Can Competition Save the Planet?

The reality of our world is that we have become dependent on energy sources which are not sustainable and contribute to the degradation of the environment. Industrialized countries have built their economies on inexpensive fossil fuel energy and as such face a long and complicated process of changing the way energy is produced and consumed. So they have done what they always do—placed the onus of burden on the rapidly growing economies of India, China and Brazil.

And maybe they have a point this time—developing economies may be our best hope to lower the amount of greenhouse gases which enter the atmosphere in the short-term. But the solution is not short-term. This is a long-term problem and the long-term solution is not going to be solved by end-of-the-pipe technologies. It is going to take unpopular decisions and strong leadership, things which so far have been in short supply.

So we have a choice, do we leave the solution to policy-makers and western industrialists? Or do we take control and make the choice to act in a way that limits our individual impact? For me this is where things get difficult. I read articles on the melting polar ice caps, gaps in global food security, higher global temperatures, catastrophic events...it seems all the problems of the world are the result of Global Warming. What can any one person do?

And then I remember four simple words that seem to have been buried among carbon footprints and emissions off-sets—'Think Global, Act Local'. But even then I start an internal debate on what changes I should make. Act Local...what exactly does this entail? What life-style changes do I have to endure? Can I still drive my car to work? Use the AC when the temperature is in the high 30s? Eat meat? Can I still go on that trip to visit my sister in Virginia?

The problem is that there is no simple solution, because just as our economies have become dependent on carbon intensive energy, individuals have become dependent on the infrastructure that developed as a result of inexpensive energy. Food security, dependence on electrical devices, means of transportation and most important how we measure our quality of life are all based on energy intensive activities...so maybe technology, economic mechanisms and policy aren't the proper way to address the climate crisis. Maybe sociology holds the answer.

We have evolved into a world that is based on competition between individuals, nations and sports teams. Competition for status. Competition for material goods. Competition for the sake of competition. In the US this is known as 'keeping up with the Jones'. If a neighbor gets a new car or new flat screen TV, there is a sense that maybe if I don't have that same TV I am falling behind in the game of life... that in some way I am losing status among my peers. The result is the desire to keep pace—to go out and buy a bigger TV, a bigger car and maybe a new sofa to match the new TV. The answer might be as simple as reframing the competition from how much I have to how little I have.

To a certain extent this is happening. There is a certain status attached to 'going green'—purchasing a hybrid car in response to the SUV the neighbor bought or installing solar panels on our 5,000 square foot McMansion. But the action is still in response to someone else's actions and the action in the end a form of consumption. What if we really did start acting locally.

By this I mean within ourselves. What if instead of competing against others we began to challenge ourselves to consume less? Use less electricity? Read a book instead of watching TV or surfing the internet? Walk to the store rather than drive? Maybe a better solution is to empower ourselves to make the difficult choices. Let's give ourselves permission to fall behind. Our children will thank us.