Climate Change: Who’s the Real Culprit?
Questioner: When we were studying at IIT, we used to think that climate change is actually a technological problem, that renewable energy sources and electric vehicles, etc. are the solution to the rising carbon dioxide levels, and we were even doing research on this. Consequently, I also had the same notion that climate change is a technological problem.
After watching your videos on climate change, I came to know that overpopulation and overconsumption are the real culprits behind this crisis. In a previous session, you answered someone on this topic by saying that the probable solution would either be the spiritual upliftment of the people, the work that the foundation is doing, or the implementation of some kind of rules and regulations that would compel people to stop overconsumption and procreation.
So, I would like to know your views on the institutional or governmental side of the solution, as in how and which aspects they should work on. Also, how can we who are listening to you contribute to the other part of the solution, the rules and regulations part, in the most effective way?
Acharya Prashant: People have to be awakened, and those awakened people have to elect governments that will listen to awakened voices. If governments know that their vote banks give two hoots to the climate, why will they ever take the trouble of pushing reforms and regulation and taxation? That won’t happen.
So, the solution cannot really come from the governments. The solution has to come from an awakening of mass consciousness, or the solution has to come from some kind of a benevolent dictator; he says, 'Even if the masses are not awakened, I am going to enforce regulation.' But that kind of thing is not preferable, right? It’s better if the masses themselves decide that climate action is important; and if the masses decide that, then the leaders will have to listen to the masses. That’s what a democracy is all about.
So, at the ground level, you see, there has to be a mass awakening. A lot of effort has to be made towards sensitizing the common public. Climate action has to become a part of the electoral manifesto of political parties. Till we come to the point where we start seeing political leaders talking of the climate to get votes, we will not find any concrete action. Votes have to be dependent on the willingness of the leader or the candidate to take action on the climate front.
And the voters, therefore, have to be educated. There is no other solution. Till the time we have this situation where votes come on a communal basis, or caste basis, or sometimes they are blatantly bought off, there is very little hope for substantial improvement in the climate situation. So, the work has to be done on the ground by people and organizations who understand the criticality of this moment, and the right kind of people have to be elected, and the right leaders must be brought to power. If you find that your representative at whatever level has no sensitivity for this absolutely critical problem, then you must ensure he is defeated; you must ensure, if possible, that he doesn’t even complete his term, if already elected.
You see, not all people can be educated in a short period of time. And when I say short period, I mean a period of a few years. But even if you have ten to fifteen percent of people who make climate action a high priority, a top criterion when it comes to deciding their vote, then you will find a great movement. And from the choice of these ten or fifteen percent of people, then you can have regulation that will affect a hundred percent of the people. In a democracy, you see, ten to fifteen percent is a very, very large number. A vote share shift of one percent is enough to turn the tables around. Ten percent is like an earthquake; it upturns everything.
So, if you can have just ten percent of people who say, 'Our top-most priority is the climate and we’ll vote for the candidate who listens to the climate,' then you will have regulation, as we said, that will affect and be binding on hundred percent of the people. And regulation is needed; mass awareness by itself will not suffice. And even if mass awareness is to be brought to those levels, it will take decades. We don’t have decades, but we still probably have sufficient time to have ten percent of the youth rally with us.
Questioner: But many of those youth are still placing a lot of hope on the possibilities that technological advancement can offer. They think that this technology or that technology is coming, and that will be the solution to the problem.
Acharya Prashant: So, when we are talking of raising awareness, that’s what we need to tell the people. Climate change is not a problem of wrong technology; climate change is a problem of wrong mentality. It is not a technological but a spiritual problem. No improvement in technology will be enough to take care of the carbon emissions.
It is in Britain, I think, that they are now experimenting with masks that would absorb methane. And those masks they are putting on the mouths of cows, so that their methane emissions are absorbed. But one thing they do not want to agree at all to—why eat the cow at all? 'The cow has to be eaten, and the cow has to be milked before it is eaten. Milk we cannot leave and beef we cannot leave, but we will try to find smart technological solutions. We have come up with a smart mask!' Now, this won’t help, because your lust for beef is unending.
Also, the ego is a very cunning thing; it does not want to have knowledge that hurts its interests. What beef consumption does and what dairy consumption do is very well and very broadly and in great detail documented at thousands of places. You need not even visit a library or buy a book; just Google and you will come to know about the effects of animal agriculture. But we don’t even want to know.
So, there has to be a mass program; there have to be loud and powerful voices; there has to be a lot of youthful energy that has to finally coalesce into some kind of a vote bank. And then we require strict and binding regulation; we require very, very high levels of taxation. For example, animal flesh and milk must be taxed at sky-high levels—four thousand percent tax; taxation of that kind.
Instead, what we have is governments that are supporting flesh and milk. They call it the blue revolution, the pink revolution, the white revolution. These are the kinds of governments we elect. In fact, the biggest support to climate destruction comes from the government. If you want to import equipment for your mechanized slaughterhouse, you will be subsidized by the government at the taxpayer's expense. Whereas, if you want to put up a plant-based milk facility, you’ll probably face a lot of resistance and the usual bureaucratic hassles; you may have to bribe your way through the system. Slaughterhouses—the government will ease your way.
The government is the biggest offender and we do not see that. The government is the biggest killer of wildlife, of animals. And why am I talking of the government again and again? Because we elect the government. Therefore, the voter has to be awakened.
Questioner: While spiritual awakening on a mass level might be the real way to deal with climate change, the problem is that the majority is not at all receptive towards any kind of spiritual wisdom. What is the solution to this?
Acharya Prashant: If they don’t understand spirituality, they understand materiality, right? It’s touching fifty degrees outside; this much I hope they and their skins understand. They understand the temperature, right? They feel the heat. So, come up with a smart campaign. Why don’t you talk about it? Let there be a climateometer; show how we all are suffering because of the insane actions of the majority. Make the calculations and display how every gram or pound of flesh that you take in is contributing to the temperature rise; how your insane dairy consumption is not innocent, innocuous at all; how it is a fallacy to consume dairy and yet call yourself a vegetarian.
So, one has to put his heart and soul into this kind of activism. The challenge is great, and the challenge is great only because the rewards will be very fulfilling. You are saving not your personal self, not your family, not even just your nation—you are saving the entire planet. You don’t even know of the billions, trillions of living beings you are saving. That’s the enormity of the challenge and, therefore, the possibility. Is it not worth it? Does it not energize you? So, act.
