Filling the Solution Void

A Blueprint for Dealing with the Climate Crisis

Filling the Solution Void

The parable of the man and the tiger

Once upon a time, there was a man who lived in a village in the jungle. In the jungle, there was a tiger, and the man knew the tiger would come at night and eat him. The man held council with the other men of the village, and they came up with a plan: They would raise a fence all around the village, every man contributing ten meters. The man went home, built ten meters of fence, and went to bed. At night, the tiger entered his house and ate him. You see, his neighbor had built no fence, for he saw no need for hurry. And his neighbor had built no fence, for he had lost his arms in an accident. And his neighbor had built no fence, for he did not believe in tigers.

The moral lesson of this story is the simplest you can think of: It is not about the ten meters of fence. It is about the tiger, about not getting eaten. When the tiger enters your home, it is too late to try something different, or cry injustice. If your plan cannot reliably protect you from the tiger, you need a new plan, no matter how much thought and effort you put into your ten meters of fence. Not getting eaten by the tiger is the only objective of the plan – all else is a distraction.

The example of Mahatma Gandhi

On the 12th of March 1930, a man known to history as Mahatma Gandhi set off towards Dandi at the eastern coast of India, along with 78 companions, to illegally extract salt from the ocean. Soon, millions of Indians all over joined this act of mass civil disobedience against British rule. Gandhi had favored salt as the object of political action because of its ubiquitous role in every Indian's household, rich or poor. And although the British response was harsh, and there were no immediate concessions, the Salt March is today known as a cornerstone event of the Indian independence movement, proving how simple acts of resistance were within reach of anyone. And to us, the event teaches another lesson: The economy is an immensely potent target for political action, to bring about needed change.

To the point

Climate change can be solved, and must be solved. The current global climate mitigation effort is helplessly steering towards total failure, for logical reasons that will be made clear in this text. A new movement of climate action is required, tailor made for realistically countering root causes of climate change. The movement must be built around an idea so straight-forward, reasonable and fair that anyone can pick it up at once. This solutions exists, and will be made clear over the course of this text, in all necessary detail.

Climate change is caused by the middle and upper class population's demand for consumer goods/services and energy. The economics of billions of human beings cooperating for this end, devising governments and industries to do their bidding, is an immensely powerful force headed for global ecosystem collapse. The failure of today's effort against climate change is due to a fundamental lack of understanding of this force; why it exists, what makes it so powerful, and where it can and cannot be fought.

The situation requires a mass popular movement against private over-consumption. Using the tried and tested tool of social influence through conformity, mankind's destructive drive towards ever-increasing material wealth can be halted. Start out simple: Increase the emotional labor required for shopping, as your activists line the entrances of malls. Then watch your ranks grow as citizens realize that the means to stop the doomsday clock of climate change are in fact not out of reach, but are simple, logical and just. Any decrease in consumption will be matched by an immediate decrease in emissions, which is the one thing the world needs now. And as the public transforms through your movement, watch how the green transition becomes a juggernaut, as paralysis, procrastination and cultural war turns into united determination: We can slay the tiger.

Some Central Premises

Before moving on to the method in detail, here are a few statements to show the way of thinking that underpins the whole. If these statements are offensive or unacceptable to you, you are unlikely to find what you seek in the remainder of this text.

1. Your personal climate-friendly acts are pointless.

Climate change is a big, big, problem, caused by emissions from the activities of billions of human beings. Your preference for bus over car, eating vegan, buying second-hand – none of these actions matter, unless they are part of a system that makes sure a large number of people do the same. And as for now, this system does not exist. You can do your part all you like, the problem is that almost nobody else does theirs, and the current paradigm of climate activism provides you with no tools to change that. Your effort as an activist must be directed at creating the new system, so that the entire wall is built and keeps the tiger out. Getting the system up and running is infinitely more important than your own lifestyle choices.

2. The oil industry is not the cause of climate change, just the medium that the cause works through.

The oil industry was created by society to deliver fuel. If you removed it, society would quickly devise another way to get fuel. The wealth of the industry comes from the high value the consumers place on the product. The power of the industry comes from society looking the other way from their crimes and transgressions, to make sure the fuel supply is uninterrupted. The activist movement sees a separation between the oil industry and society; this is an illusion. Without society’s demand for fossil fuel, there is no oil industry. With society’s demand for fossil fuel, there will always be an oil industry.

This example applies to any other industry as well. They exist, and pollute, because there is a large demand for the products or services of this specific polluting activity. Killing an industry takes a massive effort, and demand will make society recreate the industry anyway.

3. Politicians are just doing their job as representatives of the majority, and will not obey activists.

“How dare you?” cried Greta Thunberg upon meeting the world leaders. The leaders were there as elected representatives for their societies. They dared to, because they did not dare not to. A politician who changes course by own initiative and begins accepting concessions for the climate on behalf of voters who did not ask for them, gets replaced by a politician who will remain loyal to the voting majority. Activists regard politicians as flawed, immoral individuals – this is a false premise. Elected politicians are no better or worse than the society that chose them as representatives of itself. They do as they are told, within bounds of what is economically possible.

Notice the similarity with the previous point. Politicians and industry are a lot alike. They are both mechanisms devised and guided by mass demand to provide us with what we want.

4. You have no short cuts to political influence. It's all hard work.

There are two ways to political influence: Having a lot of money (or arms), and making a large number of people agree with your views. Climate activists imagine a third way, a short cut: political protest. However, spectacular protest and civil disobedience only works when there is significant hidden or unaware approval for the cause – such as was the case for Gandhi’s India. Attention is a currency, which you spend to get noticed by those who might support you with their numbers. A currency that cannot be spent to get what you want, is worthless. If you cannot quickly convert your attention into power, society’s eyes will soon move on. Activists perform spectacular protests to make demands from politicians. But without power, you do not have demands – you just have wishes, to be ignored by anyone who does not share them. To make an impact in climate politics, you need to do the hard work of making people agree with your views.

"But what about all the exceptions from these claims? Corrupt CEOs and politicians lying about their intentions?"

Yes, there are multiple exceptions – on the micro level, in the details. On the macro level, however, the claims hold true: Industry and politicians are the means with which society performs specific tasks, and they are governed by a few straight-forward principles of material interest. And the macro level is where climate change happens, and where we need to think if we are to design a cure.

The Cure

The method for dealing with climate change is a popular movement protesting private overconsumption. What this means is the act of gathering people to protest other people's over-consumption at or near the locations where these people make the choice to over-consume.

Did you not just say that protest is pointless?

Political protest is pointless, because politicians are steered by forces much greater, and by people far more numerous, than climate protesters. Unless you can make very very many people join your rally, politicians are immune. Protest against other individuals, however, is not pointless, because on their own, human beings are very susceptible to being influenced – in particular by crowds. This is the power of social influence: enforcer of laws, builder of world religions, shaper of cultures. The oldest form of power, immensely potent. All you need is numbers, and for numbers you need a cause and leadership.

What is the purpose of this protest, in plain words?

Two things:

  • 1. To increase the emotional labor required for over-consumption
  • 2. To show all people that an effective form of climate action is possible, and within reach for anyone.

These two are interconnected: the tool for causing emission cuts, and the hand that wields the tool. The climate movement has no impact without a method. A method for emission cuts, no matter how logical, can do nothing without a movement.

Why over-consumption, of all purposes?

For a number of reasons.

  • 1. Consumption is the end purpose of nearly all industry, with its fossil fuel demand, and unnecessary consumption is a significant chunk of that. Reducing over-consumption instantly reduces the demand and use of fossil fuels, and the emissions that follow. Instant emission cuts, just what the climate needs. Can you think of any other form of climate action that works immediately?
  • 2. Over-consumption can be removed from the economy with no ill effects to society, apart from the short-term displacement of laborers. See economics for a much deeper discussion of this premise.
  • 3. It is perfectly fair and moral. The majority of the world’s population does not have the privilege of getting to buy a new mobile phone whenever they’re tired of the old, or fly to foreign countries on vacation, or eat meat in abundance. Yet many of these same people will be suffering the most under the disastrous impact of climate change. This is well know among the people from whom you will be recruiting. The combination of rational and moral justification, combined with insights of the economical perks, will make your position unassailable.

A protest against other individuals is aggressive and intrusive. Why not convince people with arguments instead?

Because arguments do not make people consume less. If they had, this crisis would have been over now. People overconsume because it gives emotional feedback. This means climate action needs to be competitive on the emotional level – and argument-based activism is not competitve by any means. On the other hand, appeals to conformity, the approval or disapproval of the pack, speaks straight to the emotions of the individual.

I don't think shaming people works.

Why not? Religions use shame to successfully influence societies with billions of people. Shame is a very powerful motivator, possibly only second to money. People care very much about what society around them thinks about their behavior. If you get into a position where you can wield it effectively, you can stop over-consumption.

It's unfair.

Against whom? The majority of the world’s population cannot over-consume at all, but will still be hit by climate change nonetheless. Look at what is at stake. Is it really unfair to make privileged middle class people feel uncomfortable about creating environmentally destructive demand?

But what about the wealthy? They are the ones who cause climate change, they should be held responsible.

There is so much to unpack from this statement, it gets its own page. For now, suffice to say that cutting demand for consumer goods will hurt the rich a lot more than you could possibly do by direct confrontation.

OK, so we’re doing this. But why so passive, why not go all the way? Blocking shopping malls? Sabotage? Shouting slogans, confronting people?

You are building a popular movement. To be successful, you must fulfill two criteria:

  • 1. Participation must be as easy as possible
  • 2. Opposition must be as difficult as possible

Blocking, interrupting and sabotaging are not actions most people will willingly join. On the other hand, these acts will quickly motivate the rest of society to spend sufficient energy as to take action against your movement. What you want is to find a sweet spot where your people will feel safe and comfortable – while still being able to influence consumers’ choices – and be seen as too harmless to bother with breaking social norms or the law to remove. By the time they recognize the power of your movement, you will be too great for anyone to stop.

So this will end climate change?

First and foremost, it will slow climate change. Immediate emission cuts will reduce the speed at which the crisis happens, which will purchase more time for other climate mitigation efforts, such as clean energy. Those efforts today, by themselves, are hopelessly inadequate to deal with the full crisis, as everybody knows deep down. Significantly reduced over-consumption will reduce the scope of the green transition and make it possible to achieve. Second, as your movement grows, people will see the climate struggle with new eyes: no longer hopeless. This will accelerate other forms of climate effort, triggering what is known as the collective tipping point, where most of humanity starts pulling in the same direction to deal with the crisis.

So where should we protest?

A protest needs to happen in as close proximity as possible to where consumers make their decisions on over-consumption. When they are weighing price and hassle against material desire, you want to be there in their heads, tipping the scales. You want their kids to see you, and ask about the connection between consumption and climate change. You want to remind people about their climate concern, which they conveniently forgot before going out. The outside of a shopping mall (not the inside – as easy as possible, remember?) is probably an ideal location for this, but feel free to try other things.

People are just going to get defensive, and buy stuff to spite us.

Yes, the good old scourge of progressive action – the target audience going defensive, refusing to be convinced by your arguments. But our movement does not employ arguments – it uses emotional and social pressure. The thing about being defensive is that it is exhausting. Doing something out of spite costs a lot more energy than doing it out of ignorance. If you can keep the protests up, most people will change their behavior to get out of the emotional discomfort.

This will make so many people unemployed.

Yes. And that is a good thing for the local economy, national democracy and world peace. See economy for a thorough discussion.

What is the solution void?

Why is this document called “Filling the solution void”? The solution void is the core of our analysis, and is a rational take on why the world is failing so badly to deal with the climate crisis. The premise is that the current effort on the political, economical and technological level to combat climate change is insufficient to prevent global catastrophe – and everybody knows this, deep down. This creates an evil circle of emotional responses that blocks the search for a functional solution.

The dysfunctions

Upon realizing that the struggle for the climate is lost, there are three main forms of reaction:

  • 1. Denial. Climate change deniers, in their effort to make the bad feelings go away, sabotage the discourse on climate change and raise the stakes for participation.
  • 2. Distraction. Most people, while formally acknowledging the climate reality, try to think of other things – and climate becomes a kind of seasoning on everyday issues. Society satisfies itself with minor course corrections, and never think about the issue for long enough to see realistic solutions.
  • 3. Defiance. For many people, doing nothing about a crisis we have instigated, is immoral. Thus, we get a climate activist whose goal is to mitigate this negative feeling. The activist limits himself to fractions of a solution, with no care for assembling these into the global system required for producing large-scale emission cuts. Someone else can do that. Despite his endless defeats against polluters, the climate activist never critically assesses his own methods, because he does not need to: In the end, he values his own emotional payoff from participation, over the fate of the ecosystem. He does not desire victory enough to try new strategies.

None of these three are in a position to produce a functional solution to climate change. And that is why the human effort to stop the catastrophe is failing.

Until now. With the popular movement against over-consumption coming out of the left field, the rules of the game are turned around. A real solution is possible. And when that becomes apparent, the foundation for the solution void will dissolve. And that changes everything. The entire social reality of climate change – denial, pessimism, halfhearted plans; society’s deep lethargy – forget about all of it. Everybody gets to freely decide their stance over again. This is why the popular movement against over-consumption will bring about the collective tipping point, which will end the crisis.

Some Goals

You need goals that you can use to mark your progress. I have some suggestions in the next paragraph. All of these should be attainable if you apply a cyclic method:

  • 1. Recruit participants
  • 2. Stage protests against private over-consumption
  • 3. Get attention

The input of the method is effort. All you need is available before you: people, time, materials for your signs, places to protest. No significant funds required, no political majority. And as you work, you might want to consider these goals:

Short term

  • 1. Successfully doing a protest. The first achievement is to get enough people with you to participate. You should set a minimum number of participants for doing it, so that you can stand your ground together, as the position will feel highly visible and exposed. I suggest at least eight participants.
  • 2. Getting passers-by to join. People going past your protest will contact you, offering criticism or encouragement. Convince one or more of them to join you, even just for five minutes
  • 3. Have a protest in two locations simultaneously. People will have seen this several places. It becomes a thing.
  • 4. Do protests consistently. Endurance is extremely important in matters of climate activism. Getting enough people to join your cause so that you can consistently protest with more than the minimum number of participants whenever you want to, is a core goal of your movement. This is the main goal in the short term.

Medium term

  • 1. Media attention.Get coverage in the local newspaper. This coverage can be collected and distributed to whomever you seek attention/participation from. Media attention allows you to recruit beyond your immediate social circle.
  • 2. Condemned in the media. Getting a negative reaction visible to everyone is a sure sign that you are being noticed.
  • 3. Copycat protest group in different location. This happens when your actions have garnered enough attention as to inspire climate concerned individuals elsewhere, and they initiate a similar protest. This is the most important goal of the whole movement, the difference between success and failure. Climate change is too great of a problem to be dealt with by one cohesive organization. Only with a loose popular movement, spreading spontaneously by example and inspiration, can you reach the scale needed for a global impact.

Long term

  • 1. Copycat group in different country. Copied abroad has greater impact than domestically, and less difficult. Climate concerned citizens exist in all nations, and will be picking up good ideas.
  • 2. Economical impact. An industry or business visibly down-scaling or even going bankrupt, pointing to your movement as the cause, is a massive achievement that shows the power of social influence.
  • 3. Counter-protesters. At one point, a counter-movement will appear, to defend the values of consumerism and the system. It will fail. Its members will do an even better job of scaring consumers off than you. The more angry, the better. Facts and morals are overwhelmingly on your side, and will power your motivation much more than theirs.
  • 4. Commercialization. Endurance is extremely important in matters of climate activism. Getting enough people to join your cause so that you can consistently protest with more than the minimum number of participants whenever you want to, is a core goal of your movement. This is the main goal in the short term.

About Me

I use the name Clausius for my writings, for I approach the subject of economics with the tools of the thermophysicist. The economy resembles an engine, where the only thing that matters is how much utility society can create with its economical inputs. Most of the dense details of economics have been made up by society to support attempts to by-pass this hard reality. The understanding of this, unlocks the insight that a popular movement against overconsumption is the only plausible way to fight climate change right now.

I have myself organized protests against overconsumption, in an attempt to get such a movement off the ground. We found the form of protest suitable for ordinary people. The failure lay in my own inability to inspire strangers to join, to get the movement over that first and greatest of hurdles. Thus, I have relegated myself to the second most important task: to distill and promote the idea of the movement against overconsumption, in the hope that you – the reader – will be the one who can create this movement and get it running.