What Counts as 'Doing Something' About Climate Change?

Last month, a friend and I discussed her latest climate project at work: an efficiency-improvement plan for logistics and delivery vehicles, based on digitisation. I was critical. Slowed down by bureaucratic processes, and centered in South America with a likelihood of corruption, the project seemed at risk of being ineffective. In addition, digitisation always carries the risk of privacy and surveillance issues. In response to my critique, she answered: “At least I’m doing something.”

Many people, especially young people, see climate change and its accompanying risks as a major environmental, social, and political issue. We are often told that eating less meat, ditching the car, and avoiding flying are the ways in which we can “do something” about it. Some people work in jobs that directly deal with climate projects, and other choose to take up activism, participating in demonstrations that aim to draw attention to the crisis.

But what about people who don’t do any of those things? Is just reading about climate change “doing something”? What about talking about climate change, or even just thinking about it? How do we decide, for any cause that we care about, where to put our energies, how much energy to expend, and how to take action? Once you’re “doing something” how do you know if you’re “doing enough” ?

What is “Doing Something”, Anyway?

In her book The Human Condition (1954) Hannah Arendt discusses the idea of the vita activa, and its meaning of “all kinds of active engagement in the things of this world.” Vita activa is contrasted with quiet contemplation: “no matter how concerned a thinker may be with eternity, the moment he sits down to write his thoughts he ceases to be concerned primarily with eternity and shifts his attention to leaving some trace of them. He has entered the vita activa and chosen its way of permanence and potential immortality.”

In particular, for Arendt, “action is one of the fundamental categories of the human condition and constitutes the highest realization of the vita activa.” In her view, the two main characteristics of action are freedom and plurality. Freedom in this context means “the capacity to begin, to start something new, to do the unexpected.”

Very importantly for the concept of “doing something”, Arendt notes plurality as the second key component of action: for something to truly be considered action, “it is not something that can be done in isolation from others, that is, independently of the presence of a plurality of actors who from their different perspectives can judge the quality of what is being enacted.”

So, Is Talking About Climate Change “Doing Something”?

Applying Arendt’s theory of action to “doing something” about climate change, “to act means to be able to disclose one’s self and to do the unanticipated”, and the thing being done must be done within a plurality of actors who can judge its quality.

This would mean that talking about climate change may be considered “action” just as much as working on a climate project may be, and even reading about climate change if it was part of a larger goal, or for the purpose of discussion. However, just thinking about climate change may not be “action”, until the point where it is actually expressed and acted out in conversation: quiet contemplation becomes action as soon as it is voiced, or written down.

“Action entails speech: by means of language we are able to articulate the meaning of our actions and to coordinate the actions of a plurality of agents. Conversely, speech entails action, not only in the sense that speech itself is a form of action, or that most acts are performed in the manner of speech, but in the sense that action is often the means whereby we check the sincerity of the speaker. Thus, just as action without speech runs the risk of being meaningless …so speech without action would lack one of the means by which we may confirm the veracity of the speaker.”

Importantly, is the “Something” That You’re Doing, “Enough”?

As Arendt explains, action requires there to be “a plurality of actors who from their different perspectives can judge the quality of what is being enacted.” So — who is the “plurality” who judges your actions, in this case?

We often determine the quality of an action by its effects, which we can measure and quantify. For instance, doing something like creating a new urban park can have measurable impacts such as carbon dioxide reduction, increased green space area, or reduction in nearby urban temperatures.

Other activities have less measurable effects, such as protest action, discussions among friends, or social programs that may not directly relate to carbon emissions or fossil fuel reduction. Activists often rely on the prominence of the action, or the political response to decide whether it is “enough”. Taking risky direct actions and civil disobedience clearly signals that you care about this issue. But there are more diffuse and complex ways of “doing something” in which the effects may not be easily calculated, measured, determined, or even seen.

It may be that majority rules: if most people think that reading about climate change is important and capable of helping the cause, then perhaps the quality of your action is sufficient. In this case, given the urgency of the climate issue, perhaps we should be strict: corporations and governments should do more, and we should make it as easy as possible for individuals to make climate-friendly choices, too. At the same time, any action on climate may be good action on climate — the more important question is whether it moves fast enough.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***