Tens of thousands of people have travelled across the United States and Canada to discuss climate change and the future of the planet. This is the first time so many groups with different interests have come together on this issue. It’s climate chaos, in a good way.
Ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit on Tuesday, a conference and teach-in called NYC Climate Convergence was held Saturday across the city with participants hosting sessions on an array of climate change issues. With fossil fuels at the heart of the climate crisis, it is no surprise that energy was one of the most popular topics.
I was curious about what the climate movement had in mind for our future energy system. But, after attending multiple sessions and asking the same question about what a fossil-free world would look like, it became clear that the movement lacked a coherent vision.
While it is still early days for the movement and not everyone should have the answer to such a complicated question, the timing is urgent and the oil and gas industry certainly has a clear vision of what our energy system should like.
And as Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist and author of This Changes Everything stressed at the closing plenary Saturday night, “We all need to be aware that urgency without a vision of our own can be dangerous. It can be used in very, very regressive ways.”
When asked, Climate Convergence attendees were eager to discuss their ideas about how to solve the climate crisis.
“We can’t solve the climate crisis until we solve the question of democracy,” said Brad Hornick, an anti-oil sands activist from British Columbia.
A democratic energy system would give citizens and workers a say about where their energy comes from, says Michael Ware, an activist with System Change Not Climate Change in Burlington, Vermont.
Toronto resident Lyn Adamson, who is with Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, had a detailed answer to the energy question. She advocates for a carbon fee and dividend system where the price of oil would be raised dramatically over the next 10 years. The revenue would go directly back to citizens in the form of a monthly cheque. The idea is to redistribute the profits of oil and gas companies while giving people a disincentive to use fossil fuels. Since everyone will receive the same amount of money, low carbon users will benefit more.
But none of those responses answers the question of what kind energy system we should be building, where and at what speed. So far, the most consistent answer seems to be “we’ll figure it out when we win.”
In the meantime, the oil and gas industry in Canada and the United States is spending money on advertising campaigns to remind consumers that they hold the keys to their current way of life. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers even reminds travellers at Pearson Airport in Toronto how they got to their destination. They are playing on our fear that we cannot continue to live happy, fulfilling, safe and dignified lives without the oil and gas industry because we do not yet have a viable energy system to replace it.
This makes it clear that the climate crisis is, or at least has been, a public relations battle. And if the climate movement cannot present a viable energy alternative to the public, they will lose the fight.
Klein said it best at the closing plenary of the Climate Convergence last night: This movement cannot just be about being scared and spreading fear. “That is not the kind of urgency we need. We need the urgency that will power all of our movements with the real existential crisis that we face; that will put us on a science-based deadline.”
