By Alberto Garzon Espinosa on August 17, 2024
Greece, struggles to control dozens of fires across the country this August. photo: EFE/EPA/Yannis Kolesidis
We should not fool ourselves: there is a lot of social Darwinism here, that is, a way of understanding the world in which there are people who, if they were left over, nothing would happen.
The summer of 2023 left a tragic mark on Europe: almost 50,000 lives lost due to high temperatures, with Spain mourning 8,352 deaths, mostly women. These alarming figures, revealed by a study by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, barely caused a stir in the media and social networks. Meanwhile, a frivolous conversation between two eccentric tycoons, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, grabbed public attention.
Trump, a known climate change denier, of which he went so far as to say it was a ‘big lie’, and Musk, a supposed clean energy advocate, shared utterly irresponsible comments about the ecological crisis. They claimed, among other things, that there is still plenty of time to reduce the use of fossil fuels (up to several hundred years) and even suggested that sea level rise could be beneficial because it would create new coastal properties. Some experts defined this event as ‘the dumbest climate conversation in history‘.
In reality, the two phenomena are connected. Trump and Musk see climate change through their own rich white male glasses. Their professed ignorance of the environmental issue, and their lack of modesty in displaying it to millions of viewers, should not be interpreted as a sign of stupidity. The naive ones would be us if we thought we shared a focus on the problems facing our shared planet. They only express concern when something affects their business, and it doesn’t look like heat waves are a problem they are going to pay attention to.
So far this year , 19 national heat records have been broken, and up to 130 monthly records. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Europe stresses that climate change is intensifying and prolonging extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and droughts. With global average temperatures already 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, we are dangerously close to the 1.5°C limit set by international agreements. The report even contemplates a catastrophic scenario of 3°C, which would triple deaths and drastically reduce the hours of thermal comfort in southern Europe.
However, it is not just a matter of projections. Climate change is already seriously affecting the balance of ecosystems, food systems, water availability, public health and, in general, ordinary people. But as always, that is the first reading that is usually made about climate change. An alternative reading, also pointed out in the aforementioned report, is that these effects are asymmetrical and unevenly distributed by social class and region. Thus, in the case of Europe, the most negative consequences fall on the South, while in some specific cases (such as the yield of certain crops) even the North could find some benefit.
The same is true for social class. Poorer families are much less able to adapt and even recover from the impacts of climate change. While Musk and Trump can frivolize about coastal property rights, millions of working families around the world will lose their homes in the coming years as a result of storms, flooding, or rising sea levels. And while Musk and Trump can and will be able to pay for the energy to turn on the air conditioning while cooling off with bottled water, millions of families around the world have to suffer from high temperatures in the context of running water shortages. For the billionaire lunatics, 50,000 people killed by heat waves in Europe are just insignificant figures.
But perhaps we don’t have to go that far to see these same behaviors replicated. The IPCC report also recognizes that adaptation policies by governments are clearly insufficient in scale, depth and speed. We are not talking here about combating climate change, an even greater challenge, but only about adapting to changes that are already irreversible. At this point, the available options are very well known and include changing consumption habits, energy efficiency interventions in infrastructures, climate shelters, urban planning based on natural recovery (more trees, fewer cars), recovery and restoration of ecosystems, efficiency improvements in productive systems, short production and consumption cycles, etc….
One would think that, given the urgency of the situation, governments would be devoting all their energies, time and budget to deploying these policies, which are not in all cases immediately applicable. However, if we review the policies carried out, for example, by the governments of the Community of Madrid and the City Council of Madrid, we will have to shake our heads. We are governed by people who are driving against the grain of science and knowledge. But again, it is not a question of stupidity either. The message implicit in the attitude of these governments is the same as that of the conversation between Musk and Trump: every man for himself. That is why we should not fool ourselves: there is a lot of social Darwinism here, that is, a way of understanding the world in which there are people who, if they were left over, nothing would happen.
The climate crisis is not an abstract problem of the future, but a brutal reality that is already taking lives. And everyone knows this. The difference is that many of us care and fear it, while others don’t care and even see it as an opportunity. But the truth is that every degree increase in global temperature is a death sentence for the most vulnerable. And here the question we have to ask ourselves is not ‘where are we going’ but ‘why are they taking the helm’.
Source: El Diario, translation: Resumen Latinoamericano – English