By: Purwanto Setiadi, a freelance journalist and volunteer at Bike to Work (B2W) Indonesia
It is becoming difficult not to associate every natural disaster, that has been ravaging so many places on earth at an alarming frequency, with the climate crisis. The threat of global warming to earth, that it unleashes destruction to life everywhere, has been evident. The sole cause of this phenomenon, as substantiated in the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released last year and the subsequent report published on Monday is human activities, or, in other words, the phenomenon is human-induced. It inevitably leads to this assertion: that, in terms of moral perspective, this phenomenon is wrong and cannot be accepted.
Why is this morally wrong? In his 2019 article published on the Guardian website, Eric Beinhocker argues it is because there are activities of one group of humans that, be it purposeful or otherwise, be it realized or not, have been or have the potential of harming another group of humans: those who live in developed nations endangering those who live in developing nations; people of this generation cause suffering to those in future generations; even each of us produces, to some extent, carbon emissions—the root of global warming and hence the climate crisis—causing distress to those who have to endure the storm, flood, drought, and conflict.
In addition, there is one more thing that is considered to be the greatest “sin”: the event of mass extinction of flora and fauna that humans have triggered, with the hardship it will cause to all life on earth.
Since the climate crisis is morally wrong, it implies that it should be avoided. Everything that causes it should be brought to an end, or even be deemed illegal. Hence, the urgency to fight for the abolition of human emissions.
Similar arguments can, and should, be adopted for any endeavor to fight and advocate for the use of bicycles as a means of transportation and mobility. This is an important point that may change how the climate crisis is treated, not just from a technocratic point of view, which is a merely cost-benefit problem that compares the cost to do something with the benefit of avoiding disaster. Debates on this matter have been dully focusing on and around tax, job creation, growth, and technology.
It doesn’t mean the debates are futile. At the minimum, it shows there are good and bad measures to combat the climate crisis. For any bicycling advocacy movement, the belief is that bicycling is one of the good, plausible measures. Unfortunately, on the policy makers’ side, what has been happening for decades is the sluggishness to take any initiative; there is no bold action; there is even denial and postponement.
What’s maddening is that politicians who are entrusted by the people--to assume the role of policymakers, to prioritize public matters--are not only irresponsible concerning what’s necessary to be undertaken, they also tend to pursue short-term interests that are almost always in relation to efforts to keep their power, and line their pockets. For such stature, they may easily change views or positions, and even shamelessly sell themselves out if necessary.
That has been the case in many places around the world regardless of the fact that there has been a global agreement to tackle the crisis, to avoid “doomsday”--through the Paris Agreement. To keep the commitment to it from being just another dusty document we need politicians or a leader who sincerely gives thought to meaningful actions for long-term goals; politicians or a leader who works hard to make every step ahead of everyone.
Under those circumstances, we need a figure who is capable of leading us in the right direction. Such a figure understands that a failure to choose the necessary steps--namely introducing and successfully signing bills into laws as well as launching decisive actions, rather than conveying hollow messages through press conferences or on social media--will only be drowning his or her career.
Sadly, there is a lack of such politicians or leaders. Even if there is one, his or her voice is only vaguely heard, if not entirely blocked one way or another by other politicians’ interests.
That being the case, in the absence of a political leader, continuously encouraging social movements is a must. Civil society groups should play significant roles. History teaches us that in the past mass social movements intentionally used moral arguments, instead of cost-benefit analysis, to bring about change, and encourage political transformation. Beinhocker offers movements such as slavery abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and gay rights as examples.
It is not an overstatement, therefore, to say that bicycling advocacy, as part of movements induced by climate crisis awareness, should have found a firm reference to strengthen its stick-to-itiveness and toughen its fervor. With the passing of time, this movement--the spirit of which has given rise to civil disobedience in schools worldwide, and brought into the world Global Climate Strike and Extinction Rebellion, among others--will also be impossible to ignore.
To ensure the momentum will not dwindle too soon, what is badly needed is to put together the demands clearly and simply, clamors that are powerful enough to be felt and irresistible to share. Cliche messages should be replaced with messages based on moral arguments. The aim is to evoke society’s moral emotions, specifically shame, guilt, anger, and disgust; and subsequently take the lead to go in for action: pushing the idea that using bicycles as a means of transportation and mobility should take precedence if it’s not morally obligatory.
*) DISCLAIMER
Articles published in the “Your Views & Stories” section of en.tempo.co website are personal opinions written by third parties, and cannot be related or attributed to en.tempo.co’s official stance.
