly, but it is important to understand climate breakdown in context of these other crises. I cannot conclusively say that the climate crisis is the most dire threat and all should devote their life to the cause. For example, if someone wanted to become an AI expert to ensure that humanity veers clear of AI annihilation; this may be a more effective use of their privilege (based on the morality that for a person of privilege, one must actively develop the rights of those who don’t possess such advantages). It must be the choice of the individual to determine which struggle is theirs. In weighing up where to invest your efforts, I ask you to consider, that the climate breakdown is immediate, it is grave, too few are actively pressuring for real change and an effective response to the crisis could mitigate these other disasters. Now, this opinion is clearly more marginalised to privileged people, but as this is the experience that I have inherited — I am more equipped to assert a perspective on it.
The use of expected value calculations is often used in weighing up the allocation of humanitarian efforts. This is essentially where you evaluate how effective your input would be, in a particular issue; the way to do this is determine the total sum of change that has been pressured, and divide this by how many people who have taken part in the movement. This should then fit into the context of the calibre of the issue. Applied to the climate movement, through this method, one might argue that one person’s involvement will have a minimal impact. And based on expected value calculations, they’d probably be right. However, there are a couple serious flaws that should be recognised. First, this calculation lacks a core emotional part of social movements; one of immutable perseverance and the power of individuals. The suffragettes, or the civil rights movement would have surely been sedated when examining their probably likelihood of enacting actual change. Yet they inspired others, pressured the government, and a degree of power was devolved. A small number can have a big impact. So a small group could in reality cause the government to change policy dramatically which could then kickstart global players to amend their climate policies. To fight for something so out of reach, so remote, so unlikely, can only be won through fighting. Nihilism has been endemic through history, but successes are rife. Also every new action, new participant, new fight and fighter increases our chances: the only way to know if it’s a fight that can be won, is if you win. No probability formula can determine this; we do not know when the spell of consumption will be decisively broken.
Climate action has the potential for saving billions, or even all organised life. Furthermore, as explored above, there is an argument of moral obligation; when Noam Chomsky was asked if he’d continue tackling the climate crisis even if it was hopeless, he answered yes. I assume, account of the moral duty. We must fight for humanity, even if we lose. And what would we tell the next generation that inherited the ruin? ‘I watched idly by, because there wasn’t much probable chance I’d be much help’. If the first person to start protesting for climate action weighed up their probable impact they’d most likely be sedated to inaction. As with the slave revolts in Haiti — the chance they’d be killed too high, or the civil rights movement, the likelihood they’d win too remote. Judging whether you should act based on probability undoubtedly sedates action. It’s self-fulfilling, it facilitates extinction.
Some people I’ve talked to often taken up the argument (relieving themselves from direct action), I intend to to get filthy rich and then give loads away to charity. From the information explored above, the climate emergency is already upon us, and we need to change our habits now. Exploiting the system, to then turn back and wipe up the wounds (ignoring the fact that this directly proliferates exploitative structures) maybe rather difficult with 1bn climate refugees, 5bn living in water shortage and 3.1bn in extreme poverty by 2050. Lastly, pressuring the government to introduce policy which advances the rights and powers of the people, is unmistakably positive. So even if it is a hopeless fight, the process would still devolve power to the people and increase government accountability. So, although on a statistical basis, getting involved in the climate movement may not be initially effective, it essentially pushes government in a more accountable direction whilst also laying the potential to prevent billions from suffering.
Further sources:
