But The System Is Like This, What Can I Do?

In the field of mental health, it is said that if the person sees that there is a problem and wants to solve this problem, that person can be helped and a solution can be found. I don't know to what extent it would be appropriate to compare the climate crisis to mental health, but we have a similar problem with acceptance. Since the problem is not yet in front of us in all its glory, most of us live as if we don't have a problem. When we do not accept the magnitude of the problem, it becomes impossible to find a solution.

We have two main problems in the context of climate and environmental problems. First, we do not know how big the problems are, and secondly, even if we know the size of the problems, our intellectual structure does not want to accept it and take action.

Let's look at the first one first, because ignorance is a relatively easy problem. There are two main reasons for ignorance. First of all, scientists don't want to scare us too much. There is a simple and statistical reason behind this. We make predictions about the future, and this future covers not just a few days, but maybe a century later. Therefore, scientists provide us with the averages of their predictions. So, we are getting predictions like the temperature will probably increase by 3℃ or the sea level will probably rise by 1 meter. But averages don't do us much harm, here is our second problem, our brain cannot perceive small-probability big disasters. Extreme events and small odds are always harmful. For example, if I were to say, "There is a 1% chance that Istanbul will experience a temperature of 50℃ in 2050," most of you would not care. Just remember: THY makes more than 1000 flights a day. A 1% chance of an accident means that 10 of these flights will crash per day. Therefore, the existence of extreme events, even if their probabilities are small, must frighten us. If 10 THY planes or any other airline's plane crashed a day, would you board the plane again?

As a result, we all knowingly or unknowingly underestimate climate and environmental issues. Since we do not accept the magnitude of the problem, we pretend to find a solution rather than find it. Let me give you a very simple calculation. Today, the carbon dioxide rate in the atmosphere is 425 parts per million, or 425 ppm. Science tells us: If this ratio is between 280 - 350 ppm, we may face climate disasters, but this is natural, so it will occur in a very long time. If we're between 350 and 450 ppm, climate catastrophes come from hundreds of years to once in decades. But if we go above 450 ppm, it is no surprise that we face a major climate disaster every year. Today we are at 425 ppm and this level is increasing by 2-3 ppm every year. In other words, there are about 10 years to the level where disasters are considered normal. So what are we doing? Since these disasters have not done us much harm yet, we expect them to do harm, and we will only act if they do.

Who am I telling this to? To all who read. To all individuals, all companies and all governments. This problem is not a problem that anyone can solve on their own, but no one should say "it's not my problem".

Now let's come to our situation: The first thing we need to pay attention to is this: We used to say that if we exceeded the level of 350 ppm, disasters would become commonplace, when did we pass the level of 350 ppm? May 1986. In other words, we had to start looking for a solution to this problem after May 1986. We should have found the solution in 1990. In 2000, carbon dioxide levels had peaked and should have dropped to 350 ppm today. What did we do together? We pretended to look for a solution, pretending to admit there was a problem.

The Paris Agreement, which we all talk about often, is the most important example of pretending to seek a solution. The Paris Agreement more or less sets a target of 450 ppm of carbon dioxide. This is what we call 1.5℃ warming. If all countries kept all their promises, the carbon dioxide level would be 650 ppm and above. You know, we used to say that disasters over 450 ppm will now be daily events. If everyone were to comply with the Paris Agreement, the level would be 650 ppm, not 450 ppm. You see that we are heading towards a disaster and that we are doing this with the contracts we made between us and international agreements, right?

Now let's come to us, that is you, us and the people we meet in daily life. We gather in big halls, we tell each other what we do about climate and environment, we talk about our sustainability goals. We even give awards to those we think are better among ourselves, and we bid farewell to continue life in the same bath for another year. We are doing it wrong. We should have held such meetings in 1980. “Innovation”, “ESG”, “Sustainability”, “Carbon Footprint” and “Life Cycle Analysis” should have been topics that we talked and agreed upon 40 years ago. If we set ourselves targets such as “I will reduce my carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, they will decrease by 80% in 2040, and I will be net zero in 2050”, then we are in the situation I said at the beginning. We haven't realized the magnitude of the problem yet. Our emissions should have reduced our carbon emissions by 50% in 1990, increased the reduction to 80% in 2000, and by 2010 we should have installed systems that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, not even net zero. So please do whatever you do among yourselves, but don't celebrate it like it's a big thing. We are at least 40 years late to change our lives and all our production systems wholesale. The abyss is very close, and at the moment it will not be enough to gently apply the brakes. It doesn't seem wise to me to still discuss how good our brakes are when we should have opened the door and jumped out of the car.

“But the system is like this, what can I do?” You say, I know. Twenty years from now, as you fall off the cliff, your grandchild in your arms will ask, "Why did this happen?" you would answer her with, "But the system was like this, what could I do?" you say. Will she forgive you?