No, your Tesla and artificial meat will not stop Climate Change
“Climate action”, “affordable and clean energy”, “sustainable cities and communities”. Those are a few of the Sustainable Development Goals announced by the United Nations in 2015 amidst the climate change crisis. Now, amongst electric cars, future trips to Mars, and Bill Gates’ synthetic meat, a new door seems to open up for humanity. However, are we seeking sustainability or a way to sustain the system?
For years now, the scientific community has been warning us about the great dangers and catastrophic consequences that climate change might bring us, with existing evidence of humanity’s devastating effects on our planet. Carbon dioxide and methane, accounting for approximately 90% of greenhouse gas emissions, have constituted the greatest engineer of this climate emergency. Burning fossil fuels, agriculture, deforestation, manufacturing, and other human activities have been mostly responsible for the current climate crisis. Even so, what have we determined to be the most distinguished response to this cataclysm? 70000$ dollar electric cars, meat manufactured through in vitro cell culture, and “sustainable” fashion lines, featuring 300$ shirts.
Outwardly, the aestheticism of these “green” products might have caught the attention of upper-middle-class consumers, but what sort of green are these companies seeking through their environmentally-friendly items? The green our planet is made of, or the green that awakes the most avaricious and acquisitive sentiments in us? At first sight, one might come to the effortless conclusion that yes, because Teslas employ batteries instead of fossil fuels, they must be the answer to this conundrum. Moreover, perhaps these new clothes made out of recycled fiber might constitute harm-reduction. Nonetheless, these short-sighted perspectives constantly ignore systemic problematics underlying the climate issue.
Despite these product’s very successful green marketing, it is very simple to break down the main drawbacks regarding “sustainability”. For instance, the Tesla myth. Elon Musk, the apotheosis of Tech Lords, obtains his lithium batteries from Bolivian mines supported by labor compensated by overly low wages and coups sponsored by Elon himself. In his own words, “We will coup whomever we want. Deal with it”. For the optimistic, a bright future shines with cars employing fossil fuels being replaced by cars such as Teslas. This is not an answer, the struggle of climate change is not a struggle of cars and meat, it is much deeper and complex than that.
Ultimately, why would we need to go to hyperbolic stances to obtain lithium batteries and manufacture cars in which you can maybe even watch Netflix when we could just, perhaps, resort to public transportation? Why would we need to dramatically reduce our consumption of meat instead of holding the numerous companies known to be responsible for most of our greenhouse gas emissions accountable? Why do we need overpriced clothing instead of simply reducing our overconsumption and acknowledging our underlying problem with our modern society’s overly materialistic tendencies?
As far as it concerns me, the aim of these new sustainable practices is not sustainability itself, they were born to sustain our current lifestyles. What they seek is not to save the planet, they seek to save themselves from this catastrophe. A catastrophe they are responsible for themselves, disregarding the several environmental damages and human rights violations to accomplish it. The upper-middle-class dream of an end to climate change without changing our societal organization or regulating our overconsumption will not save us. Furthermore, the “sustainability” goal will inevitably doom us. We cannot ever heal in the same environment that made us sick.
