Think big

Everyone who is concerned about the environment agrees that we need to do something about it: the debate is not whether something should be done, rather what should be done. Some people advocate for voting for more environmentally aware politicians, others for lobbying, others still for acts of “rebellion” and civil disobedience. The conversation tends to take place within the parameters of the doable, of what is realistic, and what is perceived to nudge “regular” members of society in the right direction without alienating them or frightening them out of their potential sympathy for environmental causes. Rarely is the issue of proportionate response discussed when imagining solutions, let alone strategizing them.

What do we mean by proportionate response? A proportionate response to the environmental crisis should be of similar magnitude to the environmental crisis itself. The environmental crisis has global implications and many millions of people are aware of it. Consequently, a proportionate response to the environmental crisis should have similarly global implications and many millions of people should be aware of it.

We should not make the mistake here of confusing media coverage for impact. A documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio or a conference speech by Greta Thunberg may appear on the radar of many millions of people, but it does not have the physical implications of the environmental crisis: the former is a manufactured communications plan, whereas the latter is real. By this measure, it is difficult to identify any instance of environmental activism that has proportionate response to the global environmental crisis, although perhaps we can identify specific responses to local manifestations of the crisis, such as a forest being saved from being cleared.

So what kind of scale would be necessary in order to achieve proportionate response? Remember: global implications and many millions of people are aware of it. One example would be a profound change to the global geopolitical order. For example, if California seceded from the United States of America and established a dedicated eco-state based on genuine sustainability principles, we would be looking at something like proportionate response. If the new eco-state of California then set off a domino effect of other eco-states around the world, we would have genuine proportionate response.

Of course, your immediate response is: But that’s never going to happen! For sure, it would require a historically-unprecedented set of circumstances to unfold. But as we noted in the article, Is it Possible to Overturn the Status Quo?:

While there is no precedent in the past century of the status quo being successfully overturned, this time is different. The environmental crisis is so big and relevant to so many, that it is entirely plausible for a movement to cause a social disruption of significant historical importance.

If there was ever a time in history for something extraordinary to happen, that time is now. If we can imagine it, it can be done. Certainly, it is an enormously challenging thing to contemplate. However, we only have enormously challenging options: either succumb to the environmental crisis, or do what is necessary to overcome the environmental crisis.

This does not mean that existing forms of activism are a waste of time; it means we need to add to them by imagining other solutions that operate on a fundamentally different scale, one that is proportionate to the crisis. We need the space to think freely and to resist the temptation to immediately shut down ideas because they sound wild and unrealistic, because to do so is to limit ourselves to the low-hanging fruit. Remember, we’d better think big, because if we get what we wished for after having thought small, it’s still not good enough.